The successor to “Factor Four” (first published in 1997) has been published by Earthscan in December.

Factor Five
Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Improvements in Resource Productivity
By Ernst von Weizsäcker, Karlson ‘Charlie’ Hargroves, Michael H. Smith, Cheryl Desha and Peter Stasinopoulos

Picking up where Factor Four left off, this new book examines the past 15 years of innovation in industry, technical innovation and policy. It shows how and where factor four gains have been made and how we can achieve greater factor five or 80%+ improvements in resource and energy productivity and how to roll them out on a global scale to retool our economic system, massively boost wealth for billions of people around the world and help solve the climate change crises.

Spanning dozens of countries including China and India and examining innumerable cases of innovation in design, technology and policy, the authors leave no engineering and economic stone unturned in their quest for excellence. The book tackles sustainable development and climate change by providing in depth Factor 5 resource productivity studies of the following sectors: Buildings, Industry, Agriculture, Food and Hospitality, and Transportation.

In its systematic approach to demonstrating how Factor 5 can be achieved, the book also provides an overview of energy/water nexus and energy/materials nexus efficiency opportunities across these sectors. Given that these sectors are responsible for virtually all energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions globally, this book is designed to guide everyone from individual households, businesses, industry sector groups to national governments in their efforts to achieve the IPCC recommended target of 80 per cent reductions to greenhouse gas emissions.

It also looks at innovation in regulation to increase resource productivity, pricing, carbon trading, eco-taxation and permits and the role of international institutions and trade. The authors also explain exciting new concepts such as bio-mimicry and whole system design, as hallmarks for a new generation of technologies. The last part of the book explores transformative ideas such as a long term trajectory of gently rising energy and resource prices, and new concepts of well-being in a more equitable world.

The book can be ordered online from Routledge here: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781844075911/

To receive a 20% discount when ordering online at routledge.com, please enter the voucher code AF20.

The German edition, titled “Faktor Fünf”, will be published by Droemer Knaur in March 2010 and can be pre-ordered online: http://www.droemer-knaur.de/buecher/Faktor+F%C3%BCnf.891358.html

Dear Professor Lu Mai, dear Professor Liu Shinjin, ladies and gentlemen,

It is an unusual honour for me to be invited to this keynote address, which I have put it under the title of Resource Productivity.

Fig 1

This title contrasts with the preoccupation with labour productivity during the last 200 years of technological progress. Labour productivity has been the melody of the first Industrial Revolution. It increased twentyfold or more during those 200 years. This has been the basis of prosperity and it is the main theme of China’s stunning economic progress.

During those same 200 years, the world has also seen a systematic decrease of prices of natural resources.

Fig 2

This invited mankind to a wasteful use of those resources. Small wonder, then, that resource productivity was stagnant or even decreasing during much of this time.

Let me submit to you that we cannot continue on this road. It may be wise, chiefly for the industrialized countries to slow down the further increase of labour productivity while forcing the increase of resource productivity.

Forcing resource productivity has become an imperative also for the developing countries that cannot afford a wasteful use scarce resources. Obviously, this consideration was at the roots of planning this conference. The new trend in technological development, namely a strong emphasis on resource productivity, may be triggered by the recent increase of resource prices:

Fig 3

For China in particular, the rising commodity prices were a signal of warning. But then, you have additional reasons to become more resource efficient. It would allow you to simultaneously reduce one major health problem, namely pollution-caused mortality in your industrial agglomerations:

Fig 4

Clearly, air pollution should also be addressed directly by appropriate pollution control measures. These have an additional cost, which however, is far exceeded by the economic benefits for China, according to Stefan Hirschberg et al (2003) of the Swiss Paul Scherrer Institute:

Fig 5

China is going through the standard development with regard to pollution: Countries start poor and clean. Then they industrialize and get rich and dirty. And then they rich enough so that they can afford pollution control and end up rich and clean:

Fig 6

It has been the traditional view of the developing countries that they are too poor to pay for pollution control. As Indira Gandhi said it in 1972 at the first UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm: “Poverty is the biggest polluter”

Fig 7

Indira Gandhi’s slogan went down well not only with the political leaders of developing countries to whom it was a nice excuse for not acting on pollution control, but also for industry in the North that could conveniently say that they needed good profits for the sake of the environment.

The trouble is that today’s biggest environmental problems, biodiversity losses and climate change, are chiefly caused by the rich.

Fig 8

Regarding biodiversity, the biggest problem is habitat losses due to increased land use for agriculture, settlements, mining, energy and transport. You can estimate the acreage that is needed per person for a sustainable supply of all the daily goods and services. This is then the “ecological footprint” according to William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel, caricatured in the next picture:

Fig 9

The ecological footprints of average Chinese people are roughly one hectare. We in Western Europe have footprints four times as large, and in the US and Canada, footprints are even eight times that size. If all 6.3 billion people had US type lifestyles, we would need three to four planets Earth to accommodate all their footprints. This is obviously unsustainable.

The other big problem is global warming. Global temperatures have been rising and falling over the last 160.000 years in close correspondence with CO2 concentrations.

Fig 10
Based on the physics behind this correlation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has projected temperatures to rise dramatically during our century:

Fig 11

The consequences could be alarming for water, food security and for biodiversity. You would also have to count with more devastating typhoons and, most dangerous perhaps, with a rising sea water table, indicated by the green line in the next picture.

Fig 12

The difference between high and low water tables is more than 100 metres, which means that coast lines will heavily vary. The next picture shows it for Italy. 20.000 years ago, during the last Ice Age, the Sea was lower and Italy was larger than today. But two million years ago there were no polar ice caps (and also the geological situation was different in the Mediterranean Basin) so that Italy was much smaller:

Fig 13

At present, we see a dramatic change of temperatures in the Arctic region, as has been discussed in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004). The summer freshwater coverage of Greenland has increased more than fourfold in ten years:

Fig 14

We are unable to predict the consequences of this development. But we know from historical records that ice masses can collapse or glide into the oceans in a very short period of time. This has been the case with the ice shield once covering Labrador and the Hudson Bay, which disintegrated during a few decades, perhaps even a few weeks some 7800 years ago, letting the sea water table rise by some 7 metres:

Fig 15

Imagine what such a mega-event would mean for China’s or Japan’s coastal areas, or for the Netherlands or Egypt or Florida!

What do we have to do to prevent such disasters from happening? It is plausible that at least we should try to stabilize CO2 concentrations. This, however, will require us to reduce annual CO2-emissions by 60-80 percent, according to the IPCC. Let us optimistically assume that 50 percent will do. But under the present trends, we shall get exactly the opposite. We are heading for a doubling of CO2-emissions:

Fig 16

China, India and other countries are drastically expanding their industrial outputs, their motorized transportation and their energy consuming housing and agriculture. So we shall see China and India to have emissions similar to those of the US:

Fig 17

Fig 18

The world energy pie shows that worldwide we have still an overwhelming dominance of fossil fuels.

Fig 19

In Europe, we have begun systematically to work on the reduction of CO2-emissions. The trading began in December, 2004. Initially, the prices paid per ton of CO2-emissions were at around 8 Euros. Meanwhile, prices have roughly doubled.

Fig 20

One component of our combating greenhouse gas emissions has been the increase of renewable sources of energy. In Germany, we have been quite successful in this:

Fig 21

We were very glad to see a large Chinese delegation at the Renewables 2004 conference in Bonn last year, and many said that China was about to copy the German system and is now planning another such conference this November. However, for all their merits, the renewables will not suffice to solve the problem. The energy pie is simply too large and must be reduced if we want to fight global warming and also avoid a dangerous dependence on nuclear power.

The key to the answer will be a Second Industrial Revolution focussing on the strategic increase of resource productivity. This has been the vision in the book “Factor Four. Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use”, which was also translated into Chinese:

Fig 22

It has been known for a long time that lower energy intensity is a sign of modernity:

Fig 23

We therefore see the Factor Four story as a true continuation of technological modernization and progress.

Let me now open a window for you to look into the new universe of eco-efficient technologies. The pictures will mostly compare existing technologies on the left hand side with new technologies on the right hand side that are some four times, or even ten or a hundred times more resource efficient than the old ones.

Fig 24

Let me start with my co-author’s Amory Lovins’ favourite idea, the “hypercar”, which allegedly does 150 miles a gallon, or needs only 1,5 litres per 100 kilometres.

Fig 25

Some remain a bit sceptical about its success but according to Amory, some 2 billion dollars have already been invested in the concept.

Fig 26

The next is Amory Lovins’ institute and home, the Rocky Mountain Institute, high up in the Rocky Mountains, which during much of the year is largely energy-self-sufficient and is easily a factor of ten better regarding energy than typical mountain.

Fig 27

The concept has been transferred ten years ago to ordinary apartment houses in Germany and elsewhere, as “passive houses” making use of solar heat and of heat exchange ventilation.

Fig 28

In my political constituency, Stuttgart, or rather in nearby Fellbach, we have a true zero-external-energy house. It has become a tourist attraction. And part of the excess energy it produces is channelled into a super-efficient car.

You all know the efficient light bulbs that need only a quarter of the electricity used in old incandescent bulbs. China has become the largest manufacturer worldwide of the efficiency bulbs. However, as most of you know, this is not yet the end of the road. Light diodes are coming up that are yet another factor of two or three better than the efficiency bulbs shown on the picture.

Fig 29

This is a small cooling chamber to replace the refrigerator that stands freely in the kitchen. Two weeks ago, I met with a Japanese gentleman who told me that even freely standing refrigerators have now been developed that are seven times more energy efficient that the old ones. The new development was probably triggered by the “Top runner programme” of Japan.

Fig 30

Fig 31

If you replace the old-fashioned filing cabinet technology by CD ROM’s you save more than a factor of ten and you have easier access to your data.

Fig 32

Water scarcity is one of the biggest problems of China. You may therefore be interested in a technology used in Germany that has reduced water consumption twelve fold in paper manufacturing, chiefly by systematically recycling and cleaning waste water.

Fig 33

My friend Professor Ryoichi Yamamoto of Tokyo once sent me the above picture showing a thin rod of steel that has the strength and capacities of otherwise ten times more resource consuming steel.

Fig 34

Video conferences are, of course, something like a factor of one hundred more energy efficient than the otherwise necessary business travel. I admit that video does not easily substitute for a business meeting on the Bahamas.

Fig 35

This is the story of modern, energy intensive agriculture. Winter tomato grown in greenhouses in Holland tend to need a hundred times more energy than they afterwards contain! With intensive cattle farming, the ratio is hardly better. Organic farming, on the other hand, is roughly by a factor of four more energy efficient.

Fig 36

This is the well-known strawberry yoghurt saga established by Stephanie Böge at the Wuppertal Institute. Lorries criss-cross Europe and drive some 8000 kilometres for the manufacturing of strawberry yoghurt. Obviously you could do at least ten times better.

So much perhaps to encourage you to think further about the upcoming technological revolution. Let me close by making a few remarks about methods to arrive there.

China is one of the countries that has established efficiency standards for cars. To meet the 2008 standards, many European and American car manufacturers have still to do considerable homework, while Toyota is well prepared.

Fig 37 [*]

In the business world we seem to see a slight competitive advantage of eco-efficient companies listed in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index over the average listed in the Dow Jones Group Index.

Fig 38

And if you compare different countries using the World Economic Forum’s Competitiveness Index you see a positive correlation with the Sustainable Development Index of countries.

Fig 39

So we seem to be on a good way. However, this is all too slow to reach the necessary factor of four. Let me in closing say a few words about instruments. I am impressed with what I heard in China about the determination with which you are creating incentives for more resource efficient technologies. Moreover, Douglas Ogden this morning mentioned the possibility of tax refunds for companies that achieve ambitious standards, and James Sweeney spoke about appropriate pricing.

Japan has gone a considerable step further with her “top runner programme” that makes the most energy efficient appliance or vehicle the top runner or standard and announces shame on those companies in a few years that still sell outdated, less efficient items. Ultimately they even have to pay a fine.

Germany and other countries have adopted an ecological tax reform to reduce the fiscal load on human labour while making natural resources more expensive.

And at the G 8 Summit that takes place in a few days, we hope countries agree on a geographical extension of climate policy beyond “Kyoto”. We hope that also China, India, Brazil etc will be invited under fair term to join international climate policy.

For this, the North has to understand that the present “grandfathering” approach is unfair to the developing countries and has to be replaced step by step by a system based on per capita allowances, – which would be good for China and India.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I feel that the race is on worldwide among countries and among companies to take the lead in the Second Industrial Revolution that is driven by the second melody of progress, the melody of a revolutionary increase of resource productivity.

Thank you for your patience and attention!

References

• Hirschberg, Stefan, et al. 2003
• Rees, William and Mathis Wackernagel
• Von Weizsäcker, Ernst Ulrich, Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins. 1997. Factor Four. Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use. A Report to the Club of Rome. London: Earthscan. Also available in Chinese and ten other languages.

[*] After the lecture, I was approached by a reresentative of General Motors who said that GM had also met the standards with cars exported to China.

Why Sustainable Development?

We live in a finite world. Ultimately, there is no way around production and consumption patterns that are sustainable. Ultimately, customers, engineers, managers and politicians will show a strict priority for the respect of nature and the environment.

To be sure, global competition for highest cost-benefit ratios leaves little breathing space for such long-term considerations. But at any moment in time it is legitimate to ask oneself if the time has come to now make sustainable production methods and ecologically benign products the priority for the company.

Many people in the business community believe that most of the environmental homework has been done leaving not much to do. This optimistic conviction is based on the inverted U-curve”. Countries typically start poor and clean. Then they industrialise and become rich and dirty. Once they are rich enough to afford costly pollution control, they finally become rich and clean.

Fig. 1: Countries historically started poor and clean, then got industrialised and dirty and ended up rich and clean.

The trouble is that ”rich and clean” involves per capita consumption levels of depletable resources easily twenty times the rate of the ”poor and clean” stage. In the language of William Rees and Matthis Wackernagel (1992), lifestyles in the rich and clean countries involve ”ecological footprints” of some four hectares per person. Similarly, Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek has developed the concept of ”ecological rucksacks”. Every average Japanese causes an ecological rucksack every year of some 45 tons. Germans cause even heavier rucksacks weighing some 60 tons. Heaviest, of course, are the US American rucksacks of some 80 tons annually.

All in all, we are far from a harmonious situation. In fact the daily toll of environmental damages can be seen as absolutely alarming, as Fig. 2 is summarising.

Fig. 2: The alarming daily toll of environmental destruction.

Among the most alarming effects of our footprints and of the rucksacks is the rapid loss of biodiversity. At present, we are losing some twenty, perhaps up to one hundred plant and animal species every day. This is mostly due to the destruction of natural habitats that have been the home to hundreds of thousands of biological species, some of them rather inconspicuous but nevertheless important in the interlocking webs of ecosystems. Habitat destruction mostly results from land conversion for mining, agricultural use, forest monoculture, or settlements. Even if much of the land degradation is taking place in the developing countries, it is often exports of timber, ores, fodder and fruits to the North that cause the degradation. In other words, we in the rich countries tend to export our ecological footprints to the South

One of the most disquieting aspects of environmental change is the greenhouse effect. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published fears of global warming by up to 5 degrees during this century. (Fig. 3).

Fig 3: Projections of global warming until 2100 (Source: IPCC, 2001).

Global warming can be accompanied by a further rise of the sea levels. Fig. 4 shows how the coast lines of Italy reacted to different levels of the sea water table.

Fig. 4: Italy during the last Ice Age and during the Pliocene.

There is still a lot of ice on the Antarctic and on Greenland, enough to flood Holland, Bangladesh, Egypt, Florida and much of Germany.

We should by all means avoid such disasters. The IPCC has suggested that in order to stabilise carbon dioxide concentrations we should reduce carbon dioxide emissions by some 60 to 80 percent, say by 2050. On the other hand, we learn from the World Energy Council, that the demand for energy, and with it the emissions of carbon dioxide, are likely to rise steeply and are most likely to at least double within that period. So there is a gap as large as a factor of four which will have to be closed.

Nuclear energy can’t close the gap. Today, nuclear energy is a mere six percent of the world energy pie, and in most countries, even the most ardent defenders of nuclear energy have stopped ordering any new reactors. Even a neck-breaking rush towards tripling nuclear energy supplies in the world would not buy more than is an increase from six to eighteen percent of the energy pie. And if that pie is doubling, we are falling back to a mere nine percent.

The substitution of fossil fuels by renewables is a lot nicer to the environment. But then wind and solar make up only 0.5% of the present pie. Let us assume a heroic strategy of increasing it twenty fold. Then we have reached ten percent of the present pie, but a mere five percent of the double sized pie.

Let me conclude this introductory section by stating plainly that energy policies too are in a massive dilemma.

After the Industrial Revolution the Eco-Efficiency Revolution

The challenges of sustainability, of biodiversity protection and of climatic change look breathtaking. Fortunately, there is hope. Much of this hope is rooted in technological progress. But the task will be no smaller than the adventure of the Industrial Revolution. Having listened to some of the participants of this conference in advance, I am confident that the radiation curing industry can play a significant part in our new adventure of technological progress. However, I don’t claim the competence for giving you any special technological advice. Let me instead try and characterise the broader features of that new technological revolution.

In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, technology was mostly driven by the desire of economic expansion. The main emphasis was laid on the increase of labour productivity, which may have risen twenty fold during the last 150 years. This progress becomes visible in the speed of our vehicles, in the power of our machines, in the organisational miracles of industrial production lines and in the unprecedented skills of modern information technologies.

The emphasis on labour productivity was very reasonable until quite recently when human labour was indeed very inefficient and very hard too. The resources of nature seemed to be nearly unlimited. So the exploitation of nature seemed like a legitimate and natural part of the game for much of technological history.

Today we are living in a completely different world from the early 19th century. Labour today is abundant, labour productivity is very high, and the real scarce resource is nature. This means it is high time now to concentrate our efforts on the increase of resource productivity. Even purely economic — and social — reasons speak for it. Slowing down the increase of labour productivity while speeding up resource productivity should make countries richer, not poorer.

Shifting emphasis to resource productivity should be the best answer also to the challenge of sustainable development. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development now speaks of Eco-Efficiency as a new guiding term. And the Wuppertal Institute of which I have been the founding president, gives ambitious goals for the increase of resource productivity. For the use of materials, my friend Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek calls for a decupling of resource productivity. But for energy, I suggest a more modest figure of a factor of four. At any rate, we are speaking of productivity jumps equally impressive as those characteristic of the Industrial Revolution. Let us therefore speak of the Eco-Efficiency Revolution, which we shall be forced to launch very soon.

The Eco-Efficiency Revolution is perhaps the only strategy allowing a reduction in size of the ecological footprints without jeopardising employment and competitiveness.

Factor Four

The good news is that quadrupling resource productivity is technologically feasible. A 1995 Report to the Club of Rome (in English: Weizsäcker, Lovins and Lovins, 1997) features fifty examples for the potential of increasing resource productivity by a factor of four at least. Twenty examples were selected in the field of energy, twenty in material resource productivity, and ten in transportation.

Fig. 5: Factor Four was translated into twelve languages including Chinese and Japanese.

My co-author Amory Lovins lives in and works at the “Rocky Mountain Institute”, some 2000 metres above sea level in a truly cold climate. And yet his home needs almost no external energy. It is easily a factor of four more energy efficient than ordinary alpine buildings. The next picture compares the two in terms of energy productivity.

Fig. 6: The Rocky Mountain Institute is perhaps ten times more energy efficient than an ordinary alpine house.

Another very attractive Factor Four example is what my co-author Amory Lovins has dubbed the hypercar {Fig 7}. By almost entirely redesigning cars, making them light-weight and still crash-resistant, and by using modern hybrid engines, the average fuel efficiency can be pushed up to 150 miles per gallon, which is more than four times better than today’s fleets.

Fig. 7: Amory Lovins’ “Hypercar” (right) is five times as fuel efficient as ordinary cars (left).

Other examples include light bulbs, refrigerators, air conditioners, TV sets, mechanical fans, pumps and motors, computers and other office equipment.

Also renewable sources of energy will play an important role in the efficiency revolution. They may not by themselves save energy but they are at least ”carbon-efficient” and lend themselves to being combined with efficiency technologies, e.g. the use of passive solar energy in buildings can be optimised by the so-called translucent insulation technique.

A different and very important sector of energy use is nutrition. By reducing the excessive use of fertilisers and the transportation of fodder, and by slightly cutting meat consumption, energy requirements for a healthy diet can be cut by a factor of four.

The twenty examples of revolutionising material productivity range from construction and durable office furniture, to water in homes, in paper manufacturing and to high tech recyclable plastics for wrapping and catering. One fine example is the replacement of a clumsy paper-based filing cabinet by a modern CD ROM system. There you save more than a factor of ten even if you generously include the ”ecological rucksacks” of the metal contained in the disks. One example is modern steel, which can be easily four times as resource efficient per unit of results obtained (Fig. 8)

Fig. 8: Modern steel can be fabulously strong and can help saving 75% materials.

Let me present one last example from our book, the logistics of the production of strawberry yoghurt. Stefanie Böge has found out that for manufacturing a cup of strawberry yoghurt in Germany you would typically let lorries criss-cross central Europe and make 8000 kilometres, if suppliers and the suppliers of the suppliers are counted. It can easily be proven that you can do an equivalent job with only a thousand kilometres, which again is more than a factor of four. (Fig. 9)

Fig. 9: The distance of total lorry traffic for the manufacture of strawberry yoghurt today (left) and in an energy efficient future (right).

I may have opened a window for you into a distant future of technologies and everyday habits of people, There will be millions of small transformations, some of them quite inconspicuous, that make up the factor four revolution. I am perfectly confident that the revolution will be as benign as the industrial revolution, although surely there will be losers, chiefly among those who do not want or cannot keep pace. That, however, is not exactly new in the history of industry.

Profitability, long term and short term

Needless to say much of the efficiency revolution is not going to happen unless the framework for doing business is changed. Efficiency must be made profitable. Fortunately, some eco-efficiency is profitable now. (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10: A portfolio of stocks of ecological “best in class” companies had a better performance than the DJGI

A portfolio of stocks of ecological “best in class” companies had a better performance than the Dow Jones Group Index. Companies paying attention to the resource and energy flows going through the firm, tend to gain internal transparency and to enjoy better staff motivation and better customer relations. This is perhaps the most convincing explanation for their encouraging stock exchange performance.

It is to be feared, however, that the potential for making profits by eco-efficiency measures will be very limited if the present world market conditions prevail. Energy and natural resources are still too cheap because markets are rather blind with regard to long term scarcities and to such developments as the greenhouse effect.

Moreover, conventional policies in most countries have even subsidised the use of natural resources. André de Moor (de Moor and Calamai, 1997) has estimated that some 700 billion dollars are spent annually in subventions given to the four fields of energy consumption, water, agriculture and motor transport. This does not even account for all the tax advantages, free infrastructure and land given to investors. De-subsidising resource use will be an important part of ecological policy worldwide.

Another and related policy tool is ecological tax reform. In a world of growing unemployment and of scarce natural resources it just doesn’t make sense to draw the biggest part of fiscal revenues from human labour while resource use is essentially free of charges. The German government has made some first steps in that direction, as have many other European countries. Perhaps certain details were not well designed so that the programme is not exactly popular.

The EU is now introducing an international trade regime for permits of carbon dioxide emissions. Economists believe that this instrument can be more cost-effective than ecological tax reform.

This is just the beginning. I remain confident that future generations will find it easy to accept market interventions making scare resources dearer and abundant resources cheaper. That is pure economic rationality and should make countries richer, not poorer.

I hope that your innovative branch of industry with it’s fascinating advances in UV/EB and radiation curing will be part of the driving force for a more prosperous and more sustainable society world-wide!

References

• de Moor, André and Peter Calamai. 1997. Subsidising Unsustainable Develop­ment; Undermining the Earth With Public Funds. Toronto: Earth Council.
• Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins. 1999. Natural Capitalism. Creating the next industrial revolution. Boston: Little Brown
• Rees, William and Mathis Wackernagel. 1994. Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity. In A.M. Jannson (Ed) Investing in Natural Capital. New York: Island Press.
• Schmidheiny, Stephan and the Business Council for Sustainable Development. 1992. Changing Course. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Schmidt-Bleek, Friedrich. 1994. Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch? Basel: Birkhäuser.
• Weizsäcker, Ernst von, Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins. 1997. Factor Four. Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use. London: Earthscan.

The answer to this question should be yes and no.

Yes, we are closer than ten years ago. During all of he 1990s, an irritatingly optimistic mindset was dominating the world. The very expression of ‘saving the planet’ would not have been politically correct in these days, because it sounds ‘pessimistic’.

What caused the air of optimism of the 1990s? The Cold War was over, alright, that was a great relief because it was also the end of the fear of a Third World War. Capitalism was celebrated as the only remaining ideology, constituting the ‘end of history’, as Francis Fukuyama put it. In its radical, Anglo-Saxon version it was politically hailed as the engine of growth and thereby as a cure-all, with slogans like “rising tide lift all boats”. ‘Creative destruction’ was seen as legitimate whenever what was to be destroyed had a smell of communism. Well, markets are a growth engine and a healthy cleansing mechanism, but at least two billion people felt outright cheated and exploited. They saw their ‘boats’ sinking, not rising at all.

Stock exchange quotations were another cause of optimism, as they seemed to rise without limits. That was a deception, too, as the collapse of the ‘dot com’ bubble showed in 2000. Concerning the environment, the prevailing paradigm was the optimistic Kuznets curve of pollution, meaning that once countries turn rich they will spend enough money on pollution control, and countries end up rich and clean. In terms of local pollution, the Kuznets curve was a reality, but for global warming and biodiversity losses the paradigm was dead wrong.

I must say, I was in a state of alarm during the late 1990s about the careless optimism and the uncompromising arrogance behind it. I felt rather helpless raising my voice against it.

So I see with a degree of relief that the days of the blatant type of arrogance are over and that it has become almost mainstream once again to address the real problems. What made this sea change happen? There were many different factors. The billions of people in their ‘sinking boats’ are no longer silent. The world community has addressed their situation in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), acknowledging that markets will not do the trick. The end of the dot com bubble was a wake up call to some but the broader public did not hear the signals until the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007, originating in America but spreading worldwide. Some of the once celebrated investment gurus and their institutions got unmasked as irresponsible speculators using the money of credulous clients.

In the political arena, the military and ideological answer to the insidious attacks on the World Trade Center and other targets (‘9/11’), the “War on Terror”, more and more became a nightmare for all parties involved. The arrogant US unilateralism once impersonated by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz Pentagon lost its support even in the White House, let alone the US Congress after its mid term elections.

The environment is back on stage, after a quarter century of denial among the leading classes in the USA, and under the weight of evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the devastating pollution in the industrial centres of the high growth countries, notably China. The EU has taken the lead in politically addressing global warming, setting up the ETS, the European Trading System for carbon dioxide emissions. The two remaining candidates for the US presidency have expressed a clear commitment on mitigating global warming. China has become very serious about addressing pollution, climate, and energy efficiency. Renewable sources of energy constitute a dynamic growth sector. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is enjoying increasing visibility in the signatory states, i.e. nearly all states except the USA.

It is fair to summarise, then, that the last ten years have seen a tidal change in appreciation of the real problems the world community. Overcoming the arrogant optimism of the 1990 has been a huge and necessary progress.

It was necessary, but is surely not sufficient for an agenda of saving the planet. This is the core of the No answer.

Global warming got worse throughout the past ten years. New figures and extrapolations, e.g. from NASA’s James Hanson seem to show that stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide at 450 ppm is far from sufficient and that we should rather aim at 350 ppm, which is still well above the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm.

Biodiversity losses have accelerated, notably in the tropical countries. Fish stock depletion went on and partly accelerated. China aggressively began to access mineral and energy resources in Africa and elsewhere so as to continue its steep increase of resource consumption. India, Brazil, South Africa, Angola and a few other countries enjoy tremendous growth rates, all based on accelerated resource extraction, at a comfortably high price level. No end of the trend is in sight, not even a flattening of the curves. All countries of the world seem to work under the assumption that they have a right to the same kind of prosperity as the USA. And after many years of brainwashing that the American way of life was the best one could aim at, this assumption is hard to deny. But six or eventually ten billion people living by US American life styles is just not possible. We would need four or five planets Earth to accommodate their ecological footprints, according to the Global Footprints Network.

Thus in terms of climate and the ecological situation, the picture has become quite a bit grimmer, not better.

How can we now deal with this odd combination of the Yes and No answers? I submit that we can break out of the vicious circle of seeking wealth in material growth alone. I suppose we can decouple wealth creation from energy and material consumption very much like we decoupled wealth creation from the number of hours of human labour. The latter was the achievement of the Industrial Revolution. Labour productivity rose easily twenty fold in the course of 150 years of industrialisation. In other words, from one hour of human labour we learned to extract twenty times more wealth. Now is the time to do the same for energy and materials. We can learn and must learn to extract four times, ten times, and eventually twenty times as much wealth from one barrel of oil or from one ton of bauxite as we do today. Technologically speaking, this should not be more difficult than the rise of labour productivity. Resource productivity should become the core melody of the next industrial revolution.

Labour productivity rose in parallel with wages. Rising wages were justified by rising labour productivity, and rising labour cost stimulated ever further increases of labour productivity. Energy prices, on the other hand saw a secular decline (in constant dollars) over 200 years. The latest price hikes have not even brought us back to the price levels of some thirty years ago. Tragically, the political zeal has always been to keep energy prices as low as possible, thereby frustrating most attempts at increasing energy productivity. Energy price elasticity is very much a long term, not a short term affair. Infrastructure investments, which are crucial for an energy efficient society, take a lot of time.

What our societies ought to learn now is creating a long term trajectory of energy prices slowly but steadily and predictably rising in parallel with energy productivity. By definition, this would not cause any hardship, on average. But it would set a clear signal to investors and infrastructure planners that energy efficiency and productivity will become ever more profitable and necessary. It is bound to become more profitable and sexier even than the renewable energies.

If our societies, starting perhaps with the EU, embrace this new agenda of technological progress, and if later historians see the period between 1998 and 2008 the kick-off period for this new technological revolution, I suppose that those historians will agree that this time span has brought us closer to saving the planet.

If major parts of the Greenland or Antarctic ice covers were breaking off, the sea water table might rise by some five up to fifty metres, with catastrophic effects on coastal zones world wide.

If we want to stabilise the ecological situation, we should aim at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by some 50 percent. That would roughly suffice to prevent global concentrations from further increasing. Similarly, land conversion, chiefly in the tropical countries should be drastically reduced, at least by 50 percent.

On the other hand, poorer countries have a right to demand a doubling at least of world economic outputs, chiefly to the benefit of the South. Together these statements mean that we have to aim at least at a quadrupling of resource productivity! A factor of four in the increase of resource productivity would allow us to double wealth while halving resource use.

Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use has been the subtitle of a book which I co-authored with the US-American scientists Amory Lovins and his wife Hunter Lovins. The title was “Factor Four”.

Quadrupling resource productivity is an ambitious goal. Thinking it through it means nothing less than redirecting technological progress. In effect, what we are aiming at it the equivalent of what used to be the industrial revolution. For 150 years of industrial progress we have seen a steady increase of labour productivity. In the industrialised countries we have achieved a twentyfold increase in labour productivity since the early 19th Century. Developing countries including Brazil are making every effort to do the same.

Today, however, labour is no longer a scarce factor. According to statistics of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), over 800 million people are unemployed or have only access to marginal work. In this day and age, it somehow doesn’t make much sense for the world economy to go on and maximise robotics and other labour saving technologies while neglecting the really scarce factor of our days, natural resources.

Redirecting technological progress means to switch priorities from labour rationalisation to resource rationalisation.

Factor Four is approaching this challenge by giving practical examples. Fifty examples were collected to prove that a factor of four in resource productivity is surely available. Five hundred more examples could have been found but would have exploded the book. The idea is to encourage engineers and business people to look for further examples within the reach of their speciality.

To illustrate the approach of Factor Four, let me give just a few examples from the book:

• apartment buildings in cold Germany needing only ten percent of today’s heating energy.
• tropical houses needing no air conditioners or at least doing with 75 percent less electricity for room cooling.
• Amory Lovins’ “hypercar” which is designed to use only one-and-a-half litres per hundred kilometres.
• Replacing an old filing cabinet with a CD-ROM system which not only yields a Factor 10 or thereabouts in material and resource productivity but also allows you much quicker and more convenient data access.
• Curitiba’s bus system which is roughly a factor of four more resource efficient than the notoriously jammed circulation in cities like Bangkok or Lagos.
• Dairy products using only ten percent of today’s typical transportation or energy inputs.
• Technologies e.g. in paper manufacturing saving some 90 percent of the freshwater otherwise used.
• Business trips replaced by video conferences – saving perhaps 99 percent of the energy.

This last example, however, raises some warnings: once you arrange a video conference, you may even increase the propensity of its participants to go on travel anyway. Nevertheless, in emergency situations e.g. of scarce oil or massive green house effect fears, video conferences are available as an alternative to certain kinds of journeys.

Many of the factor four technologies are profitable today. Also, there is an encouraging experience on the stock markets: companies going for resource efficiency or eco-efficiency tend to fare better on the stock markets than those neglecting it.

Factor four may be the dominant melody for the next phase of technological development. But there are many more options to be considered. In particular, it is important to revaluate some of the virtues of traditional technologies, namely local production and renewable energies and materials, This, I understand, is the chief philosophy of Bolsa Amazônia. Lots of local produce can be harvested from Amazonian forests on a sustainable scheme. If factor four technologies arrive, demand for renewable resources are also kept at reasonably low levels therefore not inducing overexploitation.

To further increase the profitability of the factor four technologies and local products, the frame conditions can be systematically changed. Energy and water ought to be taxed while the taxes and charges on human labour should be reduced. This “ecological tax reform” has been introduced in most EU countries. I don’t see why it shouldn’t work in Brazil as well.

What may be more suggestive for readers of Bolsa Amazônia is that The transition from conventional products to more locally produced products is ecologically desirable as well and may also save energy and wasteful transport worth a factor of four.

Our culture would also greatly benefit from switching to local products and factor four technologies.

Developing countries are even more than highly industrialised countries on the winning side of the indicated technological revolution. To most of the developing countries, the import of oil or the construction of new power plant is very uncomfortably expensive and typically leads to even higher indebtedness. Factor four technologies could come as a very welcome relief.

It is my hope that Bolsa Amazônia will play a major role in disseminating such new ideas, l with a view to help preserve the unique treasures, both cultural and ecological of the Amazon region.

Let me at the outset distinguish two different tasks of environmental policy.

• One is pollution control which is predominantly a local and a national activity. The first twenty years of environmental policy in European countries were almost exclusively devoted to pollution control, and the role of the European Community – later Union – was chiefly to set standards that aimed at harmonising national pollution control legislation, and that more of environmental professionals both in the public and private sectors deal with pollution control.
• The other task of environmental policy relates to global and long-term challenges such as climate change, biodiversity losses and unsustainable lifestyles. This is rather a new field of concern and is still in its conceptual phase regarding policy making.

Prices can work for the environment in both arenas. But if one pricing instrument is successful in one of the two, it does not necessarily follow that it is applicable for the other as well.

For pollution control, pricing instruments abound and have greatly helped cleaning up the environment. A typical case has been the waste water charge the revenues of which were used to finance water purification installations. This system of charges most widely used in the Netherlands but also in all other EU countries was highly successful environmentally. It never was very controversial. It fully conformed with the polluter pays principle and it had the attraction that he who applied prevention measures in his factory was freed from the charge.

In a wider sense the same applies to user fees, refund systems, violation penalties and tradable emission permits for classical pollutants such as SO2 or NOx They too met with rather little public resistance when introduced.

Let me not lose more time on this subject because we would all agree very soon that prices work well to reduce classical pollution. Nevertheless, if the EEB wants to document the findings of this conference, I suggest to add an expert paper by an environmental economist on many successes and a few failures.

Let me instead turn the attraction to the other subject, of long term and global environmental problems, notably the greenhouse effect and life style changes.

Let me at this juncture mention one major difference between the two fields of concern. For classical pollution control you could say it is good to be rich so that one can afford costly pollution control. Or, with a slightly modified meaning you can quote Indira Gandhi that “poverty is the biggest polluter”. This famous statement goes down extremely well with developing countries, but equally well with traditional business people and other people in the North because it justifies them to go on with traditional growth strategies and claim that this is good for the environment.

The opposite, or nearly, can be observed when we address the greenhouse effect, biodiversity and sustainable life styles. Here clearly prosperity is the biggest polluter.

This is so embarrassing a phenomenon that economists and politicians prefer not to recognise its truth. They hastily invoke the sustainable development triangle which says that economic and social well-being are equally important as a healthy environment. And very soon they return to the comfortable and familiar paradigm of pollution control where economic prosperity was not at all suspicious. You will discover that in their argumentation the environmental corner of the triangle is always classical pollution control. I am afraid, for the time being I have to invite you to be extremely cautious, if you are an environmentalist, when that triangle of sustainability is put forward.

But now comes the shock for us advocates of pricing instruments: In a domain where prosperity is the biggest polluter, all of a sudden, you have to admit that prices are meant to reduce “prosperity”, – at least the kind of prosperity that is causing so much CO2 emissions, land use, traffic and avalanches of materials. If you want to reduce urban sprawl, you have to say that people shouldn’t live in one family homes and commute to work with their cars. You want them to cut their energy and water consumption. You want them to stop buying lots of unnecessary trash goods and having weekend trips to Malaga and Christmas trips to the Seychelles. Don’t expect anybody, let alone democratic majorities to agree with these objectives.

And yet, having said all this, I remain a staunch defender of pricing instruments also for the second set of problems. How can that be?

Well, it is because I am confident that, fortunately for the environment, different modes of prosperity are available. The core of that “sustainable prosperity” is a new universe of eco-efficient technologies. At the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy we have sketched out the landscape of that new universe. In a book which I wrote together with Amory Lovins, I gave it the simple title “Factor Four”, with the subtitle “Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use”.

The book features fifty examples, from automobiles to household appliances, from buildings to logistics, from industrial processes to farming methods, all demonstrating that a factor of four is available in energy or material efficiency.

The factor four universe can be seen as the Promised Land to those who deal with climate change, urban sprawl and biodiversity losses.

But there is a difference again with classical pollution technologies. Waste water treatment technology can be introduced in a matter of five or ten years, depending on the life cycle of the economy’s capital stock. In buildings, it may take fifty years to refurbish the entire stock of houses. The complete renewal of the car fleet may take thirty years. And a reasonable and comfortable reduction of urban sprawl may take a hundred or two hundred years.

“Factor Four” can be seen as the solid rock of technological insights which we need when talking about pricing instruments that work on the second category of problems. If we want to avoid attacking prosperity we should be patient with the existing capital stock.

The long time frame can also be expressed in terms of price elasticity. You would not expect the car fleet to react to an abrupt price signal, unless it is a brutal signal. However, if society knows that energy and other resource prices will go up for a long time with no hope of their coming down again, companies will strategically invest in resource efficient technologies. Consumer education will make resource efficient behaviour a prime objective. Academic engineers and scientists will target the basics of resource productivity. And public planning will shift priorities towards convenient mass transport, agreeable high-density urban planning and high resource efficiency in public buildings, transport systems and disposal concepts. As a result, the factor of four becomes a realistic perspective for all sectors.

Long term price elasticity means that price signals should be mild but predictable. The best of all worlds would be a political all-party agreement over thirty or fifty years to raise prices for scarce resources in very small and predictable steps, preferably in steps so small that technological progress can keep pace.

Please note that I am talking about a price corridor, not a taxation corridor. Taxes or other instruments would be used to reach the price corridor. In this ideal case, the monthly bills for petrol, electric power, water, space, virgin raw materials remain stable and on average the population is not suffering any losses in their lifestyles.

If the fiscal revenues from this operation go into reducing indirect labour cost, you would expect positive effects on the labour markets. And compared to business as usual scenarios, you would see human labour services becoming gradually cheaper, i. e. more affordable for the beneficiaries of that labour.

So much for the ideal world. I felt it was necessary to talk about the ideal world in order to provide orientation in this conflictual theme of price signals on the basic commodities of modern life.

Let me at the end very briefly address some of the practical problems.

First, with reference to the EEB’s campaign motives and targets, let me clearly say that I support them. It will be, however, extremely difficult with regard to reducing internal farm subsidies; it may be possible, however, to reduce export subsidies of farm products. It is reasonable to demand ten percent of all taxes to be environmental and to make the operation fiscally neutral, ie not to increase the overall tax burden.

Regarding the time frame, it is EEB’s right to ask for rapid results, but as a politician I can tell you that our machinery works rather a bit slower. Perverse subsidies too are difficult to remove. They are consistently targeted at politically influential parts of the electorate. Transport subsidies in particular enjoy extremely strong support not only from the immediate beneficiaries but also from the automobile and aircraft lobbies. Moreover, they tend to increase economic turnover which politicians call growth even if it does not contribute to any quality of life. But it is turnover, not quality of life that creates jobs.

Let me say a practical or political word about the price corridor that I am asking for. It is, let me admit it, highly unrealistic in our days. It requires two unusual things at once: a fiscal policy that flexibly responds to world market signals, and an all-party consensus in one area, which is perhaps the favourite battlefield for political parties. Also, it should be said that the price corridor it not easily attained with emission trading and other pure market instruments. An adjustment mechanism may have to be introduced to avoid brutal jumps that can occur in the course of free market fluctuations.

On the other hand, if the public is convinced that this gentle price corridor is a fair deal and the best guide rail to the Promised Land, it becomes increasingly more plausible for political parties to go for it.

This then brings me to my concluding remark. It is essential that we create a strong vision of what is necessary to avoid disasters from fossil and nuclear energy use, from rapid biodiversity losses and from resources. If that vision also contains a realistic and agreeable strategy of how to get from here to there, you will have the people behind you.

PS:

• In the discussion, Dr. Iannis Paleocrassas mentioned that as Greek Minister of Finance he had introduced a fuel tax flexibly responding to world market fluctuations.
• A few days after the conference, the coalition agreement was adopted between SPD and Greens in Germany. It reaffirms the exciting energy tax escalator and foresees a general review by 2004 of the green fiscal reform, with a view to potentially develop it further and more comprehensively.

Further information about the Conference and the EEB can be found on the EEB’s website.

On the other hand, we are already now overexploiting the earth. Just to stabilise carbon dioxide concentrations, we would need a reduction of annual carbon dioxide emissions by more than fifty percent. Similarly, ocean fishing should be cut in half. We seem to loose some fifty animal and plant species every day. To stop this trend, we ought to radically reduce land conversion. It is fair to say that we should reduce the consumption of natural resources by roughly a factor of two.

Fig. 1: The daily toll of environmental destruction.

Doubling wealth while halving resource use, that is quite a challenge. The answer could be quadrupling resource productivity. In a book co-authored by Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins, “Factor Four” (Earthscan, London 1997) fifty examples of quadrupled resource productivity are featured.

Fig. 2: Factor Four was translated in many languages.

My friend Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek goes considerably further and suggests to increase resource productivity tenfold: Factor 10 Institute.

If you are interested in the factor four agenda, have a look at some of my papers in this field. You may as well visit the Wuppertal Institute’s factor four homepage, administered by Raimund Bleischwitz.

My environmental interest go beyond the factor four agenda. In October 2002 I was appointed Chairman of the Bundestag’s Environment Committee. Here we are working on

• The adaptation to German laws of EU environmental directives,
• The interface of environment and agriculture,
• The promotion of renewable sources of energy,
• International environmental agreements,
• Commenting draft legislation from other policy fields.