...We'd take evasive action. So why aren't we doing the same about climate change? It is going to hit everywhere, after all. We discuss climate change and Europe's role in combating it with Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the European

Interview: If we were in line for a meteorite strike...

Professor McGlade, Executive Director   of Europe's Environment Agency,

an institution most people   don't know well.

Can you explain what it is   and what it does?

It was set up 15 years ago to gather   information from Member States

and additional members of the agency,   the EFTA countries

and Turkey and Switzerland, to report   on the state of the environment.

Over time, we've turned that   into messaging and timely information,

not only for policy makers   but for citizens too.

There's been despondency and   disappointment since Copenhagen,

which didn't go as well as Europe   and the rest of the world had hoped.

What's the next step?   How can we take things forward?

Those of us in Copenhagen   saw two sides of things.

One was the collapse of a unified treaty

but the accord that came out   of it has many elements,

which have set in motion various activities

and, in many senses,   are going to achieve the same goal.

We still have negotiations about   reducing greenhouse gas emissions,

from all the major sectors,   including transport

but also we have a greater   engagement across society,

recognising that climate change   will affect their lives,

in terms of biodiversity, water,   the very way in which we live.

So, that reaching out from Copenhagen   is a comprehensive success story.

You're on record as saying you want   a closer link between science and policy

but isn't the problem that politicians   think short-term,

not usually further   than the next election?

There are short-term facts   that politicians do appreciate.

One of the things   my agency specialises in

is ensuring the relevant numbers   are available.

but the challenge for science is   to ensure it is quality-assured,

that it isn't just one idea being tested.

Some of the debate around   the climate change science

has shown how careful we must be   to look at both sides of every theory,

to show we're really testing   all the possible combinations

You're on record as saying that   you see transport as the biggest risk,

in terms of meeting greenhouse   gas emission targets.

Presumably, we need   to be a mobile society,

especially now,   with such high unemployment.

The challenge of transport is that   it's made up of millions of bits,

compared to the electricity sector,   where you have a few delivery points

and can focus your attention   on managing those.

We do want mobility but instead of   simply looking for policy coherence,

policy integration, we have to recognise   we are in the business of change.

Making transport part of that change   will be what the policies have to deal with.

It's about inspiring change   and looking for systemic alterations,

that are needed for us to raise our game   and meet the greenhouse gas challenge.

Climate change is having   a big impact on the seas.

Fisherman say the cod are moving North,   towards Iceland and the Arctic Circle.

Climate change is one extra layer on   what are already highly stressed systems.

Fisheries has done its job well and   reduced many stocks around the world,

to below capacity or at least,   to a safe operating limit.

Climate change not only changes   the temperature but also the acidity.

That environment and water in which fish   live is beginning to undermine

the very ability to produce   the things we want to eat.

You've also said if we were in line for a   meteorite strike, we'd take evasive action.

You say that if we could do that   for a meteorite strike,

we should be doing the same   for climate change.

It is difficult to know what to do   and co-ordinate that action, isn't it?

Individuals can do a lot but, unless it's   brought together in a coherent setting,

What industry and society now need   is coherent direction,

where all the multiple decisions   we make every day add up to something.

Yes, it's very difficult   but the meteorite analogy is very strong.

You'd look out of a telescope every day,   wondering if it would hit where you live.

Because climate change   is going to hit everywhere

we have to think about the environment   in which we do our daily business

and where we carry out   our societal duties.

The EU has had quite a good record   of decoupling growth

from greenhouse gas emissions,   but at a time of financial stringency,

or will there be a desperate bid   to create jobs wherever we can?

The recession has had an impact   and there is a reduction

in the greenhouse   gas emissions overall.

as it's not a simple   one-on-one relationship.

Transport and personal mobility   does potentially offer some solutions

as we can begin to see   there is a widening gap

between the amount of personal mobility   and greenhouse gas emissions.

We need to exploit those   small crevices now.

They don't need to lead to extraordinary   levels of unemployment,

if we look at ideas like Better Place,   bringing electric vehicles into our cities.

We have that in Denmark and we hope to   have an electric car at the agency soon.

These are simple schemes   which are cheap to run,

where the local population   can really participate.

I see great optimism ahead of us.   - I was going to ask,

are you an optimist or a pessimist,   as there are lots of pessimists?

There'll always be pessimists but   my job is to promote the good ideas,

to make them known   to as many people as possible

to invest in and make a business around   a resource-efficient world.

Professor McGlade, thank you.   - Thanks.