Think of the Economy as a Subsidiary of the Environment

Jacqueline McGlade, a British scientist, directs the European Environment Agency (EEA), based in Denmark. The EEA independently studies the state of the environment within the European Union and evaluates the public policies conducted there for the European Commission and Parliament and the Member States. Some 170 experts work for the Agency.

Le Monde: You are publishing a report in the beginning of January 2009 about what's at stake in 2009 with respect to the environment that is intended to be much more accessible to the larger public than your usual output. What is the objective there?

    Citizens' influence in 2009 will be crucial. They must be informed of what will happen December in Copenhagen, where the agreement that will succeed the Kyoto Protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gases will be negotiated by all countries. Citizens hear talk about global climate change, but don't have a clear idea of what's at stake. Our objective is to make the stakes more accessible, to restore power to citizens. The stakes are considerable. We are in the process of moving dangerously far from a trajectory of security. Our greenhouse gas emissions are growing faster than the most pessimistic scenarios.

Do the consequences of climate change still remain abstract in the eyes of the larger public?

    Yes. You must be aware that, up until now, we have evolved in a very stable climatic environment. A drop of a half-degree on average was sufficient to send us into the Little Ice Age. Every degree counts. Our objective is to stabilize the rise in temperatures to an additional two degrees [Celsius]. That's an extremely ambitious target, and even with two additional degrees, we will no longer live the same way, including in Europe. Water will no longer be as available. Agriculture will not be able to stay the same. The tourist industry will have to evolve. But the fight against climate change also contains some significant opportunities. For example, the emission reduction measures in Europe will allow us to save some 8.5 billion euros a year in the fight against atmospheric pollutants. The economies for European health services could reach 45 billion euros a year.

    Doesn't the fight against climate change risk moving to the back burner at a time when most people's living conditions are threatened by the economic crisis?

    We must use this time to restructure the economy, to rethink the fundamentals. We don't have to reconstitute the preceding economic model. The "New Green Deal" Barack Obama talks about, that will lead to the creation of many "green" jobs, will not work if, for example, we settle for replacing cars that run on gas for cars that run on renewable carburants. The economy must be thought of as a 100 percent subsidiary of the environment and the price we attribute to things re-evaluated. If we take into account the true cost of the water and carburants necessary to the manufacture and transport of goods, we will note that moving them around the world - and even within Europe - as we do, is very expensive.

    The accord recently concluded by the EU to reduce its CO2 emissions by 20 percent between now and 2020 was greeted as an historic premier, but also criticized by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). What do you think of it?

    The politicians effected an extremely audacious step forward. The NGOs may be right to say that the accord is so complicated no one will be able to verify its application. However, it sets such aggressive, such ambitious objectives, that it is already forcing us to think differently. "Business as usual" will not suffice to achieve them. Through the auctioning of quotas, a price will be set on polluting emissions. That's a beginning, but that will not be enough. If they want to reach their targets, countries will have to implement very proactive policies, very fast.

    Do you think the international community can come to a satisfactory agreement in Copenhagen?

    That will depend on the pressure from global public opinion. Some signs are encouraging, such as, of course, the arrival of the Obama team in the White House and the emergence of new countries or groups of countries that want to take part in the fight against global climate change. One of the big issues in the negotiations will be the question of the financing and operation of the adaptation fund [subscribed to by rich countries, its objective is to finance the actions of countries confronted with the consequences of warming].

    We must take care that these funds actually serve to slow down climate change and to help adapt to it. We will be accused of neocolonialism should we wish to control the use this money is put to, but direct access to the funds by developing countries is not a blank check. We must, perhaps, apply the scenario that obtains in the nuclear industry, where the possibility of inspection by all parties exists.