First of all, congratulations on your appointment. A very concrete question off the bat: how well is the environment faring in Europe today?

Hans Bruyninckx: "(Laughs) That's a very broad question. There are some success stories in areas such as surface water quality and waste sorting and recycling. We have made giant steps forward in the last decade in those areas. Heavy industrial pollution has also mostly been eliminated in all countries of the European Union. And in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, all 27 member states have made binding agreements under the Kyoto Protocol. But I must hasten to add that Kyoto will not suffice. There is a gap between what we are doing now and what we must do to stay within the scenario of two degrees of global warming. Meanwhile, the World Bank now fears for a four-degree rise in the Earth’s temperature."

"Europe's environmental policy is the most far-reaching in the world. It is not perfect, there is definitely room for improvement, but when we can agree on joint targets, they are binding for all countries of the Union, including the new members. That’s something. We would not be nearly as far along in environmental and climate policy as we are today without Europe. To a large extent, environmental policy has become European.”

Today, Europe has eyes for one thing: the economic crisis. European budgets are under severe pressure. Won't this relegate the environment to the background?

Bruyninckx: "For some member states, the environment and climate are currently not the first of their worries, that's right. And if the European budget shrinks, that is not good news for us. But the budgets for research and policy on climate, energy and sustainability have increased, and are more central in the coming budget period. For example, a large portion of the budget goes to agriculture, but within its agricultural policy, Europe has explicitly chosen to make the agricultural system more sustainable.”

Business as usual is not realistic; it's financially and environmentally reckless.

"Everyone is now in agreement that the current system of consumption and production is not sustainable. The intellectual debate on this has already taken place. Now we have to be clear in our communication: yes, we live in a Europe of shrinking budgets, but not implementing an ambitious environmental policy will be far more costly. By 2050, Europe wants to achieve a low-carbon economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95%. Some say that is not realistic, but we must reverse that reasoning: business as usual is not realistic; it’s financially and environmentally reckless."

"Extreme weather phenomena are occurring more often. In Southern Europe, the impact of global warming on agriculture is clearly visible. The risk of flooding is on the rise. Let’s not be naive: we are already paying for global warming. The same applies to other environmental problems. Particulate matter is taking its tool on our healthy years. European fisheries are under threat. Investing in ambitious environmental policy can circumvent huge, long-term societal costs."

How do you sell a traditional left issue like the environment to the wider political playing field?

Bruyninckx: "Environment and climate go beyond left-right thinking. People often perpetuate the idea that this is a marginal problem but it really belongs at the core of society. We are not dealing with a few endangered species. We are dealing with a system that has reached its limits."

We are dealing with a system that has reached its limits.

"The universities must do its part as well. In most degree programmes, courses on the environment or climate are electives taught at the end of the curriculum. You can still graduate and hardly have heard a thing about these problems. The implicit message is that this information is not essential to being a good economist or social scientist while really this is a crucial challenge for decades to come."

KU Leuven invests in technological research on environment and climate.

Bruyninckx: "The scientific-technological side is one part of the story. At least as important are the social challenges we face. You cannot expect every scientist to choose to be active in the public debate – to each his own. But for the university, the pressure to do excellent research does not have to be an obstacle to having more of a presence in the public debate. I myself have always been very involved in that debate."

The first ecosystem you are responsible for is your own.

"It's a cliché, but sustainable development begins at home. The first ecosystem you are responsible for is your own (laughs). I made my home as energy efficient as possible; I don't have to shuttle my three kids around in a car because we live close to everything; I use public transportation to get to work. I would not dare stand before my students without practicing what I preach myself. That's what I'll miss most in Copenhagen: the fantastic interaction with my students, the click you feel every once in a while in the lecture hall. Teaching can be magical."

"I notice that young people have become more knowledgeable about the environment. But gaining knowledge does not automatically change behaviour. In that respect, there is still a lot of work ahead of us."

At the other end of the scale: do you believe in global doomsday scenarios? Any public opinion turnaround won’t happen overnight, but according to some, we're already too late today.

Bruyninckx: "Listen, I'm a realist. So I also see that we are really moving in the wrong direction when it comes to number of evolutions. I'm not naive: if an agency like the World Bank – not exactly a green lobby group – is already discussing a four-degree scenario, it is alarming. I am not advocating for new hurricanes in the U.S. or flood disasters in the Mekong Delta, but I fear sometimes that it will take such large-scale catastrophes before we make that turnaround worldwide.”

"But I do not see how pessimism can make the world a better place. Negativity is paralyzing. I see those predictions mainly as a sign not to be ignored that we urgently need to start thinking in a solution-oriented way.”

We must make the transition to an integrated, system-based approach.

“To be clear, the agency does not make policy. Policy is determined by the member states and the European institutions in Brussels. Our job is to collect objective data, do critical reporting, and evaluate policies: has a given directive fulfilled its objectives? Will a given rule actually work? We work together with a few hundred institutions to carry that out."

"Previously, the EEA worked thematically: what's the situation with water quality, air pollution, soil pollution, etc., in different member states? But now we must make the transition to an integrated, system-based approach: how do all these factors influence health, agriculture and transport in the member states? How are we going make the green economy – that low-carbon Europe by 2050 – a reality?"

"Launching this systems approach is a huge challenge for the Agency and for myself. We are charting new waters. I'm really looking forward to having the opportunity to help steer the ship. Sometimes I have to pinch myself because I still can't believe it: in my field, this is the best job in the world."