Keynote Speech at

The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference in Tokyo

on 27 September, 2005

Buildings Technology

in the Vanguard of Eco-efficiency

Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, MP

1

Buildings Technology in the Vanguard of Eco-efficiency

Keynote Speech at the 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference in Tokyo,

on 27 September 2005

Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, MP1

Your Imperial Highness, Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am deeply honoured by your kind invitation to give a keynote speech on buildings technology in the vanguard of eco-efficiency. Alas, I am not an expert at all. When I was reading in the Abstracts volume prepared for this conference, I felt like shrinking at each page because of the impressive body of knowledge that is accumulated there. The best I can do, perhaps, is to offer a few thoughts on why buildings technology should be at the vanguard of eco-efficiency.

Sustainable human settlements development is one of the biggest challenges of our times. It has been included in the UN Millennium Summit and, as Goal 7, in the Millennium Development Goals. There the commitment is made to achieve significant improvement in the lives of 100 million slum-dwellers by 2020. And that under the conditions of a rapidly growing urban population, estimated to some 60 million new dwellers annually. This breath-taking figure alone shows how unbelievably important it is to move towards sustainable city planning and housing.

Conventional urban construction invariably leads to additional resource consumption. Almost by definition, the “ecological footprints” increase with further urbanisation. Increased footprints, on the other hand, are perhaps the biggest factor of environmental degradation.

The world is on a course of conflict between economic development and dwindling environmental resources. The power distribution, however, is not symmetric. The power is with the economy, although many people would be extremely happy if the degradation of the environment could be stopped.

With regard to pollution control (an extremely important issue in urban areas), the world has reached a very reassuring harmony: the better the economy, the better pollution can be controlled. Historically, countries seem to go through the “inverted U-curve” or Kusnets curve development. They start poor and clean, then they industrialise and get rich and dirty, and then they are rich enough so that they can afford pollution control so that they ultimately end up rich and clean.

1 The author has been Member of the German Parliament (Bundestag) from 1998-October 2005. From 1991-2000 he served as president of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Effective January, he will assume the function of the Dean of the Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

2

Fig 1 The Inverted U-curve paradigm

This is a fabulous justification, isn’t it? for economic growth strategies. Correlating with this justification, we remember Indira Gandhi’s famous statement made at the first UN environment conference at Stockholm, 1972, that “Poverty is the biggest polluter”:

Fig 2 Indira Gandhi: Poverty is the biggest polluter

The Kusnets curve and Indira Gandhi’s complaint have been repeated over and over again by representatives of the developing countries. Both are simply very convenient to justify conventional growth strategies. This also applies for the business and political communities in the North.

The very unfortunate thing about this harmonious paradigm is that the two biggest environmental problems of our days, biodiversity losses and climate change follow a completely different logic! Here it is clearly the rich who are the biggest “polluters”.

Fig 3. Climate and biodiversity: The rich are the biggest polluters

Poverty is the biggest

polluter.

Indira Gandhi 1972

Climate and bio-diversity:

The rich are the biggest polluters.

3

Regarding biodiversity losses, the main cause 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 the “ecological footprint” according to William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel, caricatured in the next picture:

Fig 4: Caricature of the ecological footprint We in Western Europe have footprints of some four hectares per person, and in the US and Canada, footprints are rather like eight hectares. India’s footprints are something like 0.8 hectares, and the Chinese perhaps 1 hectare. The US, Germany and Japan can sustain their big footprints only by “exporting” much of them to countries like Brazil, Indonesia or Russia. 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. But it will be predominantly the task of the North to change its technology and civilization with a view to

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 5: CO2 –concentrations and temperatures correlation

4

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

Fig 6: IPCC temperature projection for the 21st century

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

Fig 7: Also the sea water table goes with temperatures

5

The difference between high and low water tables is more than 100 metres, which means that coast lines will heavily vary. The above 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 8: Italy’s coastline changed with polar ice coverage

6

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 9: Global warming in Greenland: freshwater coverage in summers 1992 and 2002

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, according to Peter Tooley, disintegrated during a few decades, perhaps even a few weeks some 7800 years ago, letting the sea water table rise by some 7 metres:

7

Fig 10: Tooley’s record of flood marks show a non-linear jump 7800 years ago

Imagine what such a mega-event would mean for Tokyo and the Kansai region or for Bangladesh, The Netherlands and the US Golf coast!

What do we have to do to prevent such disasters from happening? It is plausible that at least we should try to stabilise 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 11: We get doubled CO2-emissions instead of a 50%-reduction

8

Fig 12: Developing countries will drastically increase their CO2-emissions China, India and other countries are drastically expanding their industrial outputs, their motorised transportation and their energy consuming for housing and agriculture. So we shall see China and India to have emissions similar to those of the US:

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

Fig 13: The world energy pie: mostly fossils

9

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 14: Carbon trading in Europe led to doubled prices within half a year

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 15: Feed-in tariffs have spurred renewables production in Germany

China is about to copy the German system and is now planning a major international Renewables 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.

10

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 Amory Lovins’ and my book “Factor Four. Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use”, which is available in twelve languages:

Fig 16: Factor Four translated into all major languages

It has been known since a long time that lower energy intensity is a sign of modernity. We therefore see the Factor Four story as a true continuation of technological modernisation and progress:

Fig 17: Energy intensity shrinks with technological modernisation Let me now open a window to you to look into the new universe of eco-efficient technologies. Let me start with my co-author Amory Lovins’ favourite idea, the “hypercar”, which allegedly does 150 miles a gallon, or needs only 1,5 litres per 100 km. It is based on the hybrid car technology now so successfully used by Toyota’s Purius but adds a few additional features.

11

Fig 18: Amory Lovins’ favourite, the hypercar, is four times more fuel efficient than today’s fleet Some remain a bit sceptical about its success but according to Amory, some 2 billion dollars have already been invested in the concept.

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 efficiency than typical mountain buildings.

Fig 19: Rocky Mountain Institute in the midst of ice and snow but energy self-sufficient

12

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 20: German passive houses reduce heating needs by some 90%

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

Fig 21: The Fellbach (Stuttgart) Zero-Energy house

13

If wood is used instead of concrete and steel, as was the case in old Japan, you easily become ten times more carbon efficient. Fig. 22: Wood for buildings saves CO2

Wooden buildings can actually be beautiful and easy for maintenance.

Fig. 23: Beautiful wood houses

Even large wood constructions are available using modern technologies of glue.

Fig. 24: Julius Natterer’s trade fair hall, all from wood

14

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 25: Old versus new light bulbs, - and the LED revolution is just waiting

The next picture shows a small cooling chamber to replace the refrigerator that stands freely in the kitchen.

Fig. 26: Cooling chambers can be very energy and material efficient

But even freely standing refrigerators can be extremely efficient. I am learning with pleasure that Matsushita hat come up with a refrigerator three times more energy efficient than the present market average. The new development was probably triggered by Japan’s “Top runner programme”.

15

Water scarcity is one of the biggest problems of the world. 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 27: Water use in paper manufacturing can be reduced by a factor of 12

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

Fig 28: Clumsy steel versus modern Japanese steel

16

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 conferences do not easily substitute for business meetings in Bali or the Bahamas.

Fig 29: Video conferences can substitute for some business travel

Textiles need a lot of water and other raw materials. I was glad seeing a German textiles manufacturer advertising low resource goods:

17

Fig. 30: Hess Natur advertises low resource consumption in manufacturing

Another field of wasteful use of energy is modern agriculture. Winter tomatoes grown in greenhouses in Holland tend to need a hundred times more energy than they afterwards contain! I was glad to learn that this nonsense is being phased out by the Dutch. With intensive cattle farming, however, the ratio is not much better. Organic farming is roughly by a factor of four more energy efficient.

Fig 31: A factor of four is available in farm produce

Transport intensity is another folly. Let me show you 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.

18

Fig. 32: Mad transport intensity in Germany for strawberry yoghurt

I hope that by taking a glance into the new universe of factor four technologies you feel encouraged yourself to become a pioneer in the upcoming technological revolution.

Even today you have a chance of being economically rewarded for leading the pack in eco-efficiency. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index that includes existing eco-efficient companies appears to have a slightly better stock exchange performance over the years than the Dow Jones Group Index.

19

Fig 33: Dow Jones Sustainability Index seems to beat Dow Jones proper

And if you compare different countries using the World Economic Forum’s Competitiveness Index you see a slight positive correlation with the Sustainable Development Index of the same countries. Finland has managed to be on top in both indices.

Fig 34: Finland is on top both at sustainability and competitiveness

Let me, however, emphasise that the factor four- factor ten revolution is a continuous process. It may take thirty or fifty years to achieve a factor of four, and sixty or eighty years for a factor of ten. What we cannot afford is to conveniently wait until haphazard technological advances come in. We should rather engineer the revolution by an appropriate incentive structure.

Moreover, we must realise that technology is not all. Also cultural issues are important. To demonstrate what I mean, let me show you a funny reflection on economic growth in the kitchen shown in a series of pictures that I received during the Johannesburg 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development from a Swedish friend. The pictures are self-explaining:

20

Fig. 35: 1954 – one cookbook, 2000 an entire library; 1954 – simple equipment, 2000 a whole battery of machines.

21

Fig. 36: And the Sunday dinner: 1954 a feast, 2000 MacDonalds!

It will be important for old cultures as we have them in Europe and Asia to remember what has given families and individuals non-ending satisfaction without a big lot of resource destruction. Let boldly say that the aggressive “culture” conveyed in our days from the Hollywood film industry (Sin City or Mr. and Mrs. Smith) is the opposite of what we need if humankind wants to survive and to share the planet with other miraculous creatures.

Your Imperial Highness, you spoke about homo sapiens’ responsibility of sharing the planet. You also deplored the lack of progress towards sustainable development since the Rio 1992 Earth Summit. Right you are!

Let me try and submit to you some considerations explaining why we had so little progress. I suggest it had to do with the new phenomenon called “globalisation”. It is indeed a new phenomenon, as I found out when serving at the German Bundestag as Chairman of its Globalisation Committee. I asked newspapers about the occurrence of the term globalisation. The answer was quite clear: the term emerged in 1993, a few years after the end of the Cold War.

Fig. 37: The term globalization emerged after the end of the Cold War

During the Cold War, capital owners and capitalists had very strong reasons continuously to prove that capitalism was better than communism even for the poor and for the environment. This gave the State in the West a strong bargaining power against capital owners to go ahead with social and environmental policies.

22

However, after 2000, when the Soviet threat had disappeared, hence in the absence of any major political competitor, capitalists began to behave like monopolists typically do. They began to do what they like to do anyway but were prevented from doing by the State. They just concentrated on the shareholder value. A relentless global cost competition broke out leading to cost cuts wherever possible even at the expense of the environment. To survive on world markets, and to show good quarterly reports, you cannot afford to incur major costs for future generations. So what happened was an accelerated mining of the environment!

Assuming that none of us wants to return to the Cold War or any other similarly dangerous situation, we have only one solution left, namely greening capitalism. We have to create conditions where sustainable business is more profitable than unsustainable business.

One approach to that is green regulation. Japan has been a pioneer in this during the entire phase of pollution control. Now you have introduced new measures to encourage energy and materials efficiency. Notably the Top Runner Programme is something the rest of the world should copy. You identify the most energy efficient appliance or car on the markets, call it the “top runner” and admonish all manufacturers to attain equivalent efficiency within a couple of years. Moreover, since about 1997, the year of the Kyoto Protocol, you have initiated a Green Purchasing Network of companies, municipalities an provinces committing themselves to green procurement for the daily purchasing needs.

The Japanese road, however, contrast squarely with the prevailing climate of deregulation. Business is complaining everywhere about so-called red tape regulation. Well, I do share sympathies with business managers burdened by too much bureaucracy. But then, we have to join hands to find less bureaucratic measures to make capitalism ecologically sustainable, and I find the Top Runner Programme rather a good example of creating competition on the markets for environmentally sustainable solutions.

However, there may be even simpler methods available. My favourite slogan is to make “prices speak the ecological truth”. How can we do that? One measure is tradable permits of pollution including of CO2. I indicated that prices of permits went up considerably in Europe after the introduction of the scheme, and that under the soft conditions of the Kyoto Protocol. Prices would skyrocket if we were turning to the much more ambitious targets I indicated before. Let us realistically not assume that an ambitious regime is going to be agreed upon worldwide in the foreseeable future. But the idea should be kept on the agenda.

A much softer strategy could be launched by a very long term Ecological Tax Reform. If properly designed, it could even be introduced at the national scale, although international harmonisation would be highly desirable. In an ideal setting what I would propose is the following: Prices for energy and other resources should be moved upwards in proportion with efficiency gains. If petrol efficiency goes up this year by 3%, the country can easily tolerate a 3% petrol price increase next year. The same could hold for average electricity efficiency.

Of course, processes and equipments that are unable to increase their efficiency would gradually lose ground and would be phased out. But exactly the same happened with labour productivity! Labour prices during more than 200 years went up in excellent proportion with the increase of labour prices. As a result, the more labour productive methods replaced the less productive, and that was called technological progress. Countries that were slow in that progress would lose out against the quicker ones. So don’t be afraid of phasing out your energy wasting dinosaurs!

23

Another attraction of the idea has to do with unemployment, the biggest social scourge of our days. The fiscal revenues collected from adjusting resource prices upwards can be used chiefly to reduce indirect labour costs. That makes labour more affordable for the firms and for the state. It becomes more profitable to lay off kilowatt-hours than to lay off people.

If political parties from all camps agree on that avenue of predictable but slow price increases for natural resources, and that for ten or thirty or fifty years, you would see manufacturers and infrastructure planners, architects and home-owners, engineers and financial managers, private and public consumers enter a competitive race for ever better eco-efficiency.

Assuming further rising crude oil and other resource prices, you would expect countries pioneering the trend to be very successful on the markets (like Finland is today).

If the idea of a long term ecological tax reform is too wild for the moment, I can also offer a more conventional idea that has become a reality in The Netherlands. The former Dutch parliament and government introduced a tax break for ecological pension schemes including green stock market portfolios. They work under the restriction of including only stocks of companies that are certified for sustainable operations, services and goods. As a result, the respective segment of Dutch capital markets expanded fifteen fold over five years. And when the new conservative government wanted to scrap the scheme, public protest were so intense that the government gave in.

In the context of SB05Tokyo what you might wish to propose is a tax break for green real estate funds and, correspondingly, a tax penalty for unsustainable real estate funds.

Let me conclude, your Imperial Highness, ladies and gentlemen, that homo sapiens after having conquered the world has the undeniable responsibility to work seriously towards a sustainable future of this earth. Architects, engineers, academic teachers, the financial business community, the media, politicians and the public at large should join hands in this important endeavour, with a lot of creativity and optimism.

May SB05Tokyo serve as a powerful impetus towards this goal.

Thank you for so patiently paying attention!