Bonus: 2025 in conversations from The Interview

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:30to make those markets work for you. Follow Merrin Talks Money on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen. Hello and welcome to The Documentary from the BBC World Service. I'm Lucy Shepard, one of the producers of The Interview, conversations with people shaping our world from all over the world. You can listen by searching for The Interview wherever you found this podcast. Today we are spending trivians on war and peanuts on peace. Wind power in the United States has been subsidized for 33 years. Isn't that enough? Solar for 25 years. That's enough. I don't have army. I don't have missile rockets.

1:09I have my body. I have my voice. I love singing. And so my goal was always to do better and better at it. I was still in an induced coma in hospital when the world was defining me. Since the interview launched in March 2025, we've heard from world leaders to cultural icons, grassroots campaigners to business titans and sporting legends. As we approach the end of the year, we're bringing you a selection of the most compelling conversations we've featured over the last nine months. For this episode, we hear from the US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, President of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohammed and Shibana Mahmood, British Home Secretary.

1:51In September, BBC climate editor Justin Rollout spoke to the United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who believes the threat from climate change is exaggerated. It's a view shared by Secretary Wright's boss, President Donald Trump, and one that has seen subsidies to the renewable energy industry worth billions of dollars cut by the US administration. Chris Wright is highly critical of the transition to sustainable power, describing it as unsuccessful and costly, and instead believes the solution to emissions lies in nuclear fusion. He has drawn the anger of the international scientific community with his controversial challenge to climate orthodoxy, including his claims that there have been no increases in extreme weather events across the globe.

2:38Here's Justin Rowlat. For this episode of The Interview, I'm speaking to Chris Wright, the US Energy Secretary. We met in the presidential suite of a swanky hotel just off the Grand Place in Brussels. It's one of the most beautiful squares in Europe, lined with ornate 17th century guild halls, symbols of the economic power this mighty city once wielded. Now, of course, America is the great power. The US Energy Secretary was in town to urge Europe to buy more of its oil and gas. I'd expected him to be pugnacious and polemical, and he was certainly both of those. But what surprised me was how likable this key figure in President Trump's cabinet was.

3:26We often hear in politics, it's a climate emergency. And once you say something's an emergency, then all caution, all evaluation or trade offs are out the window. And that's sort of how we've treated it, right? $4 or$5 trillion in the last 20 years have been spent trying to move to a low-carbon economy. And today, wind, solar, and batteries are 3%, a little lower than 3 % of total global energy. Look, I went to college to work on nuclear, and then I worked on solar and geothermal. I don't care where energy comes from. I just want it to be affordable, reliable, and secure. But if climate change really was a crisis, we'd be in a problem.

4:03We'd have to live in a worse energized world, much more expensive, much less reliable energy. Fortunately, it's a slow moving phenomenon. It's real. And we will eventually decarbonize. It's just generations from now, not two or three decades from now. What do you say to the dozens of international scientists who reviewed the evidence that your team of five scientists presented on climate change and said it was full of errors, misrepresentations and cherry picked data? They gave a 400-page takedown, didn't they, of your report. What do you say to them? Actually, a pretty ineffective takedown. Like that one, cherry-picked data.

4:39I thought it was just classic. Like, I've been speaking on climate change, writing on it for 10 or 15 years myself. One of the cardinal rules I follow, as did all of the authors, when we show data, we show the entire data set, the entire sea level data, the entire extreme weather set data. In fact, people in the climate movement, New York Times just does it repeatedly. They start hurricane data at a low point in the 1980s, and then they show it rising. Cherry picking in climate science is in the media and in activist science and in politicians is the norm. The five authors of that report and myself do not cherry pick data.

5:13So being accused of cherry picking, I thought, frankly, was kind of humorous. And the takedown that scientists say in that report, if you look at the global tide gauge data, we've had 125 years of data and we've had about eight inches of sea level rise. And you don't seen apparent acceleration in recent years. People were up in arms about that. If we use the right statistics, you could get it. They reference two other papers. You go to those papers and less than 10 percent of the global tide gauges show an acceleration. And that could be from subsidence pulling groundwater out or whatever. In fact, their takedowns of us mostly just lead to places that confirm what was said in the report.

5:51But it's an active dialogue and we want it. No, but some scientists say their work was completely misrepresented. You know, Zeke Housefather, for example, said that you took his data and you just didn't represent it accurately. That's the one scientist I've heard say that. And of course, part of his data was presented and not an additional data he wanted. I don't even know the details of that one. But first of all, this is great. We have a dialogue back and forth about climate change in a public forum. I've wanted that for 20 years. We're away from the cancel culture, you know, enforcement of the church authority.

6:26And we've got a dialogue going on. Now, we should talk about these. This is great. Your administration has cut, what,$3.5 billion of subsidies for renewable energy at a time when these technologies, the sales are booming. And you know who's selling this stuff? China is selling this stuff in vast quantities. I mean, this is a huge growing industry that America's greatest economic rival completely dominates. Don't you want to be part of this revolution? Wind power in the United States has been subsidized for 33 years. Isn't that enough? Solar for 25 years. That's enough. You've got to be able to walk on your own after 25 to 30 years of subsidies.

7:06And again, together, wind, solar and batteries are 3 % of primary energy in the United States. We've spent a lot of money on it. We haven't got a lot back. Should the UK and European countries be undertaking the effort that we're making at the moment to transition to clean energy? I've been a critic of it for 10 years because it's been unsuccessful. Germany spent half a trillion dollars, more than doubled the capacity on its electricity grid, and it produces 20 % less electricity today at triple the cost. So if you make energy expensive, as the European unit has done, that's not greenhouse gas reduction.

7:39That's just moving those emissions from Europe to where those products are made in Asia and shipping them back. A blind, whatever sounds greener, we're going to do that and we're going to subsidize it. We're going to mandate it. That's just not been a winning policy. Climate change should be looked at like any other issue. If you're going to triple the price of electricity, but you're going to get massive benefits for people, that's great. But if you're not even meaningfully changing your energy mix and your industries are leaving your country and going somewhere else, now they're just made in coal power factories, loaded on diesel power ships and sent back.

8:09That's just not green. You're making decisions that will have long-term consequences for the levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. You're the U.S. Energy Secretary, one of the most important figures in energy worldwide. Those decisions will be part of the historic records. People will be able to look back and say, you know, well, you know, Chris Wright said do this. How do you think your great-grandchildren and their great-grandchildren will judge the decisions that you're making today? I'd like to think they'll be proud that I stopped the world going in a direction of impoverishing its citizens.

8:41They'll think, what were you thinking? Tripling your electricity prices and not even meaningfully changing the energy system? So the premise of your question that it's going to make great differences in greenhouse gases, I don't believe that. People are not going to adopt at large scale expensive unreliable energy. The decisions I make are not meaningfully going to change the trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions. Only energy technology will do that. The biggest driver of decarbonization in the U.S. and globally has been the rise of natural gas, outcompeting coal. The second probably big driver of greenhouse gas reductions will be the renaissance of nuclear power, fission, and the arrival of fusion.

9:15Those are going to move global greenhouse gas emissions. Fusion? I mean, people have been talking about fusion for decades, and it's still decades away from being delivered, isn't it? No. With artificial intelligence and what's going on at the national labs and private companies in the United States, we will have the approach about how to harness fusion energy within in the next five years. Five years. I'm holding you to account on that. The technology. It'll be on the electric grid, you know, in eight to 15 years. Fusion in eight to 15 years. Fusion in eight to 15 years. We can have a friendly bet on that.

9:48U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright. Now to Somalia. Secretary Wright's boss, President Trump, is highly critical of the security situation in the African state. In June, he imposed a travel ban on anyone trying to enter America from Somalia, claiming it is a safe haven for terrorists. But the claim was refuted by the country's president, Hassan Sheikh Mohammed, in an interview with the BBC's Paul Njaye in October, when he set out his strategy to tackle the ongoing terrorist insurgency in his country. Hassan Sheikh Mohammed first came to power in 2012 at the head of an internationally backed government that brought a degree of stability to Somalia after decades of civil war.

10:31Re-elected for a second time in 2022, he is now attempting to change the country's constitution to allow direct voting for all citizens rather than through clan elders. Here's Paul Njaye. For this episode of the interview, I'm speaking to Hassan Sheikh Mohammed, the president of Somalia. We met in his presidential palace in the capital Mogadishu. Known here as Villa Somalia, the new stylish building cost$6 million, and the president's team exploited every opportunity to show us its splendor and make sure we knew its worth. The president himself was cordial and calm, just as he appears in public.

11:10Okay, let's return to my conversation with Hassan Sheikh Mohammed. You know, Somalia has a very serious challenge of security because fighting both Al-Shabaab and ISIS in two different areas. and al-Shabaab and ISIS are the most notorious terrorists in the world today. Particularly al-Shabaab, which is al-Qaeda affiliated, is the strongest faction or offshore of al-Qaeda, which is still existing today. Our challenges now is Somalia with its own other fragility challenges in place, building an army and at the same time fighting on the other hand. So in the last three years, we have achieved a significant success and progress in the fight against these groups.

11:56ISIS in the northeastern Somalia has been almost neutralized. The war is still going on. The challenge is still there. Most of the towns and cities have been liberated from al-Shabaab. They still operate in the rural area. Al-Shabaab is weak compared to their past, but still they are a very serious challenge to the security of the country. You say that al-Shabaab is weak, Mr. President, but in recent months they have been capturing territories. And your critics say that your government does not have a clear strategy to defeat them. What do you say to that? No, I totally disagree, and that's not realistic.

12:34Either they don't know Somalia or they do not follow up with what the government is doing. Here in this country, al-Shabaab is 18 years old in this country. yes there was a very serious propaganda that al-Shabaab is going to take over Somalia going to take over Mogadishu al-Shabaab is going to become like a Taliban in Afghanistan all this I can say only is a merely propaganda here we are in Mogadishu where suicide bomb cars and suicide bomb was common a few years back and now it happens for example in the month of August there was no one single incident of death in Mogadishu so it's a very good indicator number Number two, I do disagree again.

13:17The saying that says the government has no strategy. We have. What's the strategy? Traditionally, al-Shabaab was fought with military only. When we come to the office three years back, we developed a strategy to fight al-Shabaab. Instead of having a military side war only, we have operated many other fronts. Ideological war, we call it meetings for all religious scholars all over the world. Somalis in diaspora inside the country. The major scholars of Somalia told the people that what Al-Shabaab is doing is un-Islamic and has nothing to do. That's another new front that we opened. We established a television channel that advocates for the peaceful means.

13:59The other front, the second front, besides the military and the ideological, the third front was fighting financing al-Terror. We have closed so many accounts in the banks, in the mobile money, and we go after it. Still, we didn't reach 100 % where we wanted, but we disabled Al-Shabaab's financial movement. So these are the three-pronged strategy that the government has established three years ago. But Mr. President, in March, you yourself survived an assassination attempt by the same group, Al-Shabaab, and many said that it pointed to the strength that the group is gaining within the capital, Mugadishu itself.

14:36What did that attack mean to you? Of course, I'm the president of this country, and my life is very, very important for this country. But I'm in a war. It's not a rational logic not to expect that I will be free from any risk from the war. I take that risk. I will do everything that my security apparatus protects me, but I will not be in prison for the fear. In June, the Trump administration issued a travel ban on several countries, including Somalia. And they described your nation as a, quote, terrorist safe haven, where government lacks command and control of its territory. Is this a fair portrayal of your country?

15:17Well, after 35 years and the very fragile situation of my government, still, yes, I can say many parts of Somalia still are Shabab controllers. But we are expanding every time. The circles of the authority of the state is expanding every other day and every other week. So that is still there, but we are going. So it's fair to say your country is a terrorist safe haven? No, no, no. I completely disagree. A safe haven of a terrorist is where the terrorist is not challenging. Did you express your disapproval to President Trump? I disapprove the term that Somalia is a terrorist safe haven. I disagree and I disapprove that.

15:55So what have you done to address the concerns that the U.S. government raised? Well, the United States government has the right to decide its own policies. and the facts and the realities that policies are basic is for them. We don't know. We have not been consulted. Somalia is not the only place. So I believe that it relates to politics. It doesn't relate to either the relationship or the reality in the ground. The U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has urged President Donald Trump to formally recognize Somaliland as an independent state. What's your take on that? I don't think that that was an ideal statement.

16:31and that is a violation to the African Union Charter and the United Nations Charter. Somalian land is part of Somalia. Yes, they have grievances. Yes, they have different way of governing. But Somalia is a federal country today. Chances have been given to all people in different regions to have a say on the way they are governing. Somalian land has the same right, but within the framework of unity. And I, as a president of Somalia, publicly, make an apologetic statement, apologize for what has happened in the name of Somali state in the past to all Somali people and exceptional to Somalian people.

17:11But that doesn't mean we have so many commonalities, so many issues that bond us together than dividing us. So Somalian is our dear brothers and sisters. We respect them. We respect their views. But the unity of Somalia is a sacrosanct. President Hassan Sheikh Mohammed of Somalia.

18:01where I answer listener questions and how to make those markets work for you. Follow Merrin Talks Money on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen. A radical overhaul of the UK asylum system was the subject of British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's conversation with BBC presenter Nick Robinson in November. The daughter of Pakistani immigrants, she believes a country without secure borders is a less safe place for people who, in her words, look like her. But as a minister in Britain's Labour government, her proposals have prompted significant opposition, both within her own party and beyond.

18:41Under the plans, refugee status will become temporary, with those granted asylum facing reviews every 30 months. If their home country is judged to be safe, they will be told to return. Guaranteed housing support for asylum seekers will also end, and there will be newly defined safe and legal routes into the UK, although with an annual cap on numbers. Here's Nick Robinson. For this episode of The Interview, I'm speaking to Shabana Mahmood. When I spoke to Shabana Mahmood in our BBC studio just opposite Parliament, it was the end of a long week of parliamentary statements, news conferences and political interviews.

19:20There was a sense, though, that she was speaking about it for the first time. She knows that what she's saying isn't just defining her, it's defining this government and also the Labour Party. Get it right, and it could help turn their fortunes round, and it could ensure that she is seen as a future Prime Minister. Get it wrong, though, and they, she, are politically doomed. You've been clear that what you're trying to do is to say to people massed on the coast in France or people heading to the coast of France, don't think about it. You've talked about the WhatsApps that they send each other, those potential asylum seekers, about what's on offer here.

20:09If you could write the WhatsApp as a result of the policies you've unveiled, what do you want them to hear? Do not make that boat crossing. Do not make that journey. Do not pay all of your money to people smugglers and criminals, because that's what those people are. They are criminals. They are not just people smugglers. They indulge in all sorts of other organised crime. These are highly sophisticated organised crime groups. People should not be giving their money to them. Sure, but they've heard that. They heard that under the last government. Again and again, people say, don't do it. But they say, no, no, either we're scared for our lives or we just think we can get a better life.

20:45We're prepared to pay. We're prepared to take the risk. So what's new this week as a result of what you've said that might change their calculus? That the risk is not worth it. I think it does change the calculus because firstly, people are being told there's free bed and board available. And we're changing the rules about that. They will be told that they will quickly, if they just wait it out a few years, be able to attain settlement. We're changing the rules on that. The whole of the package at every stage, the journey from coming in this country, waiting for too much time to have your claim heard and whether you're going to get a grant of refugee status or not, and the relative ease with which you can get permanent settlement.

21:24I think all of that has been a pull factor. I think it is right that we deal with those pull factors. And the message I'm sending is clear. I am trying to change the calculus in the minds of the people that are about to get on a boat, which is this is the worst way to come to this country. Even if you are granted refugee status, it is a difficult path to settlement. It will be much more difficult. And I'm doing that deliberately because I do not want people to get on boats and come to this country that way. I also don't want them to overstay their visas and then switch straight into the asylum route, which we know a lot of people do because they know it takes so long that by the time they get a definitive answer on their claim after multiple appeals, they've probably been here so long, they'll have accrued enough rights to stay.

22:05I'm trying to disadvantage those two groups deliberately because ultimately what I want to do is advantage the people that come here through safe and legal routes, which I want to set up and expand. And those people who come that way will have already been accepted as a refugee out of country. They arrive in country as a refugee. Their path to settlement, their path to building a life in this country will be faster, quicker, more successful. The easier path, the better path. That's what I'm trying to do. You're shocking some people who are lifelong supporters of a British approach to refuge. Most notably, Lord Dubbs, 92 now, came over to this country on the Kindertransport.

22:45The son of a Jewish father in Czechoslovakia who survived because of the welcome that Britain gave to him. He said, I am worried that Shabana Mahmood is using children as a weapon because you've said that you would be willing to send children and families back home. What do you say to him? Well, look, I adore Lord Alf Dubbs. I think he's a really tremendous human being and I always listen carefully to what he said. But on this occasion, I do disagree with him. Firstly, I would never use children as a weapon. That is not what is happening here. I set out a clear policy that for those people who arrive with their children, who are failed asylum seekers, We're not talking about people who have refugee status.

23:29We're talking about people who do not have refugee status because they've been through their multiple claims. They've been through the courts and they have been found not to be asylum seekers, not to be refugees. They've failed in their claim. We have not been removing those people to safe countries. I gave the example of Albania in my speech because we have a number of families from that country. This is a safe country. It's a signature to the ECHR. oh, we have a returns agreement with this country and we're not returning those families because they have at least one child who's under 18. I think a lot of your listeners...

24:00Have you seen what the Albanian Prime Minister has said about this? Yes, well... He's accused of ethnic stereotyping, indecent demagoguery, and he's accused of poorly echoing the rhetoric of the populist far right. I obviously disagree. And look, we are talking about people who have failed in their asylum claim. We're not talking about people who are refugees. But you're also talking about people who have failed... If you change the status of a country, aren't you? because one of the things you've said is that you would review if a country was now safe. So let's take a Syrian couple who fled Assad's brutal regime, maybe came here on a lorry before.

24:33Many people came here on the boat. They've got a child that they had here, child starting secondary school. You could say Syria is safe now. Assad is gone. Do you say that that child, that family has to go back? When you have failed asylum-seeking families, I think there is a perverse incentive there to still travel with your children, maybe put your children at danger if you know that we would never, ever remove a family with children when they have failed in their claim. And it is British taxpayers who are footing that bill. And I am sorry to say, you know, if people mind that, but it is true.

25:08And I have a responsibility to run a system based on fairness and contribution. And that is what I'm going to do. Now, what about the Syrian family? Yes. So look, if people get if people come to this country through illegal means, so not through a safe and legal route, but through other means, then I think it is right for us to save. That journey is not going to be worth it because the rules that you are going to be subject to are going to be tougher. Central philosophical thing that was the big change from the policies that Alf Dubs loved so much was the idea that asylum is temporary. you're only a temporary guest here as an asylum seeker.