are we serious about saving the planet? if we give up, we'rejust going to let our earth go. we can't. we can't give up. and then i wrote to everyone. no—one knew about it. all of the groups, even puddletown. yeah. monday morning and the weald action group are in session. it's remarkable, there's all these explorations going on, and yet it's not publicised. mm—mm. mm. - it's actually... on the agenda — opposition... ..to plans for oil drilling in the surrey countryside. well, i've been concerned about climate change for a long time. then one day when i saw a notice in my local paper that there was plans for an oil drilling site in surrey, i couldn't really believe it. so, it'sjust throu~h here, is it? . we just go round this corner and then over another style. there's already two small oil wells on horse hill. surrey county council has approved four more. and how long has this been here, then? well, since 2014. they drilled the first well. residents have spent four years in the courts fighting the council's decision to allow more drilling. the council, in terms of climate, they only looked at the carbon emissions that would be produced by the operations on the site, the process of getting the oil out of the ground. what's wrong with that? it's like if you want to look at the impact of eating chocolate cake, you don'tjust look at baking the cake, you look at eating the cake. it's the same with the climate impact of fossil fuels. you don'tjust look at extracting them from the ground — you look at using them. the council says it followed planning law, but the proposed drilling has become a test case, and the supreme court will decide whether the carbon emissions from using the oil have to be considered. this is about more than horse hill. all new developments in the uk that are about taking fossil fuels out of the ground could be affected. and that's important, because new oil and gas fields are still being opened. the government is planning to allow new drilling and issue hundreds of new exploration licences for the north sea. and onshore, there's a new coal mine, the first in decades, planned for cumbria. a big question has emerged from a small fight. if we're trying to meet climate targets, why are we still expanding fossilfuel production? this is too important. this is the future of our species on this planet. we've already experienced 40 degrees in the uk, which i never thought was possible in my lifetime. but we may be thinking of the new extreme of 45 degrees. the world has agreed a target to limit the worst effects of climate change — keep the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees, compared to pre—industrial times. the international energy agency, the body that advises the world on energy use, says we can use oil and gas from existing reserves, but we won't keep to that 1.5 degree target if we develop any new fuels. now, the problem is with fossil fuels, the climate change. we cannot on one hand have so much using of fossilfuels, and at the same time reaching our climate targets. we have to choose one of them. just so i'm clear, there should be no more further exploration for oil and gas? there is no need for additional oil and gas production if, again, if we want to keep our 1.5 degrees target alive. pretty much every country has agreed to that target. but there's a problem. in almost every part of the world, oil and gas producers are looking for even more fossilfuels. so the world is saying one thing, but doing another. to find out if we're on track to keep to that 1.5 target, researchers in germany have investigated the expansion plans of the world's largest energy companies. they used data supplied by the energy industry itself. of the 700 they looked at, 675 are planning to open new oil and gas fields. the expenditure on exploration activities has yet again increased when compared to last year and the year before. it also shows that a lot more companies are trying to move new oil and gas resources into production. so the biggest companies that we've all heard of, they're still out there looking for more oil and gas? yes, definitely. they all are. last year, we used more coal than ever before... ..and industrial emissions of c02 were at the highest point in history. this year, demand for oil is expected to be the highest ever. we may have been talking about green issues for decades, but the situation has never been bleaker. i think we should be worried big time because the emissions, even if they peak, as we expect, around 2025, they are in line with a temperature increase of 2.4 degrees celsius, which would have devastating impacts for our daily lives. the world is about to gather to fight climate change. the united arab emirates is hosting the 28th conference of the parties, or cop28. here in dubai, they'll assess whether we're on track to keep to the 1.5 degrees target. cop is something we can't do without. the countries of the world have to come together to decide what to do. if one country does it, it's not going to work. you all agree this is the problem and this should be our target. now, that means that global emissions have got to reduce. the location is controversial because the uae is one of the biggest oil producers on the planet. this is a place that's wedded to oil and gas. is that a suitable host for cop28? well, you can preach to the choir. you know, you can hold it in germany for the fifth time. but trying to change the path of a country and a region that has been producing fossilfuels and exporting them in large volumes for many years and come up with solutions that work for countries like that, that's very important. i would love to see more cops held in other major emitting countries because that's where the problem is. the german research shows how big a challenge cop faces. billions are being spent developing new oil and gas fields. it frightens me, to be honest, but i do hope that the transparency that we create will help to make better decisions. good data is the foundation for good decision making. the german team has looked at new oil and gas developments starting after 2023. they've calculated how much these new fields will overshoot the international energy agency's advice for keeping temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. here in the middle east, the saudi arabian oil company will overshoot by 1.5 billion barrels worth of oil and gas. the national iranian 0il company's overshoot is more than 3 billion barrels. and the abu dhabi national oil company — 7 billion barrels. there are few organisations looking for new oil and gas reserves as aggressively as the abu dhabi national oil company. and that is a company run by the same man who's in charge of cop28. we were invited to dubai to interview the cop28 hosts, but they pulled out at short notice. in a statement, the abu dhabi national oil company told us it's driving down emissions while providing the energy the world needs. what worries me is that many of the leaders of the oil industry say, "our company, our strategy is in line with the global climate targets." you cannot say that our company's strategy is in line with the climate targets, and at the same time, plan to increase your oil, gas or coal production. so if they're doing that, they're ignoring what you're saying? yes. there are places where you can see why1.5 matters. the us is the world's biggest oil producer... ..but its lands are being changed. we're just over 27 miles long, comes out this way, wraps around this mountain here, which is mount wickersham. in the mountains of alaska is the matanuska glacier. this feeds the matanuska river, which heads out here, goes straight out to cook inlet, which then goes out into the pacific ocean. here, glaciers are melting. 95% of them are shrinking. we're seeing a lot of what we know as hanging glaciers, which are small glaciers that are on the sides of mountains. they kind of look like little us in the side. just a couple of hours south, two of them have completely disappeared. ice that's been in place hundreds of years is melting. a water run—off, that's a natural part of glaciers like this. but what's changed in alaska over the last few years is the pace, the speed, at which the glaciers are melting. it bothers me a lot. as a species, i think humans really need to get their acts together. we're right now performing ourselves as a big disease on this planet, and we're doing a lot more harm than we are good. i think everybody notices. every alaskan you talk to, we talk about the climate and the weather. well, you can see a lot of the leaves have fallen off. uma bhatt has been measuring climate change here for 25 years. the sea ice has receded. and this year, the sea ice north of alaska is very far back. it's the second lowest year on record. if we give up, we're just going to let our earth go? we can't — we can't give up. this place represents the hard choices that face us all when it comes to the climate because the glaciers are melting, the landscape is changing, but alaska depends on oil and gas for its living, and they're still drilling. alaska is rich in gas and oil... ..and new fields are being developed. my responsibility starts and stops with advocating for the long—term viability of this industry, because this industry is still incredibly important in meeting the needs of alaskans and americans. when do you draw the line and say, "look, for the right reasons, we're not going to do any more development?" when does alaska do that? as we are in a global transition, you can'tjust shut off one supply and not have an impact on consumers. the traditional sources of oil and natural gas are still going to be incredibly important for at least the next two to three, if not four decades. that's because global oil consumption is still growing and won't peak until at least 2030. this is the trans—alaskan pipeline and it runs for hundreds of miles through the wilderness, but this is not a remnant of an old industry. new drilling means oil will flow through this pipeline for decades to come. a new project will deliver 600 million barrels of oil over the next 30 years, using the existing pipeline. how much harder is it to hit those targets if we're still getting oil and gas out of the ground? well, it's impossible. if we use those, it's impossible. so if we use all the reserves we have already, it's impossible. if we have the new reserves, it's even more impossible. so, there is... it's just not consistent. the two things are inconsistent. in alaska, climate change is being felt hardest by those who've been here longest. what literally do you see in your lands because of global warming? how is it changing? 0ur lands have changed dramatically even in my lifetime. you know, what i would consider a short lifetime. you have fluctuations and lakes drying up. 0ther lakes becoming deeper because of how the permafrost is melting and how that's impacting the lands. i think the fundamental issue is a question of values, and that's really bottom line what it comes down to. and so, as long as the driving force is to make more money for the owners of companies or to make more money for the shareholders of companies, i think we're going to continue to have major problems. at some point it's going to run out. right? and we are at the point where we really need to make a switch. i don't like to think of a post—apocalyptic world, and i don't like to be gloom and doom, but is this the world we want to leave for our children and our children's children? the transition away from fossil fuels will be hard, because much of the world still needs affordable energy. and there's growing demand from developing economies. the us is believed to have more oil and gas extraction planned than any other country in the world. crude oil production has been at record levels this year and is expected to be even higher next. the expansion means american companies will also overshoot the international energy agency's advice for keeping temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. the german research shows conocophillips will overshoot by 1.6 billion barrels worth of oil and gas. chevron — 2.8 billion. and exxonmobil — 3 billion. none of the energy companies we contacted disputed the figures. is there a way that they could still hit that 1.5 target when you look at this year's figures? yes, there is. but rapid transition will be needed. a lot of investment in renewables will be needed. and it's very much needed that companies put forward a plan that includes the absolute decrease of production over time in a manner that is consistent with science—based 1.5 degree scenarios. at the end of the day, it's kind of like the basic supply and demand. you wouldn't have a lemonade stand if somebody wasn't there to buy your cup of lemonade. and so you wouldn't be producing oil and natural gas if there wasn't somebody there that wanted it to make a product to sell. and that's the point. energy companies are meeting our demand. to make this programme, i took severalflights. it's hard to fight climate change if we still use fossil fuels to drive, fly and heat our homes. they say we should eventually stop using fossil fuels. i think it's easier said than done cos so much of the infrastructure of our society is built on it. i definitely believe whatever is best for the environment is what we should go with. so how hard is that choice, then, about money? it's extremely hard because, for some people, that's been their livelihood. you know, working up north. do you worry about global warming? living here in alaska, do you see things changing? oh, yeah. the winters are warmer and warmer. it's nothing like when i was a child and it was 60 below fahrenheit. it's affecting everything. here, on alaska's coast, there are proposals for a new terminal. it's part of a massive growth around the world in liquid natural gas. the industry says it's a cleanerfossilfuel, though that's disputed. the oil and gas companies are so enormous, they operate at such vast volumes, it's really hard to get a solution to climate change without their involvement. the energy companies told us they are decarbonising. they expect to spend $1.8 trillion this year on renewables like wind and solar. but they say new oil and gas fields are needed to give the world time to make the switch. you can see it as something that's killing the planet, you can also see it as something that sustains modern life and civilisation. and that's kind of the tragedy of climate change. so is the oil industry, actually, in reality just following demand, providing what we want? people in the short term want reliable, affordable energy. and still a lot of that is from oil and gas. and there's no ready short—term alternative. how would the world manage if we just stopped looking for more oil and gas tomorrow? we will use oil and gas for many years to come and the current oil fields we have, they are more than enough to meet that demand in the next years to come. there is no need to explore — to find new oil — if we want to reach the 1.5 degrees target. in theory, greenhouse gas emissions can be balanced by using a natural process... ..planting and protecting trees to soak up carbon dioxide. where are we? hanes ranch, northern california. it's a family ranch that's approximately 9,000 acres. this forest in california is busy working. the firs and redwoods are taking carbon from the atmosphere. was there any environmentalist in you that wanted to do the right thing or was it a business decision? i think a little bit of both. keeping carbon in the trees is... it seems like a good thing to do. each tonne of carbon dioxide a tree absorbs counts as a credit. if you're a polluter pumping carbon into the atmosphere, you can buy a credit to balance the books. overall, the whole project, we're producing a projected 10,000 credits a year. that means ward's been told his trees are absorbing 10,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. he pays to have his woods independently audited, but researchers say the system overall can exaggerate the benefits. does it work? i mean, is it a sensible way of reducing emissions — of one balancing the other? no, it does not work. and for the most part, these projects are generating far more credits than their true climate benefit. the level of over—crediting is very high. we're talking five times over credited, ten times over credited, 20 times over credited. that matters because carbon credits are part of international climate agreements, like cop. we're in a climate emergency. we all need to be reducing our emissions as quickly as we can. i worry that the availability of cheap, easy credit is weakening the willingness of companies and others to reduce their emissions directly. the best way of reducing emissions is to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible. and that leaves the uk in an awkward position because the british government will be here at cop28 — a gathering that's all about reducing global emissions and cutting global warming. but the uk's energy policy is about encouraging expansion. the uk hasjust approved a new north sea oilfield. rose bank will deliver 300 million barrels of oil over the next 20 years. the government says it's cutting emissions faster than any other major country and that north sea expansion will help secure the uk's energy supply. the uk government recently approved licences and more drilling in the north sea. what did you make of that? i think countries have to really see the big picture. in my view, we don't need a major amount of new oil production — this is number one. the german research shows british companies will also overshoot the international energy agency target — bp by almost a billion barrels of oil and gas, shell by 1.5 billion. for the russian company gazprom, it's 2.7 billion barrels. and for petrochina, it's almost 3 billion. the figures seen by panorama paint a pretty grim picture of the world. everywhere — middle east, us, uk — we're getting more and more carbon out of the ground instead of leaving it. the german research shows almost every energy company is planning new oil and gas fields. there is a huge gap between what the countries of the world have promised and what is consistent with 1.5. so there's a huge gap between them. the reality is probably that the 1.5 will not be possible. so, the problem is real, but is cop28 capable of finding a solution? the declarations that will come out of cop, to be honest, there'll be an enormous amount of arguing over the wording. i don't personally find that so significant. what matters is what actions flow out of that wording and what the governments go back and actually start doing at home. the pace is very slow in order to reach our climate targets. is it too slow? it is far too slow. 2023 is expected to be the hottest year on record. the devastation of climate change will be hard to stop if we remain reliant on fossil fuels. live from washington, this is bbc news. the world health organization leads a high—risk humanitarian mission to gaza's largest hospital, urging a full—scale evacuation. families of hostages held by hamas have been demonstrating outside the residence of prime minister benjamin netanyahu. plus, the ceo of the artificial intelligence company behind chatgpt could be making a comebackjust one day after his ouster. i'm helena humphrey. good to have you with us. the world health organization says it led a high—riskjoint humanitarian mission to al—shifa hospital, finding a mass grave and a catastrophic situation for the injured patients remaining there. the who says the hospital has become a "death zone," its corridors filled with medical and solid waste, increasing the risk of infection. it points to the lack of clean water, fuel, medicines, food and aid, causing al—shifa to "essentially stop functioning as a medical facility". the who says they were able to spend one hour inside the hospital in a mission co—ordinated with the israel