chilly today, side as well, chilly today, strongest winds in the south—west, and in cornwall more rain today than we had during the whole of last month. this band of rain here has been sweeping northwards over the past few hours. by the morning, it is in the far north of scotland and will move away. then we have sunshine, showers getting going quickly tomorrow, a whole rush of them, heavy and thundery, wet weather coming into wales and the north west of england, the wind is not quite as strong for scotland and northern ireland, but temperatures here only around 18 degrees, warmer in the south—east with fewer showers, but windy for england and wales, especially across southern areas, where we will find a gust of wind a0 mph or more, and with those winds there could be damage and disruption. and it is all around this area of low pressure that is moving northwards for sunday, it may take the worst of the weather away with it, but having said that, a windy day for scotland and northern

ireland, heavy showers here, longer spells of rain, more sunshine for england and wales, where it is not so windy. there will be showers around, but not quite as many during the day on sunday. temperatures are only getting up to 21 or 22 degrees at best. what about next week? some changes, not as windy for a start, a bit more sunshine and probably fewer showers, but it is not going to be hard to are not going to get the heat that is affecting southern parts of europe, so 22—23 at best, very different in southern parts of europe, where temperatures will be reaching a0 degrees or more across inland areas once again. and that's bbc news at ten. there's more analysis of the day's main stories on newsnight, which isjust getting under way on bbc two. the news continues here on bbc one, as now it's time to join our colleagues across the nations and regions for the news where you are, but from the ten

team, it's goodnight. after the energy shock, is britain getting even more dependent on imported gas and missing the opportunities of new green industry?

the country's top forecaster tells us that the uk is becoming stuck with gas dependency and cutting investment in green energy as the rest of the world ups it in a massive way. we'll ask how much trouble are we storing up for the future? also tonight, as hollywood actors join the screen writers on picket lines, we speak to the head of the actors union equity about whether the impasse can be resolved. and this... we speak to one of bollywood's most famous directors, shekhar kapur, about the relationship between eastern and western cinema. the idea of the narrative, the narrative, whether it's news, whether it's film, whichever way

it is, whether it's... it is controlled by the west, has always been because that's where this this whole technology started. we need to shift the narrative away. good evening. when the gas price increases five fold, supplies are threatened, and future taxpayers are stumped with a bill of tens of billions to help people stay warm, it is difficult to imagine a bigger incentive or indeed advert to permanently wean ourselves off fossil fuels. that was the narrative a year ago. the green transition into clean power now a matter of national security, as well as saving the planet. and indeed, that is what other members of the g7 are definitively doing, pouring borrowed public money into the green industries of the future. but, perhaps surprisingly, the government's top economic forecaster has told this programme that uk investment in clean power is going down, and that our new dependence on imported gas could end up costing the nation double what it would cost to get to net zero.

the government itself says the uk is far ahead on this agenda and others are playing catch up. but is that rather complacent? i've been talking tojohn kerry, grant shapps and industry leaders over the past week. the russian invasion of ukraine has reshaped the global energy landscape and intensified the goals for a transition to sources of low—carbon energy but the latest data from the office for budget responsibility shows the uk is the only country across the g7 to have dropped investment in renewables. are we missing out or perhaps we're now destined to become even more dependent on volatile imported fossil fuels. our investment in renewable energy technologies actually fell last year whereas it rose dramatically in other g7 countries like france, like germany, in response to the fact there's been this big change in the relative cost of gas versus renewables. so we haven't seen the big, strong renewables investment that you might expect from the big change in relative prices which made

renewables relatively cheap, relative to gas. but what we do expect and what our forecast now assumes is a big surge in gas supplies coming into the uk from the us, from qatar, which would mean that there's a danger that we do get stuck with gas dependency as prices come back down. as uk investment dips, the us is transforming its energy industrial infrastructure as part of what the president calls bidenomics, investing hundreds of billions of dollars in its inflation reduction act, a bill designed to promote the green economy for american—made eco—friendly products, like electric cars. and yet at the same time the usa, as the 0br points out, has become the key supplier of gas to europe, after the russian invasion of ukraine. the largest oil and gas producer country in the world is saying, "we're getting off it, we're moving into this direction." of course we're going to keep the economy moving and where there is demand that is necessary to keep economies moving and not have people freezing or out ofjobs, have economies suddenly crunched,

we are supplying gas to make up for what was lost from russia. but we want the transition to take place and the transition, by the way, brings about a far safer, cleaner, healthierworld than the one we live in today. the us investments and tax breaks are turning the heads of big, green industrial investors such as andrew forrest, a major australian mining magnate. do you think the united kingdom government can do more now that you've had this change of the game in the us with the eu copying? yeah. as i've been supported by secretary kerry, as i've argued with senator manchin, with president biden, this is not a subsidy. the inflation reduction act is a wonderful investment into their economy. it will drive a multiplicity of capital, over what the us puts in, and that is a great investment. when that subsidy, 300 billion or $a00 billion, repays itself every few years, that's a fabulous investment.

every investor and every country should take it. but that has raised concerns in europe that the green agenda is being used as cover for a protectionist grab of the green industries and jobs of the future. first of all, europe has a trading system, about $800 billion a year, comes from their trading system. and that money is handed over to the member states of europe. 50, europe has a mechanism by which it puts a whole lot of money into this transition. now, we have a system where we've created some incentives, incentives, tax credit, that attracts capital to the job that we want done. if they're made in america. some of them are quite protectionist. some of them have had that aspect but that is being worked on individually, country by country. people are having those conversations. but we've also argued, do the same. there's no doubt that greater investment in renewables is needed to meet the uk's 2050 net zero carbon emissions target.

the government argues the uk is essentially already out in the lead, here. we are miles ahead of, for example, the usa when it comes to decarbonisation. in fact, as a developed nation, in the last ten years alone, we've gone from nearly a0% of our electricity being produced from coal, to this year virtually nothing. we have far more electric vehicles, we've decarbonised far faster and we've had far more investment. people say that that's complacent. people say, "hang on, we did have a head start but now we are encouraging oil and gas again, we are not investing like americans are investing, by chucking public money at new factories. and we risk losing that leadership." so, we've invested at least twice the speed of the usa for the last ten years and actually if i look forward, to, say, the end of this decade, i expect at least another £100 billion into this energy transition. so, we are more than

holding our ground. in fact, we have a world lead in this and we intend to continue with it. the opposition says it wants a green industrial revolution if it wins the election but recently rowed back on promises of an immediate £28 billion a year of investment. in recent weeks big energy companies such as shell have in fact made the case for extra fossil fuel investment, saying not to do so would be dangerous. is that argument winning back ground even as experts point to the hottest june on record, with warnings that these scenes from southern europe are the new normal? i recently spoke tojose fernandez, the under secretary of state for economic growth, energy and the environment in the us. i began by asking him what his boss's bidenomics green plan meant. this is the largest investment ever made by any one country in clean energy — in our clean energy future — in what is actually the existential crisis of our time. it's $369 billion. these are funds that

are going to be spent in promoting electric vehicle batteries, clean energy in general, carbon capture technologies, green hydrogen, you name it. the idea is for the united states, and we've been talking for a long time in the us about the need for us to address climate change. we're putting our money where our mouth is. some of this, though, has the quality or has appeared to some of your allies as being america first, nakedly protectionist. well, i wouldn't say that. i wouldn't say that. i think we've got, as i've gone around the world, i've been to a number of countries now. many countries are excited about the possibilities, be it injapan, korea, in europe as well. there are opportunities for a number of industries here, and that's what we intend to do going forward. it was said, i think privately i heard from one g7 leader, they suggested that when they raised concerns about the impact upon the european car industry, the reply from washington is, "oh, you know, wejust forgot about you guys.

"this is not aimed at you at all. "this is aimed at, you know, reliance and de—risking our "relationship with china." is that true? was itjust overlooked? absolutely not. in fact, we cannot do this without our allies and partners. we can't solve climate change by ourselves. we need all of us to work together. and that's why we're encouraging countries elsewhere, be it the eu, be it others, to do their own kind of legislation to find ways to promote their industries. if we are successful, if we are able to promote green hydrogen, $9.5 billion worth of incentives for green projects, everyone will benefit. this is not, and i think this is a point i make to all of my counterparts, if we are successful, this will not be a zero sum game. we will expand the pie. and there are some acute concerns. for example, the qatari energy minister just said, "hopefully we're through the energy shock in europe,"

but he suggested the worst might yet come this winter, that prices might go back up again. and part of that is a lack of investment in hydrocarbons right now, is it not? i think if you want to look at a cause it's the invasion of ukraine. you've had putin weaponizing energy. he's made it a point. he thinks he can bring us to our knees through higher energy prices. we've shown that's not the case. last year, the uk, we had concerns, for example, about reserves, gas reserves here. in fact, i would argue that we have the situation we're in today is because we've recognised that one of the alternatives here, one of the solutions, one of the ways out, is to promote clean energy, renewables, hydro, solar and wind. but is it not a bit of a paradox? i mean, you just mentioned the us producers of gas. us gas is now the number one supplier of gas into europe, that saved the day as regards the russia

cut offs, i get that. but it's also hydrocarbon. and at a time when you're trying to push a green agenda, in fact it's american hydrocarbons that are being burnt like never before in europe. well, that's correct. but we are responding to a need. isn't this donald trump's fracked gas coming to europe, essentially? i don't know whose fracked gas it is, but i will tell you that we've been able to deal with a vulnerability in the short term. now, we're not out of the woods. the way out of this in the medium term, it's going to be renewables. no one can steal our sun. no one can steal or weaponize our wind. joining me now is emma pinchbeck, ceo of energy uk, the trade association for the uk energy industry. thanks forjoining us. have we got into a situation where we are alone in the g7, our investments on low carbon technology in 2022 went down, despite gas prices going into the

stratosphere? a, despite gas prices going into the stratosphere?— despite gas prices going into the stratoshere? ., ., ., , ., stratosphere? a lot of that is going into a question _ stratosphere? a lot of that is going into a question for _ stratosphere? a lot of that is going into a question for the _ stratosphere? a lot of that is going into a question for the government| into a question for the government because we are a very regulated environment. the government sets the policy and the regulations which help us to thrive. renewables are a third of our electricity supply but the question is, what next? there is massive global competition for the technologies and we are not confident about the future in the uk. ., , , confident about the future in the uk. ., y , , . ., uk. really, it is the office for budaet uk. really, it is the office for budget responsibility - uk. really, it is the office for budget responsibility and - uk. really, it is the office for i budget responsibility and their document, and it is pretty incredible, we are more hooked on gas than before the gas crisis, were prone to spikes, how has this happened? —— we are prone to spikes. that document says that doing net zero is much better than not doing it and notjust because of the volatility of gas prices but also

because of the technologies. i'm not sure why we're not doing it because the economic case is clear and the mood is clear, and the businesses i look after have billions of pounds waiting to be invested in the uk. some of it is about subsidies and you spoke about that in your package but other is planning reform and doing the nuts and bolts energy policy. doing the nuts and bolts energy oli . ~ .., doing the nuts and bolts energy oli .~ ., policy. we could have responded to the massive ramp _ policy. we could have responded to the massive ramp up in _ policy. we could have responded to the massive ramp up in gas prices i the massive ramp up in gas prices by saying, let's build wind farms and tidal and a hydro and that's never let this happen again. —— lets never. we have built two wind turbines. ~ . ., never. we have built two wind turbines. ~' . ., , never. we have built two wind turbines. ~' . . , ., turbines. ukraine are built more wind than we did _ turbines. ukraine are built more wind than we did in the - turbines. ukraine are built more | wind than we did in the last year. despite being under attack from russians. yes. you say that is not the fault of the _ russians. yes you say that is not the fault of the energy industry, so it must be the fault of the

government?— it must be the fault of the covernment? ., ., , government? not of the barriers to development _ government? not of the barriers to development in this _ government? not of the barriers to development in this country are - development in this country are things like planning system, hornsey, three, a huge offshore wind farm, that was called in by the secretary of state, because the planning inspectorate has not approved it. renewables are not a national strategic priority at the moment and our grid is now holding that connections for renewables so sometimes the conversation becomes one that is about, and you want public money, that is the conversation, but 75% of the money will come from the sector and we are keen to invest and sse has committed £a0 billion to what they are doing in scotland alone but the challenge is finding the projects to deploy the capital and those projects live or die by government policy. you heard the approach from the us, they said it is the biggest clean energy investment in the history of the

world. is that turning the heads? we have got international investors wondering whether to deploy their caital. , , wondering whether to deploy their caital. , ~ , ., capital. absolutely. we said this to government. we — capital. absolutely. we said this to government, we are losing - government, we are losing millions of pounds and i do not want to do down my sector because we employ 780,000 people and we have billions that we want to deploy here.- that we want to deploy here. are you makin: that we want to deploy here. are you making billions _ that we want to deploy here. are you making billions in _ that we want to deploy here. are you making billions in profit _ that we want to deploy here. are you making billions in profit and - that we want to deploy here. are you making billions in profit and you - making billions in profit and you are paying dividends? it depends what art are paying dividends? it depends what part of _ are paying dividends? it depends what part of the _ are paying dividends? it depends what part of the sector _ are paying dividends? it depends what part of the sector you - are paying dividends? it depends what part of the sector you are l what part of the sector you are talking about, renewables, it is around 10% and they normally reinvest that, but the thing here is around how to build on what we have donein around how to build on what we have done in the past and how do we work with government get that done. it needs to be a partnership with government. we are keen to carry on but i think there has been a naivety about how quickly the money is moving and my favourite anecdote is the chief executive of the biggest investment banks, the inflation act investment banks, the inflation act in the us has caused the biggest movements in the markets in his career, so it is very raw for us that we are losing money in the

sector to other places. —— very real. i sector to other places. -- very real. . ., ., , ., , real. i have heard from people in the government _ real. i have heard from people in the government at _ real. i have heard from people in the government at the _ real. i have heard from people in the government at the shadow i real. i have heard from people in - the government at the shadow cabinet and also in the industry who says the uk does not have the money to compete here and that interest rates are too high and our debts are too high. what is your view on that? there seems to be a consensus that we cannot do much here. qm. there seems to be a consensus that we cannot do much here.— there seems to be a consensus that we cannot do much here. ok, but can we cannot do much here. ok, but can we do some — we cannot do much here. ok, but can we do some planning _ we cannot do much here. ok, but can we do some planning reform? - we cannot do much here. ok, but can we do some planning reform? that is| we do some planning reform? that is howl we do some planning reform? that is how i feel. we can do what we have done with other technologies previously. getjobs and investment and private capital invested, but if the government does not want to do that, what they could do is the regulatory stuff, they could have planning reform and grid connections and get a skills strategy that would give the staff will need to build these projects, there is a lot of quite dull policy work that could be done if you do not want to go down the subsidy vote and we have been ahead of the game so why can't we capitalise on that? —— go down the

subsidy route. capitalise on that? -- go down the subsidy route— subsidy route. thanks for 'oining us. olaf from frozen, c] from the west wing and louise from thelma and louise all took to the picket lines in hollywood today as the sag—aftra union — which represents 160,000 performers in the american film and tv industry, went on strike for the first time since 1980. and with film and television writers also on strike, this is the largest strike in hollywood since 1960. the strikers are asking the studios to give them a bigger share of the proceeds from streaming services and to be protected from — in their words — "having their identity and talent exploited" by artificial intelligence. the studios say their profits have been hammered by the pandemic, and that they ned to keep their options open on new technology like ai. so what impact will the strike have on actors here in the uk? paul fleming, the general secretary of equity, the screen actors guild's sister union in britain, which is not on strike, joins me now.

you had some involvement, didn't you come on the sidelines, of the discussions here. what is it achieving and are they going to get what they want? i achieving and are they going to get what they want?— what they want? i think it's important _ what they want? i think it's important to _ what they want? i think it's important to clarify - what they want? i think it's important to clarify that. what they want? i think it's important to clarify that we what they want? i think it's - important to clarify that we aren't involved in the strikes because of draconian trade union legislation in the uk. there's nothing we like to do more than to take a secondary action and support our us colleagues but that's not possible with the restrictive legislation here. what is it likely to achieve? a paradigms shift in the way in which actors's terms and conditions are dealt with. there are existential questions about al, streaming and distribution and they are issues for us as much as our american sister union. and i'm absolutely confident that this strike action, brave and as devastating as it is for individual artists taking part, it is going to

achieve that shift in the coming weeks and months. hose achieve that shift in the coming weeks and months.— achieve that shift in the coming weeks and months. how long do you think the strikes _ weeks and months. how long do you think the strikes will _ weeks and months. how long do you think the strikes will last? _ weeks and months. how long do you think the strikes will last? that's - think the strikes will last? that's a auestion think the strikes will last? that's a question for— think the strikes will last? that's a question for the _ think the strikes will last? that's a question for the assistant - a question for the assistant producers, the producers on strike because of their intransigence. it could last days if they go back to the table and make a reasonable offer. ~ . . . the table and make a reasonable offer. ~ ., , ., . ., offer. will it devastate production in hollywood _ offer. will it devastate production in hollywood anyway _ offer. will it devastate production in hollywood anyway that - offer. will it devastate production in hollywood anyway that we'll i in hollywood anyway that we'll notice here? it in hollywood anyway that we'll notice here?— notice here? it will do, yeah. peole notice here? it will do, yeah. people will — notice here? it will do, yeah. people will have _ notice here? it will do, yeah. people will have seen - notice here? it will do, yeah. people will have seen stars l notice here? it will do, yeah. - people will have seen stars leaving the red carpet in london last night. those sorts of press interviews. the longer it goes on, the more you will see the impact in the united kingdom. we are working very closely with sag to make sure that the uk isn't used as a back door to get around the action which will mean a reduction in talent for british productions and the longer this goes on, the harder it will be for the producers to carry on with their

regressive position.— producers to carry on with their regressive position. there maybe opportunities _ regressive position. there maybe opportunities for _ regressive position. there maybe opportunities for british - regressive position. there maybe opportunities for british writers i opportunities for british writers and actors to sub in. in opportunities for british writers and actors to sub in.— opportunities for british writers and actors to sub in. in theory but that isn't the _ and actors to sub in. in theory but that isn't the mood _ and actors to sub in. in theory but that isn't the mood of _ and actors to sub in. in theory but that isn't the mood of the - and actors to sub in. in theory but i that isn't the mood of the members and not the approach of the union. let's unpack the issue of ai because it's quite interesting. strikers and workers have often railed against technology, from the luddites. what's different now? this new tech, people get to use it most effectively will win out, surely? i think that the luddites get quite a bad rap. their rallying cry was against the deceitful use of technology. what they didn't like is when technology came in and took jobs, undermining pay and made workplaces less safe. that's exactly what sag-aftra workplaces less safe. that's exactly what sag—aftra and equity are arguing about al. we don't want to exclude it, we want to regulate it and when it is driving additional profit and opportunities, that the capital is returned into the pockets

of the artist to make the stuff that viewers want to watch. because they could physically _ viewers want to watch. because they could physically replace _ viewers want to watch. because they could physically replace the - viewers want to watch. because they could physically replace the actors. i could physically replace the actors. the example would be the actor going in for a day, having their likeness copied and then they would be programmed to say things in the background. is that realistic? i think for background artists, that is realistic. supporting artists, walk and, you might call them. that's a real issue that's happening now. —— walk ons. it is quite poorly paid, it is walk on work. it is dubbing work that sustains people's daily terms and conditions. it's a core part of people's income. we must leave _ core part of people's income. we must leave it there, thanks for joining us. film director shekhar kapoor has just won another award — this time for his new movie what's love got to do with it,

written and produced byjemima khan. the film is a cross—cultural rom—com that navagates how to find love and marriage in today's society and is set between london and south asia. the 77—year—old is renowned for his bold views. the indian film—maker, also behind the likes of the oscar winning film elizabeth starring cate blanchett, is accusing hollywood of casting black and brown actors in some roles because of what he describes as its own "guilty conscience." he's now urging film—makers to do more than simply give diverse talent work — he says they need to shift their thinking when it comes to storytelling, and change the narrative. newsnight�*s uk editor sima kotecha has been speaking to him to find out more. how did you jump from being an accountant to being a film director? well, that wasn't, that wasn't a jump. i knew i didn't want to be an accountant. i'm a middle class boy from india. and, you know... oh, it's true. actually, you could be a doctor, a lawyer, a computer person, a computer engineer or an accountant. now it's changed.

or you could do a startup. i knew i wanted to be in the arts because it's now become a cliche, but i was 2a. there was a time when, you know, mickjagger was singing i can't get no satisfaction free in hyde park. it was that generation. it was that time that was forcing you to re—evaluate your life. and i've often wondered if i wasn't in london at that time, because that's where i did accountancy, would i have made this choice? i don't know. but all my friends were making this choice that, "who am i?" and i realised that i have to go out and try and discover who i am and i'm not going to discover who i am as an accountant. i had to leave. so the decision was to go and jump off the cliff into a darkness of uncertainty and through a sense of uncertainty, i discovered film, storytelling, film and directing. it wasn't a jump to directing. because you have it in your family. you have some renowned directors

and actors in yourfamily. so completely in my blood. yeah. completely told my parents that "he's making a stupid mistake." "tell him to stay away from this business." itjust happened. i mean, you've made some huge films. i mean, a massive bollywood film that i have watched numerous times, mr india, with the famous anil kapoor. and sridevi. and sridevi, of course. you thenjumped into hollywood, making films like elizabeth with cate blanchett, which won an oscar. that transition, for some directors, is not easy. how did you manage to make that transition? by taking the risk. you have to make a choice. i made the choice of going out and playing with the a—team. so i said, ok, what's the a—team?

a—team is hollywood. and i said, i got to have to go fight there. it took me two years or three years. and, you know, when i was offered elizabeth, ifirst said no. it was a very funny story. i was offered and it was called like, you know, a costume drama and history. i didn't see myself as being capable of doing that. and then i spoke to tim bevan, the producer, and i said, ok, shekhar, take the risk. how, in your eyes, has representation evolved during that time? well... it was a hard fight because every script i used to get, after elizabeth was a huge success, every script i used to get was if i'd say, oh, send me some international script, it was always an american going and fixing the world's problem, going to africa, coming in. and i said, don't send me those scripts because it's not true. when we spoke on the phone, you said that you felt that hollywood had become "woke" because you said that black and brown actors had been put into shows like bridgerton.

what do you mean by that? what do you mean by that? we will take actors of colour we will take actors of colour into our stories, and that's into our stories, and that's a good thing in a way, a good thing in a way, because it's given, you know, because it's given, you know, it's giving a lot of actors it's giving a lot of actors of colour opportunity to work. of colour opportunity to work. otherwise, they were not otherwise, they were not getting enough work. getting enough work. but what that's doing but what that's doing is hiding a greater, is hiding a greater, more fundamental issue, that more fundamental issue, that hollywood should be telling stories hollywood should be telling stories of that culture, of the culture, of that culture, of the culture, of the brown people, of the brown people, of the african—american people, of the african—american people, of the black people, of asians. of the black people, of asians. but what's happening but what's happening is they're still addicted to their, you know, the narrative is they're still addicted is still their point of view. the narrative is still the narrative is still hollywood's point of view. hollywood's point of view. you've spoken about feeling that hollywood is dealing with a guilty conscience and that's why this is happening. yeah. can you elaborate on that? it is a guilt trip. it's a guilt trip. it's hollywood feeling guilty about all the actors that are not getting work. and because there's a huge rise of protests. and so, yeah, they're taking them in. and i'm not saying that's wrong.

i really believe that hollywood is too concentrated together as like a group.