Can we plan the future of the next generation: what will John and Mary in 2150 say?

Volker Hessel

doi:10.1515/gps-2013-0055

Artikel Öffentlich zugänglich

Can we plan the future of the next generation: what will John and Mary in 2150 say?

Volker Hessel

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 23. Juli 2013

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen

Aus der Zeitschrift Green Processing and Synthesis Band 2 Heft 4

Currently many platform groups plan for the future – the future of energy and chemistry. We talk about the “Biomass era”, “Peak oil”, “Renewable fuels”, “Solar fuels”. Energy and chemistry are more linked than most chemists are or at least were aware of (at least over the last 10 years). Fuels are burned to release energy and also partly (ca. 10%) used to make chemicals by creating platform chemicals which are then further converted in a kind of synthesis tree down to the fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

Now, the problem is we are running out of fuel. At least, that is what we are told. I remember textbooks in the 1970s that terrified me as a young student, which said that the oil would run out in the next 30 years, and yes we should have fuelled our cars with something other than gasoline. We will probably be using gasoline for the next 30 years, at least. In Germany, there was an even more topical discussion which peaked around 1980 to 1983 on global warming. It concerned with the “Acid Rain”. Some forests in Southern Germany (Bavaria) were seriously devastated – with trees dying, and it was the same for the neighboring Czech region. It was predicted we would lose major parts of our forests. We learn, expert statements can be wrong – very wrong; for various reasons such as to overemphasize our own interests to focus funding and attention, the influence of politicians, interest groups and society with fixed opinions, or simply to give a statement based on insufficient information and statistics.

Those who thought to plan their own future had to learn to plan for future generations. Currently we believe that the oil available to the West will last another 40 years. Russia has gas reserves that will last another 250 years. The world reserves of gas will last much longer, than those of oil. Discovering shale gas has given gas even here more push to a prolonged use of gas. Alternatives to fossil fuels include biomass and solar fuels. These are currently being heavily used. We may convert methane to methanol and use this as platform chemical. Thus, it remains unclear when biomass and solar fuels will take over from fossil fuels. Seeing that we still have large fossil reserves this change will probably be more gradual than abrupt. Bulk chemistry is, at least in Europe, done in highly integrated factories which exist as fully interlinked entities in the greater concept known as ChemPark. This is something of a dinosaur as regards size but much different in terms of evolutional flexibility as ChemParks adapt to market needs.

The fact is that I at 48 years of age, do not plan my own future anymore neither when I do research nor when I act as an expert, for example, in a parliament’s Enquete Commission which plans the future of chemistry in Germany’s large state North Rhine-Westphalia. This state is home to approximately 35% of all Germany’s chemical power plants and big companies such as Bayer, Henkel, Lanxess and many international companies from Japan and Korea. We must all decide the future and biomass may be favoured. For this much land may be needed. In some of the most picturesque places of the world such as in Indonesia, where currently the rain forest is taken for monocultural palm oil farms, man is already using approximately 12% of the available land for agriculture. More than 10% is used for urban living. From the remaining 75% (Antarctica included) we can probably only use 15%. This will not be enough to solve the energy problem, without destroying the natural world. Do I really want this? To give a devastated, boring environment to the next generation? No. I feel we essentially need nature in the way the philosopher Nietzsche thought: as relaxation to have inspiration to get new ideas.

Moreover, are we actually legitimate in deciding how the world will be for future generation. Yet, what is the alternative? If we do not decide, a disaster may happen. I try to imagine a young man (John) and a young woman (Mary) in the year 2150 for which our decision will have an impact. This may be too much responsibility or I may need to think again, to sleep, to be relieved from the pressure, and thus to make wise decisions. All previous industrial revolutions happened over a 20 to 30-year time span, like the steam engine or the airplane. Now we have the opposite, change comes quickly. One thing is clear once decided change can be difficult and any misstep leads to a loss of decades.

Do I want to live in such future, so unknown and with such huge problems to solve? I do not know. I was born in 1964 in a very lucky year (the birth of the Beatles). I am happier that I was born then and not later. I feel some cultural pessimism coming, not my style normally. I will return energized to chemistry. Will John and Mary in 2150 honor us and be happy for our wisdom? I will not know how things work out but eternity like in the Roman Empire is needed. I return to work.

About the author

Volker Hessel

Published Online: 2013-07-23

Published in Print: 2013-03-01

Artikel in diesem Heft

https://doi.org/10.1515/gps-2013-0055