Tuesday - March 24, 2009
Presentation of the "Bayer Climate Award"
Commemorative speech
Address by Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, Secretary General of the International Human Frontier Science Program Organization
(Please check against delivery)
The history of mankind is also the history of mankind’s energy consumption. Before fire was discovered, civilization as we know it was simply unimaginable. The first controlled use of fire dates back to the hominids, who lived 1.5 million years ago. Around 10,000 years ago, the process of development was accelerated following the arrival of agriculture on the scene in the Neolithic period, generating an enormous demand for arable land that could only be met through the use of slash and burn methods. Fire was also used for heat, light, cooking, and the production of metals and metal alloys such as bronze and brass. In essence, the story of our civilization is the tale of the technologies that are ultimately deeply rooted in the use of fire, that is the use of energy.
The Frimmersdorf power station in the lowlands of the Lower Rhine region burns up a good 2,000 metric tons of brown coal every hour to generate of total of 2,265 megawatts of electrical power. In turn, these 2,265 megawatts account for around only 0.5 percent of the primary energy consumption of the Federal Republic of Germany. 200 power stations of this type would therefore be needed to supply us with the 450,000 megawatts of power required by the some 80 million people in Germany. That equates to a good 5,500 watts per head. But as we do not exist solely on what we produce ourselves, but also rely on imported goods, the power required by each of us is actually more in the region of 10,000 watts.
At the same time, a large proportion of the world’s population currently has to get by on only 1,000 watts. 1.6 billion people do not even have access to electricity. Nonetheless, India, Indonesia, China and Brazil have all made the decision to grow rich, as we ourselves have. Even leaving population growth out of the equation, the end result is that the demand for energy will continue to grow.
Our current system of energy supply is built on fragile foundations. There are many reasons for this. Our resources are not infinite. As the world’s population continues to grow, so does its hunger for energy. The major power failures that occurred in the winter of 2006 clearly demonstrated that our power grids have only low buffering and storage capacities. There appears to be a very high level of dependency on political factors. For the second time in three years, Russia shut off gas supplies to Ukraine during the winter, a move that indirectly blocked supplies to Germany, too.
For all that, the most important and most pressing issue we face is the climate. The oil crisis at the beginning of the 1970s was purely an energy crisis. Today, any discussion on energy is also automatically a discussion on the climate. It is no longer simply a question of procuring energy, but of doing so in a way that is sustainable and will not impact on the climate.
But why is that? What evidence is there to support the claim that there is a direct relationship between the generation of energy and our climate? The keyword here is the greenhouse effect. This means that the surface temperature of a celestial body is higher than it would be if there were none of the greenhouse gases responsible for creating this effect. The gases allow short-wave light from the Sun to pass through, but reflect the components with longer wavelengths back onto the Earth’s surface. Without this phenomenon, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be -18 degrees Celsius. Due to the presence of these greenhouse gases, particularly water vapor and carbon dioxide, the actual temperature is more in the region of +15 degrees Celsius. As a result, there has been water on our planet in liquid form for 3.5 billion years – ultimately, that means the greenhouse effect is the reason for life on Earth.
Svante Arrhenius, the winner of the 1905 Nobel Prize who first described the role carbon dioxide plays in creating the greenhouse effect as early as the end of the 19th century, therefore viewed it in a more positive light. In a well-known work dating from 1886, he wrote that: “The increase in CO2 will allow people in the future to live under warmer skies.”
Today, we know more about the greenhouse effect. Above all, there have been significant advances in our understanding of its basic quantitative principles. Ice core samples taken in the Antarctic tell us that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never exceeded 290 ppm in the past 750,000 years. When accurate measurements first began to be taken in 1958, the level was 315 ppm. By 2008, that figure had risen to 385 ppm. The effects of this sharp rise of 30 percent in just 50 years are now becoming evident. Pack ice is melting rapidly in the Arctic summer and studies disclosed only recently have shown that the Antarctic – which had seemed as solid as a rock until now – has also become warmer at a rate of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade since 1957. The phases of seasons of the year are occurring earlier and earlier, with a shift of almost two days over the last 50 years – one of the best illustrations of this phenomenon is the migration patterns of birds. All of these factors leave no doubt that we are dealing with an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. To put it in a nutshell, we are simply pumping too much CO2 into the air.
So what can we do? There is certainly no shortage of ideas. On February 3 this year, and after some debate, an experiment was approved and carried out north-east of the island of South Georgia. It involved depositing 20 metric tons of iron sulfate into the sea at the center of an area of currents and eddies covering 300 square kilometers to create an algae bloom lasting two to four weeks. The aim is to examine the effects the sulfate has on the ecosystem of the ocean and how much CO2 the newly formed algae absorbs from the atmosphere.
In what could be viewed as a last resort in the worst case scenario, Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen proposes firing massive amounts of fine sulfate particles into the stratosphere to form a type of shield against some of the Sun’s light. This idea is modeled on the eruption of the Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines in 1991. The eruption blasted six million metric tons of sulfur into the atmosphere in the form of aerosols, an event that caused the Earth’s surface to cool by half a degree over the following year.
Experiments of this type fall into the category of what is known as geoengineering. However, there is some doubt about the benefits or otherwise offered by this approach. The sheer amount of time and physical space these experiments require is on a scale far beyond what most of us are capable of imagining. What’s more, the systems involved are so complex that it is impossible to predict whether such experiments will be successful. All in all, it seems it will be some time before we can turn to geoengineering as a solution.
An alternative method of reducing the amount of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere is to reduce the level of emissions. This brings us neatly to the topic of energy efficiency and, in turn, to the work of today’s award winner. His ideas and his work rest on the observation that our energy supply is not sustainable. Not only do we source our energy from finite fossil fuels, we also have a very cavalier attitude to the way we handle and use it. Currently, around two thirds of our primary energy requirements are lost unnecessarily in converting primary energy into a form that we can use for our day-to-day activities, such as driving.
However, it is not only energy conversion that is the problem. We must also consider heat loss in buildings and the enormous demand for energy-intensive materials such as steel, cement and paper. It was this realization that led Professor Jochem to coin the idea of the “2,000 watt society”. If a level of 2,000 watts per person could be achieved by the middle of this century, it would improve the efficiency of primary energy usage by a factor of 4-5. More energy efficiency, suitable energy saving measures, new technologies and appropriate incentives are essential if we are to reach this ambitious goal.
When it comes to energy consumption and CO2 emissions, the main culprits are transport, agriculture, services and the operation of buildings. Using careful analyses that precisely define the quantitative parameters of energy consumption for the first time, Professor Jochem and his colleagues have, over the past 20 years, demonstrated that the 2,000 watt society is technically possible. In the construction sector, the necessary technological and scientific conditions have long been in place. Today, “passive houses” can already be constructed at comparatively reasonable prices. However, old buildings pose a problem as, while they may have a long lifespan, current costs mean that the process of converting such buildings is not yet sufficiently cost-effective. As a result, incentives must be developed to encourage such conversions. This issue is also being considered as part of the discussions about CO2 emissions allowances.
In the industrial sector, there are numerous procedures and processes that need to be improved in terms of energy consumption. One of the prime examples identified by Professor Jochem is batch processing, a procedure that, in many places, is yet to be replaced by continuous processes. As a batch process always involves only one single process step, the system has to be fully reheated to the operating temperature each and every time. This alone accounts for 16 percent of the steam consumption. But that is not the only issue. If different solvents were used, boiling points could be reduced. More efficient catalysts would lead to lower reaction temperatures.
In some instances, there is the option of using more concentrated solutions in order to reduce the size of the reaction vessel. Professor Jochem has used numerous examples to illustrate these and many other possibilities. In doing so, he has transformed a gut instinct into something practical and tangible that sheds new light on the subject and has also succeeded in impressing industry leaders who also have a responsibility to consider depreciation and investment cycles.
Ultimately, the innovative aspect of his work lies in his integrated, systematic approach. Rather than tackling just one single process, no matter how complex, he focuses on entire networks, cities, regions and even countries, such as Switzerland. Distribution networks – such as airports, oil pipelines and financial markets – now surround us at all levels. And anyone recalling the public debates of the past few weeks will be forced to admit that there is a severe lack of understanding when it comes to the structure and dynamics of the global financial markets in particular. After all, nature teaches us that networks become less efficient the larger they become. Because an elephant’s circulation system is so much more complex than that of a mouse, the elephant grows more slowly, has a lower pulse rate and has a far longer gestation period (750 days compared to 267 days for Homo sapiens). The disadvantages of central networks are also evident in the development of modern-day agriculture. Between 1900 and 2000, agricultural production worldwide increased six-fold, while energy costs rocketed to 80 times higher than the original level. It is astounding that we continue to accept such a low return on investment. Mr. Wenning would certainly have a tough job if he presented those figures to his stockholders!
That’s why Bayer – and other organizations, too – are committed to energy efficiency in many different areas. I was able to find any number of impressive examples of this work in the 2007 Sustainable Development Report. They range from a 20 percent reduction in the level of CO2 emitted by company vehicles by 2012 to the development of stress-resistant plants and new starting materials for polyurethane that are based up to 70 percent by weight on renewable raw materials.
We also have Professor Jochem to thank for the fact that we now have the data needed to propose that the G8 countries increase their energy efficiency by 2.5 percent annually. The current figure is around one percent. This 2.5 percent increase in energy efficiency would make it possible to keep the concentration of CO2 under 550 ppm and return to 2004 levels of energy consumption by 2050. It would render the construction of two thousand 1,000 MW coal-fired power stations unnecessary and compensate for a total of 80 percent of the additional energy produced by such power stations that will be required worldwide by 2050.
Whether this can be implemented on a political level is another question. Professor Jochem has certainly delivered persuasive, quantitative arguments to support such action. There are also two other factors to consider – are our societies prepared to undertake such an intense level of technological commitment and alter their behavior accordingly? And are we prepared to educate and train the talented scientists and engineers needed to make all this possible?
When I think about the debate surrounding genetically modified plants in Germany and Europe, for example, I do doubt whether we have actually realized just how serious the situation is. The public discussion on these plants focuses on safety issues, even though, after three decades of research into safety, there is not the slightest evidence to indicate that these issues are of any significance. The relevant experiments have long since been completed and the results are unequivocal. Nevertheless, people continue to argue about how many centimeters or meters must separate genetically modified plants and plants with genetically engineered modifications and are not above using violent means to destroy such fields. Perhaps this time would be better spent asking how it can be that agriculture consumes 16 percent of all energy resources, more than the entire transport sector – including air travel – put together.
Are we in fact simply using new technology as a scapegoat because we don’t dare tackle the real issue of agriculture? If that is indeed the case, it does not auger well for sustainability or for sustainable energy policies. On one hand, the President of the German farmers’ association continues to promote crop power over nuclear power, advocating the intensive use of corn and grain to supply energy, although this approach has long been overtaken by other ideas. On the other hand, others are seeking to use wood and wood waste – which do not compete with foodstuffs for humans – to manufacture alcohol, that is biofuel. However, that cannot be done without the use of state-of-the-art technology, including genetically engineered modifications that alter the relationship and cross-linking of cellulose and lignin in the wood. This will not prove the ultimate solution to the puzzle of “energy supply” either, but it will help to boost the level of sustainability.
Science certainly works in mysterious and convoluted ways. In the early 1950s, tens of thousands of people in the United States and Europe died from polio. Many people will have vivid memories of the images of hundreds of patients lying in iron lungs. At the time, the development of a portable iron lung became a major subject of discussion until, quite unexpectedly, someone involved in an entirely different area of research succeeded in identifying the polio virus using quantitative methods. Jonas Salk then needed only three years before the first vaccine was ready to come onto the market in 1956. Shortly afterwards, the shadow cast by polio was consigned to the past.
But what does this example have to do with what we are discussing? Well, like many other examples, it serves to demonstrate that science cannot be compartmentalized and that progress can come from the most unexpected of quarters. A person who wrongly claims that work dealing with the genetic engineering of food crops is dangerous may put a halt to an entire field of research. In doing so, that person is not only hindering the discovery of unexpected developments in the future that could prove beneficial to us, he or she is also interfering with decisions governing areas of study, making our country a less attractive proposition for basic research in general.
The process of adapting the way we live to accommodate a sustainable energy supply is not an easy one. It costs money. It demands constant rethinking and completely new solutions. Professor Eberhard Jochem was one of the first people to not only alert us to what lay ahead, but also take action. He has shown us how things can be done and has fought for his ideas. We need people like Eberhard Jochem, people who are patient, or do not give up easily. Andrei Sakharov once said: “The future could be wonderful, or it may not happen at all. It is entirely up to us.” With this in mind, it was an easy decision for the Bayer Climate Award committee to choose to award first prize to Professor Eberhard Jochem.
Ad multos annos!
The history of mankind is also the history of mankind’s energy consumption. Before fire was discovered, civilization as we know it was simply unimaginable. The first controlled use of fire dates back to the hominids, who lived 1.5 million years ago. Around 10,000 years ago, the process of development was accelerated following the arrival of agriculture on the scene in the Neolithic period, generating an enormous demand for arable land that could only be met through the use of slash and burn methods. Fire was also used for heat, light, cooking, and the production of metals and metal alloys such as bronze and brass. In essence, the story of our civilization is the tale of the technologies that are ultimately deeply rooted in the use of fire, that is the use of energy.
The Frimmersdorf power station in the lowlands of the Lower Rhine region burns up a good 2,000 metric tons of brown coal every hour to generate of total of 2,265 megawatts of electrical power. In turn, these 2,265 megawatts account for around only 0.5 percent of the primary energy consumption of the Federal Republic of Germany. 200 power stations of this type would therefore be needed to supply us with the 450,000 megawatts of power required by the some 80 million people in Germany. That equates to a good 5,500 watts per head. But as we do not exist solely on what we produce ourselves, but also rely on imported goods, the power required by each of us is actually more in the region of 10,000 watts.
At the same time, a large proportion of the world’s population currently has to get by on only 1,000 watts. 1.6 billion people do not even have access to electricity. Nonetheless, India, Indonesia, China and Brazil have all made the decision to grow rich, as we ourselves have. Even leaving population growth out of the equation, the end result is that the demand for energy will continue to grow.
Our current system of energy supply is built on fragile foundations. There are many reasons for this. Our resources are not infinite. As the world’s population continues to grow, so does its hunger for energy. The major power failures that occurred in the winter of 2006 clearly demonstrated that our power grids have only low buffering and storage capacities. There appears to be a very high level of dependency on political factors. For the second time in three years, Russia shut off gas supplies to Ukraine during the winter, a move that indirectly blocked supplies to Germany, too.
For all that, the most important and most pressing issue we face is the climate. The oil crisis at the beginning of the 1970s was purely an energy crisis. Today, any discussion on energy is also automatically a discussion on the climate. It is no longer simply a question of procuring energy, but of doing so in a way that is sustainable and will not impact on the climate.
But why is that? What evidence is there to support the claim that there is a direct relationship between the generation of energy and our climate? The keyword here is the greenhouse effect. This means that the surface temperature of a celestial body is higher than it would be if there were none of the greenhouse gases responsible for creating this effect. The gases allow short-wave light from the Sun to pass through, but reflect the components with longer wavelengths back onto the Earth’s surface. Without this phenomenon, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be -18 degrees Celsius. Due to the presence of these greenhouse gases, particularly water vapor and carbon dioxide, the actual temperature is more in the region of +15 degrees Celsius. As a result, there has been water on our planet in liquid form for 3.5 billion years – ultimately, that means the greenhouse effect is the reason for life on Earth.
Svante Arrhenius, the winner of the 1905 Nobel Prize who first described the role carbon dioxide plays in creating the greenhouse effect as early as the end of the 19th century, therefore viewed it in a more positive light. In a well-known work dating from 1886, he wrote that: “The increase in CO2 will allow people in the future to live under warmer skies.”
Today, we know more about the greenhouse effect. Above all, there have been significant advances in our understanding of its basic quantitative principles. Ice core samples taken in the Antarctic tell us that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never exceeded 290 ppm in the past 750,000 years. When accurate measurements first began to be taken in 1958, the level was 315 ppm. By 2008, that figure had risen to 385 ppm. The effects of this sharp rise of 30 percent in just 50 years are now becoming evident. Pack ice is melting rapidly in the Arctic summer and studies disclosed only recently have shown that the Antarctic – which had seemed as solid as a rock until now – has also become warmer at a rate of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade since 1957. The phases of seasons of the year are occurring earlier and earlier, with a shift of almost two days over the last 50 years – one of the best illustrations of this phenomenon is the migration patterns of birds. All of these factors leave no doubt that we are dealing with an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. To put it in a nutshell, we are simply pumping too much CO2 into the air.
So what can we do? There is certainly no shortage of ideas. On February 3 this year, and after some debate, an experiment was approved and carried out north-east of the island of South Georgia. It involved depositing 20 metric tons of iron sulfate into the sea at the center of an area of currents and eddies covering 300 square kilometers to create an algae bloom lasting two to four weeks. The aim is to examine the effects the sulfate has on the ecosystem of the ocean and how much CO2 the newly formed algae absorbs from the atmosphere.
In what could be viewed as a last resort in the worst case scenario, Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen proposes firing massive amounts of fine sulfate particles into the stratosphere to form a type of shield against some of the Sun’s light. This idea is modeled on the eruption of the Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines in 1991. The eruption blasted six million metric tons of sulfur into the atmosphere in the form of aerosols, an event that caused the Earth’s surface to cool by half a degree over the following year.
Experiments of this type fall into the category of what is known as geoengineering. However, there is some doubt about the benefits or otherwise offered by this approach. The sheer amount of time and physical space these experiments require is on a scale far beyond what most of us are capable of imagining. What’s more, the systems involved are so complex that it is impossible to predict whether such experiments will be successful. All in all, it seems it will be some time before we can turn to geoengineering as a solution.
An alternative method of reducing the amount of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere is to reduce the level of emissions. This brings us neatly to the topic of energy efficiency and, in turn, to the work of today’s award winner. His ideas and his work rest on the observation that our energy supply is not sustainable. Not only do we source our energy from finite fossil fuels, we also have a very cavalier attitude to the way we handle and use it. Currently, around two thirds of our primary energy requirements are lost unnecessarily in converting primary energy into a form that we can use for our day-to-day activities, such as driving.
However, it is not only energy conversion that is the problem. We must also consider heat loss in buildings and the enormous demand for energy-intensive materials such as steel, cement and paper. It was this realization that led Professor Jochem to coin the idea of the “2,000 watt society”. If a level of 2,000 watts per person could be achieved by the middle of this century, it would improve the efficiency of primary energy usage by a factor of 4-5. More energy efficiency, suitable energy saving measures, new technologies and appropriate incentives are essential if we are to reach this ambitious goal.
When it comes to energy consumption and CO2 emissions, the main culprits are transport, agriculture, services and the operation of buildings. Using careful analyses that precisely define the quantitative parameters of energy consumption for the first time, Professor Jochem and his colleagues have, over the past 20 years, demonstrated that the 2,000 watt society is technically possible. In the construction sector, the necessary technological and scientific conditions have long been in place. Today, “passive houses” can already be constructed at comparatively reasonable prices. However, old buildings pose a problem as, while they may have a long lifespan, current costs mean that the process of converting such buildings is not yet sufficiently cost-effective. As a result, incentives must be developed to encourage such conversions. This issue is also being considered as part of the discussions about CO2 emissions allowances.
In the industrial sector, there are numerous procedures and processes that need to be improved in terms of energy consumption. One of the prime examples identified by Professor Jochem is batch processing, a procedure that, in many places, is yet to be replaced by continuous processes. As a batch process always involves only one single process step, the system has to be fully reheated to the operating temperature each and every time. This alone accounts for 16 percent of the steam consumption. But that is not the only issue. If different solvents were used, boiling points could be reduced. More efficient catalysts would lead to lower reaction temperatures.
In some instances, there is the option of using more concentrated solutions in order to reduce the size of the reaction vessel. Professor Jochem has used numerous examples to illustrate these and many other possibilities. In doing so, he has transformed a gut instinct into something practical and tangible that sheds new light on the subject and has also succeeded in impressing industry leaders who also have a responsibility to consider depreciation and investment cycles.
Ultimately, the innovative aspect of his work lies in his integrated, systematic approach. Rather than tackling just one single process, no matter how complex, he focuses on entire networks, cities, regions and even countries, such as Switzerland. Distribution networks – such as airports, oil pipelines and financial markets – now surround us at all levels. And anyone recalling the public debates of the past few weeks will be forced to admit that there is a severe lack of understanding when it comes to the structure and dynamics of the global financial markets in particular. After all, nature teaches us that networks become less efficient the larger they become. Because an elephant’s circulation system is so much more complex than that of a mouse, the elephant grows more slowly, has a lower pulse rate and has a far longer gestation period (750 days compared to 267 days for Homo sapiens). The disadvantages of central networks are also evident in the development of modern-day agriculture. Between 1900 and 2000, agricultural production worldwide increased six-fold, while energy costs rocketed to 80 times higher than the original level. It is astounding that we continue to accept such a low return on investment. Mr. Wenning would certainly have a tough job if he presented those figures to his stockholders!
That’s why Bayer – and other organizations, too – are committed to energy efficiency in many different areas. I was able to find any number of impressive examples of this work in the 2007 Sustainable Development Report. They range from a 20 percent reduction in the level of CO2 emitted by company vehicles by 2012 to the development of stress-resistant plants and new starting materials for polyurethane that are based up to 70 percent by weight on renewable raw materials.
We also have Professor Jochem to thank for the fact that we now have the data needed to propose that the G8 countries increase their energy efficiency by 2.5 percent annually. The current figure is around one percent. This 2.5 percent increase in energy efficiency would make it possible to keep the concentration of CO2 under 550 ppm and return to 2004 levels of energy consumption by 2050. It would render the construction of two thousand 1,000 MW coal-fired power stations unnecessary and compensate for a total of 80 percent of the additional energy produced by such power stations that will be required worldwide by 2050.
Whether this can be implemented on a political level is another question. Professor Jochem has certainly delivered persuasive, quantitative arguments to support such action. There are also two other factors to consider – are our societies prepared to undertake such an intense level of technological commitment and alter their behavior accordingly? And are we prepared to educate and train the talented scientists and engineers needed to make all this possible?
When I think about the debate surrounding genetically modified plants in Germany and Europe, for example, I do doubt whether we have actually realized just how serious the situation is. The public discussion on these plants focuses on safety issues, even though, after three decades of research into safety, there is not the slightest evidence to indicate that these issues are of any significance. The relevant experiments have long since been completed and the results are unequivocal. Nevertheless, people continue to argue about how many centimeters or meters must separate genetically modified plants and plants with genetically engineered modifications and are not above using violent means to destroy such fields. Perhaps this time would be better spent asking how it can be that agriculture consumes 16 percent of all energy resources, more than the entire transport sector – including air travel – put together.
Are we in fact simply using new technology as a scapegoat because we don’t dare tackle the real issue of agriculture? If that is indeed the case, it does not auger well for sustainability or for sustainable energy policies. On one hand, the President of the German farmers’ association continues to promote crop power over nuclear power, advocating the intensive use of corn and grain to supply energy, although this approach has long been overtaken by other ideas. On the other hand, others are seeking to use wood and wood waste – which do not compete with foodstuffs for humans – to manufacture alcohol, that is biofuel. However, that cannot be done without the use of state-of-the-art technology, including genetically engineered modifications that alter the relationship and cross-linking of cellulose and lignin in the wood. This will not prove the ultimate solution to the puzzle of “energy supply” either, but it will help to boost the level of sustainability.
Science certainly works in mysterious and convoluted ways. In the early 1950s, tens of thousands of people in the United States and Europe died from polio. Many people will have vivid memories of the images of hundreds of patients lying in iron lungs. At the time, the development of a portable iron lung became a major subject of discussion until, quite unexpectedly, someone involved in an entirely different area of research succeeded in identifying the polio virus using quantitative methods. Jonas Salk then needed only three years before the first vaccine was ready to come onto the market in 1956. Shortly afterwards, the shadow cast by polio was consigned to the past.
But what does this example have to do with what we are discussing? Well, like many other examples, it serves to demonstrate that science cannot be compartmentalized and that progress can come from the most unexpected of quarters. A person who wrongly claims that work dealing with the genetic engineering of food crops is dangerous may put a halt to an entire field of research. In doing so, that person is not only hindering the discovery of unexpected developments in the future that could prove beneficial to us, he or she is also interfering with decisions governing areas of study, making our country a less attractive proposition for basic research in general.
The process of adapting the way we live to accommodate a sustainable energy supply is not an easy one. It costs money. It demands constant rethinking and completely new solutions. Professor Eberhard Jochem was one of the first people to not only alert us to what lay ahead, but also take action. He has shown us how things can be done and has fought for his ideas. We need people like Eberhard Jochem, people who are patient, or do not give up easily. Andrei Sakharov once said: “The future could be wonderful, or it may not happen at all. It is entirely up to us.” With this in mind, it was an easy decision for the Bayer Climate Award committee to choose to award first prize to Professor Eberhard Jochem.
Ad multos annos!
Search
Links
Publications
Stockholders' Newsletter
Annual Report
Sustainable Development Report
The Bayer Climate Program
research – The Bayer Scientific Magazine
Publications Overview
Newsletter
Download
Press Information( PDF 25 KB )
Download nowAdd to Download Center
Press Information( RTF 96 KB )
Download nowAdd to Download Center
Your selection: 0
Download(s)
Contact