Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: What environmental technologies actually exist, and do they even move the needle on climate change? In Room #874 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group digs into a free-transit thought experiment, a solar megaproject buried by national interests, a 2008 government master plan nobody updated, and why the climate needs better marketing. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A wonderful good morning to all of you. Today we’re continuing with the topic of environmental technologies and climate change, and looking at what environmental technologies exist and how they affect climate change. That’s the question we want to look into this morning. I’ve looked for a very brief definition for you first, as a starting impulse. There are more extensive definitions online too, of course, but let me bring in the short version here. There’s a definition you can find in the Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon, and in short it says that this covers knowledge potential and technical processes aimed at reducing environmental burdens. There’s already a somewhat longer definition to be found there too, as I said, feel free to look into it further, but I think we can use this as a starting impulse. And it’s fairly broad, so basically quite a lot of aspects and technologies fall under it. And then I looked further online, and found the keyword “environmental technologies” at the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection too. And if you look at the overview there, you quickly see there are keywords covered here, each with further subpages available too. So this is huge, what falls under this. The keywords you find on the main page are things like export initiative, environmental technology atlas, environmental technology export service point, EU action plan, master plan environmental technologies, and under these main categories, so to speak, further technologies and various ongoing measures are categorized, or clustered, you could say. So this already shows it’s fairly broad, and of course various aspects are hidden underneath it. Certainly one thing or another we’ve touched on in the past few days, like wind turbines or things like that, falls under this too, of course. And then it gets exciting to maybe bring some of these things we’ve already touched on together in one place or another. That’s one option. The other option is this opportunity to look at it specifically from this climate-change angle, and add things, bring up aspects we might not have considered yet, and for the ones we might have already discussed, to look at it in terms of climate change specifically. So does this actually have an effect? Does it have any kind of effect on the climate at all? And how sensible is it to actually follow one technology or another, or put more resources into it? And since we’re not experts in this field, it’s not about you explaining any technologies, or already knowing or not knowing the effects. But we do pick up on one thing or another through the discussions and debates taking place. And so I think if we simply bring together what we’ve picked up, followed, and look at it together in this exchange, something will come out of it. Because maybe one person read a positive article about something, while another says, yes, but I also found this and that. And that’s the direction we’ll move in in this room, so to speak. And I’m really, really curious what comes out of it. So you’re all warmly invited every morning to join in with your first thoughts, impulses, question marks. And then we’ll see how we can continue with that. And yes, just a reminder for anyone joining for the first time today, the room is being recorded for the entire time, and by joining you agree that it’ll be published. Then we have three small room rules — a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence. I can only take these kinds of comments into account. If you don’t want that for whatever reason, want to stay anonymous, or whatever the background is, you of course have the option to use the chat instead. I can then gladly bring in one comment or another over the course of the discussion. Right, and with that, let’s get started, and not let too much time pass. You know it’s always a bit of a challenge with the recording, for anyone listening afterward, not to leave too long a pause. I’ll mute myself now and just hope we can get started right away.
A wonderful good morning, dear Layla. It’s getting loud behind me right now — one moment, let me close the window, and I’ll give you a sign once I’m back.
There, wonderful, now we can start, dear Layla.
So, a wonderful good morning to you and everyone in the audience. Well, climate technologies and climate change — it’s good again that you said we don’t need to be experts, because I’m not an expert. But I do know we have a very hot summer ahead of us. I know I don’t have a car. I know I don’t even have a driver’s license, and so I probably have a very small ecological footprint, since I don’t take that many flights either. But I’m not mad at Kim Kardashian for that, because she takes flights. I’m more — I direct my attention toward people where I think, could they not spare themselves that, what responsibility do they have. And yes, we’re quickly at the topic of morality there. Yasemin, I noticed this in myself, internally, and thought, yes, because it’s important to us, and because it boils up so much. But it really is incredibly important. And you know what I thought? We had that 9-euro ticket last year, and it was great. And you know why? Because the ticket inspectors had a lot less to do. It was much more relaxed. Yes, the trains were incredibly full — that was actually the point of it. Now we have the 49-euro ticket, that’s 40 euros more. For an average person, that’s an amount where you think, wow, yes, it’s a lot, but I can ride across all of Germany with it. Nobody’s grumbling about that. But that’s an example of something where I think, we don’t even need some huge technology for that, and we could still reduce a problem that gets talked about so often. And yes, if I look at it economically, I have to say, that helped a whole lot of people, and I would have wished for that, for example. And that would never have needed to be some huge technology. And yes, I’d find it nice if everyone could afford to do something for the climate. Thanks for listening.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And that’s an interesting aspect you bring in too, right at the start here. Especially against the backdrop that I mentioned just a few days ago that a friend of mine had been to Australia. That was mainly about public transit within the city, but that’s exactly the kind of thing that was an intention there too — that in some places they charge nothing at all, meaning they don’t take any money in the city for transporting people from A to B, because they want to create this attractiveness, on one hand so people have fewer cars themselves and drive less, and on the other hand, in terms of the big city, so to speak — because especially in big cities, the more cars are in use, the more traffic jams and so on we get, especially at the times when people start or finish work, when the streets are full. And to reduce that, also for the sake of the climate, an attractiveness gets created through a completely different channel here, namely that it’s a resource made available for free, so that people think twice, and through the benefit they get from it, maybe discover that it’s actually not so bad, in inverted commas, to take the train, and switch accordingly. That would of course mean that financing needs to be found elsewhere for this. That means this too requires corresponding thought, and financing needs to be made possible somehow — whether that’s tax money structured or used differently. And here too there have been interesting discussions in past years, because if you look closely at the numbers, questions keep coming up as to whether tax money is really being used sensibly in one place or another, and whether it wouldn’t make more sense to spend that money on other things. And so I find this a really, really exciting starting point. Do you have further aspects that come to mind, or would you like to add something else? And the others are warmly invited too, to open up further aspects from their own perspective, and gladly with a critical eye too, to look at what initiatives already exist today where we might say, well, whether that’s actually all that helpful is worth questioning too. So not just from the positive perspective of what would help, but maybe there are also certain aspects where we can already recognize, from our point of view, that it’s not really beneficial or helpful, but maybe gets hyped up more in one place or another than the actual effect it produces. Layla.
Yes, I was just thinking to myself, Yasemin. So of course, our climate has to do with economic interests, that’s just how it is. It has to do with the fact that we have responsibility. And it has to do with convenience. That’s really true. And look, I thought about this from my own perspective. I’ve never had a driver’s license. I don’t even know what it’s like to get in my car and drive from A to B. So I’ve been a passenger, but I’ve never had that freedom until now. That’s why train travel, for example, isn’t so complicated for me. That’s why I found it really interesting when you said that, and thought, yes, but we need to ramp up the attractiveness. And not just the attractiveness of a city by buying benches for 40,000 euros that are then gold-colored — I think a shoutout goes to Wuppertal, I’m not sure if it was them, but it was very, very interesting. And, well, I don’t know, Mario Barth fills entire shows with how money gets wasted like that, and he’s not the only one, by the way. I don’t know, but I think we need to ramp up this attractiveness. Maybe also really look at where I’m being comfortable. I like to say this again and again — we now call it mindfulness and slow food. Before, we used to call that being sustainable. Before that, we called it saving. We were frugal. Fermenting is now becoming a huge trend again, and I think, yes, I get it, but that was already in fashion at my grandmother’s house. And I think we’ve become very comfortable. And yes, a lot of things suffer because of that, especially the climate. And it’s good that we have the option, but we should also be given the options to make it attractive. And what’s actually stopping us from making all public transit in big cities free? I think that’s a wonderful idea, and there’s really nothing that speaks against it. And if someone says there’s no money for that, they should watch some of the shows on ZDF and other channels about how tax money gets used otherwise. Politicians could do that too, and then think, okay, where am I going to put the money this time. Thanks for listening.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And this aspect of attractiveness in this context plays an important role precisely because, if we look at it from the neuroscience angle again — you’ll remember, we don’t have a reason to change in the first place, and that reason doesn’t come from someone appealing to our reason. That’s nice, but that’s just not how we’re wired. That applies to everyone equally. Our brain keeps asking itself the question, does this threaten my existence? That’s one question. But especially with topics like climate and so on, you could of course say, well, that does threaten us. But here too, other aspects flow into it — do I even really have a big influence on it, or how much of an impact does what I do actually have? And if I don’t think so, then that’s enough — I’m not personally, not immediately threatened at that point. And the second question our brain asks is the benefit. And if I don’t have a benefit, in inverted commas, then it becomes difficult to activate the motivation system, so to speak, and actually take action. There are moments where that’s relatively simple, basically, but if I say, for example, there are no costs here versus I have high costs, say, through fuel costs, insurance costs, and so on, if I have a car myself, then people start thinking, over time, about whether they’d want to secure that benefit for themselves, in inverted commas. That means, on one hand, the rational level is there, but the rational level, the level of reason alone, to really get people moving in higher numbers, so to speak, needs more than just appealing to our reason, or having some kind of external regulations forcing us, in inverted commas, to move in a different direction. And that’s something we should take into account here too, of course. And I’ll bring in our next guest, Erdal, in a moment. Erdal, I have to honestly admit, I saw your name and clicked “bring up” right away, and didn’t realize you don’t have a profile photo today. I’d like to invite you to bring in your thoughts and contribution now, and ask you to then swap out your photo afterward, simply for fairness toward the others. A lot of people will already know you, I know you too, but there are certainly people in the room who might not know you yet, so I’d ask you to do that. And just a note to the others who might be wondering why Erdal is allowed to join — I just saw it too late, because I acted on the name, since I already know Erdal. A wonderful good morning, dear Erdal.
Good morning, thank you. That actually connects to my contribution. I know about this rule, and I only put a specific image up there — it doesn’t claim to be accurate, but it’s meant to get you thinking — where it shows how much solar area you’d need, fitted with photovoltaics, to supply a given region with energy. And they chose a continent that’s very sun-rich, Africa, for this. And the scale that’s illustrated really gives you something to think about — you see a really small dot on the map and it says, that would supply Germany, that would supply Europe, and a slightly bigger dot, that would supply the whole world with energy, with electricity. As I said, it doesn’t claim to be accurate, but it points to this technology that currently makes it possible to gather larger amounts of energy, transport it over greater distances too, or use it locally, whether for direct use where it’s needed, in that country or continent, or to say, you could use it for seawater desalination, which requires a lot of energy, and make a continent livable that’s blessed with sun but not so blessed with drinking water — but also bring in an economic aspect and a perspective there. Now here’s the interesting part — I believe this project was buried in 2015, where a European consortium had set out to build the Desertec project in Morocco. And that was exactly about this — on one hand, supplying the local site, and on the other, desalinating seawater and supplying the European continent with electricity. But it failed due to, let’s say, international interests of corporations and countries. So it just wasn’t politically wanted. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible, though. And even if transporting it to Europe hadn’t been cost-effective, you could’ve founded a whole new industry in Africa, which desperately needs one, and a perspective for life-sustaining measures for the region, which might also have somewhat contained the refugee issue — but all of that failed. That doesn’t mean we can’t still do it though, and I believe it’s currently still being pursued by Morocco and a French corporation — interestingly, I believe the same French corporations that were largely responsible for the project’s failure back then. But that’s what I wanted to point to. So it would theoretically be possible, at least at certain times of day, to obtain energy more or less for free, of course with an initial investment — but it simply doesn’t get done. So the options we have — and this is one of the technologies, and using it at a larger scale, since we have a global problem — will simply stay unused. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you so much. And of course various factors play a role here that come together. You mentioned it, one thing or another fails, for example, due to international coordination and so on. That means it’s not limited to one country, but requires a corresponding insight, or a corresponding motivation, whatever you want to call it, to act hand in hand here too. And of course there’s also, within the discussion that takes place, independent of aspects like infrastructure, where investment first needs to happen and so on, also the fact that there are of course various views on what’s more helpful. One person might say, we need to do something toward PV systems, another says, it’s more this or that we should use. And that of course takes time in one place or another too, because it’s always a pro and con of various aspects. And the question arises here too, to what extent does it need to be this or that technology? We’ve seen in a lot of places that it’s not really about favoring one thing, but rather it’s more a kind of interplay of various technologies that come together and work together. And that’s not just about implementing new technologies, but also has to do with user behavior in various places, or how we design cities and so on — so there’s also this topic of urbanization, and things are changing there too, and in urban design, for example, one thing or another needs to be taken into account accordingly. But especially if we look at it from Germany’s perspective, there are relatively many “gaps,” in inverted commas, because in a lot of places the infrastructure isn’t even close to being built out. That means it’s basically not just a matter of thinking, “I’d like to introduce some new environmental technology here,” but also the complexity behind it, that implementing one thing or another sometimes needs to be planned for years. So it’s not just the area factors that need to be considered here — you brought that image with the area factors. I think, if I remember correctly, that would be one million square kilometers for the whole world. And the question arises here too, what would that actually look like, what would that mean, and what timeframe would that need, for example, to actually get implemented? That means the time factor, due to missing infrastructure and so on, is another essential factor to consider here too. Would you like to add anything else here? Yes, Layla, go ahead.
Yes, I was just thinking to myself — I find this really exciting, and in this context I also thought about poverty and similar topics. I once saw a graphic in some magazine, I don’t remember which one, about how you could fight world hunger. And there were examples like, if everyone in the world stopped using deodorant for a year, you could achieve this and that. And I thought, wow, it could really be that simple? And then I thought, no, that’s actually complicated, because it also has to do with my interest in smelling good — can I really impose that on everyone? Where does it become intrusive? What am I allowed to decide for someone else, and what not? And then we also have economic interests, Yasemin, and what he described there, I find really interesting. It would actually flip the global market, because we have resources, and these resources shape economic relationships. And if you ask various politicians — if you watch shows, and not just in Germany, but right now in Germany specifically, I recently heard a politician say he’d ramp nuclear power back up. Well, even coal, that was subsidized too, until it got phased down, and that took forever too. And I understand that to some extent, because if I worked there and my job could disappear, I’d find that awful too. And if I had a resource, and economic relationships have gone in a certain direction for decades, centuries — okay, I have this and that, and you need it — then that would flip around. And I think that plays into it too. It made me a bit sad, because I thought, well, I’m not a climate activist, but I am interested in the climate, and I understand it too when people say, well, we need to change something. And then I thought, yes, and what Yasemin said is so right, because it’s a bit like smoking. You know smoking is harmful, and I say that because I smoke myself — I know it’s harmful, but the cigarette I’m smoking right in this moment probably isn’t going to cause anything terrible to happen. I can’t really imagine that yet. And I think that plays into it too — this “we,” when someone tells us, well, it’s just going to get warmer. Great, finally a 30-degree summer. Awesome, this summer will be one of the hottest. Great, 2004 was great too. In Tunisia it’s over 50 degrees this year, that’s been announced. Probably somewhat normal for an African country, and still, over 50 degrees. If you’re old, or very young, that’s not so healthy — it can affect your circulation. But if I’m young, it probably doesn’t concern me. If I don’t have a chronic illness, it probably doesn’t concern me either. I need to be a bit careful with heat. And that’s the point — it’s about interests. And I find that so fascinating, because, well, I don’t know, it’s supposed to be attractive. It’s supposed to cost me as little as possible. It’s supposed to change my life as little as possible. And if it does change something, please let it be an improvement. And then, sure, let’s put those things out in the ocean that generate energy — that would be great. Yes, wonderful. And then it gets louder, I’ve now heard, and the fish leave. And so, oh, that’s not so cool either, I don’t know. So I find it a bit depressing, because I have this feeling that at some point someone sat down, went over the map, drew some lines, distributed it all nicely, and yes, now we’re standing here and have to figure out how to navigate between attractiveness, economic interests, and conditions that have been this way for decades or centuries. But I want to keep my job too, so I understand it to some extent as well. Yes, thanks for listening.
At the latest once you bring in these economic aspects and interests, the dimension of the complexity becomes relatively clear quickly too. Because if we pick up this aspect — what can I actually dictate from outside, and what not. To a certain degree we have regulations that, for example, are meant to create framework conditions for certain industries in one direction or another, within Germany or the EU too. At the same time, though, because it’s not global, but only applies to Germany or the EU, that of course also has the effect that one thing or another becomes more expensive to implement for someone, say, in agriculture, farmers for example, or similar. And here we very quickly get to the topic that comes up next, something like competitiveness and so on, which you also shouldn’t underestimate. That means, the moment various regulations, maybe even sensible regulations — because they’re not all bad or all good, there are certainly sensible ones, and for one or another you could say the underlying idea is, in inverted commas, good per se — but if you look at it in implementation, it can lead to competitive disadvantages and so on. And with the thought that we also import goods, products, food and so on from abroad, we very quickly get this competitiveness issue too, which in turn triggers chain reactions, and also threatens the livelihoods of certain people in certain sectors. So you can’t ignore that either, what chain reactions that then triggers in turn. And so I’m really curious what other factors or aspects come into play here. Jürgen has signaled too, so I’d like to bring in Jürgen now, and then we can gladly make some cross-connections again too. Good morning, dear Jürgen.
Good morning, dear Yasemin, and good morning everyone in the room. My initial thought to share with you concerns two terms. The original term, environmental technology, one, and what you brought up last, that was also a keyword for me, competition — and thanks to you for that, I’ll offer a contribution about this previously planned project, which unfortunately by now has to be considered a failure. Some lighthearted remarks about the term first, because I once again started from the term itself, and I know there’s a federal ministry that has made environmental technology its core competency, namely the one for environment, nature conservation, and nuclear safety. So I went to their website, and very quickly, right on the first page, I came across a link, namely a “master plan environmental technologies.” And we’re talking about environmental technologies here, so I was happy that there’s actually a master plan — most of you can probably do something with that term. I clicked on it, and then I found out — and this is no joke — that this master plan is from November 12, 2008. I’d just like to let that sit in the room for a moment. So a federal authority’s overall responsibility for what’s now recognized as a key technology of our future is based on a master plan from the year 2008. And on the second point, both competitiveness and the topic Erdal brought up, why did it fail? I see the point you already made quite clearly — those are national interests and very specific power structures that got touched and weighed against each other on one hand, and the other thing is the topic of competence, for me — and you probably won’t know this, but around the corner from me in Rosenheim there’s a university that offers a bachelor’s program in environmental technology, and because of today’s topic I looked at the curriculum, and then the term “environmental technology,” what are we actually talking about, became a bit clearer for me too. And then we’re back at our favorite topic, dear Yasemin, complexity. If I look at the curriculum, without going into detail, students are required to have knowledge in chemical technology, engineering sciences, materials science, process and procedural engineering, and mathematical and scientific fundamentals. Now, these are certainly all subject areas that get required in other degree programs too, especially in engineering sciences. But the message for me, even for this degree program, is that it requires highly networked thinking to position yourself with competence there, to do justice to the complexity of the topic of environmental technologies. I think I phrased that quite nicely, didn’t I? So, as I said, what stands above all this for me is that environmental technology requires not just political will, and a current one at that, but also, again, the topic of networked thinking — not just inter- and intra-disciplinary within the sciences, but also across the board, globally, in coordination and harmony with all the people, and those governing them, on this globe. An enormous challenge, and thank you for listening.
Yes, absolutely. Thank you, thank you so much, and it’s nice that you bring up universities in this context too, because developments are happening there accordingly too. Not only are new degree programs emerging, where it becomes clear that interdisciplinarity is called for — that you really need a combination from different angles, against the backdrop of different fields, from the original discipline, so to speak — but there are also developments, for example, where bachelor’s and master’s programs get handled as before, and beyond that, specializations, deepenings in certain areas get offered, where this complexity then gets picked up in this deeper context. And discussions are happening here too, in inverted commas. I was just, well, these are considerations that need to be made too, from a modular design perspective, from a didactic preparation perspective. And I briefly told you about this one collaboration that’s coming, without mentioning names, because it’s all still in the works. And there too, against the backdrop of this complexity that comes together, there were considerations of whether you can even offer such a specialization already in a bachelor’s program, or whether it needs to come at the master’s level, to ensure it’s manageable within the given framework, in inverted commas — how many modules are available, how much time is available, which disciplines need to be picked up in this context, to first make specific know-how in the field accessible at all, to shed light on it, and then show the connections and bring it all back together. And that was one of the topics we discussed in this context, by the way — this wasn’t specifically about environmental technology, but a different combination that was involved. But it became very, very clear quickly, and led us to decide that we’ll make this specialization, which is supposed to be offered starting next year, accessible at the master’s level, to ensure that missing foundational knowledge doesn’t mean it has to get picked up first within the specialization, when it should actually already be a prerequisite so you can dive straight into the deeper material. So that shows, with all these measures and support structures being put in place, the reach of complexity that keeps coming up here and needs to be considered and accounted for, because otherwise it simply won’t work at that point. And I find this aspect really exciting too, especially thinking about universities and education in general — it shows that it’s no longer the case, in inverted commas, like it used to be, that you just learn within one subject area, but the topics increasingly require us to move into a certain interdisciplinarity. I still remember, years ago, when I registered my dissertation, I spoke with various faculties and raised the aspect of whether there might be a way — since it all falls under a Dr. phil. in my case, so the umbrella is relatively clear — but within the Dr. phil., to have an advisor from one field, say, in my case that was educational science with a focus on adult education, and choose another field, say, psychology, because that could’ve had various other components, sociology and so on could’ve fit the topic too — so that you’d really have different advisors with different perspectives on the dissertation, basically, and not just approach the topic from one perspective, but actually shed light on the topic from different perspectives, as it deserves. And that got rejected back then, and it was quite interesting why it ultimately got rejected — because of course they also keep statistics, and they said, well, we’d love to supervise your work, along those lines, but you’d have to decide whether you want to do your doctorate in educational science or in psychology, and they didn’t allow it, because of course the numbers flow in afterward, in terms of which field it ultimately got completed and submitted under. And you can see there which factors play a role, ultimately. That means the interest of the department was somewhere else entirely. And that shows that a rethink is needed here too, a change in the framework conditions, to then open up new doors, think differently, and handle topics differently too. As I said, this was years ago — I can’t say whether the decision would still fall the same way today, but in one place or another I can imagine it would, which is a shame, because it doesn’t really contribute to actually advancing this interdisciplinarity where it’s needed. And still, we do see developments at various universities, where one thing or another, through focus areas or new degree programs being introduced, does bring about change, which is a positive development per se. The question is just whether we’re not already far too late in one place or another. Of course you can’t change what’s in the past, but we can ask ourselves this question in a lot of other places too. That means time, as we said, is also a factor, an important factor that plays into this too. That means, with new decisions being made, to also take into account, in the planning and implementation phase, maybe moving a bit away from this expectation that everything already has to be perfectly planned, and to bring one thing or another into implementation faster. Because we observe this in our own behavior too, even during planning, that somehow everything first has to be finished, everything thought through in detail, before it can start. And there’s a complexity here too, of course — on one hand I can’t just rush in carelessly, but on the other hand I also need a certain speed of implementation, and if everything, in inverted commas, and I’ll say this quite provocatively, gets discussed to death and nothing comes out of it in the end, in inverted commas, then the question is whether we’re really on the right track here. Layla, Erdal, Jürgen, do you have further additions? Layla, go ahead.
Yes, I was just thinking that the climate really needs better marketing. So whoever feels called to do that, please do, because it’s important for us, for all of us. And I was just thinking, well, the world keeps getting more complex, and we had opposing views on that already too, whether it’s getting more complex or just faster — things need time, and you said that correctly. And still, you know, Jürgen, if the plan is from 2008, and it’s a good plan, that’s great. But if it ended up in a filing cabinet and nobody looked at it again, and only picks it back up when it serves certain interests — a re-election, or “oh, this is topical right now, we have climate activists, oh, now we have to do something.” And by the way, nuclear energy is actually pretty cool. No, it’s not, if we don’t know where to put the waste. I don’t know if that’s actually a fact or not, but as far as I know, substances get produced there that we don’t know what to do with, that we have to store in salt formations, where we have to put up a sign saying, please do not open, and then hope nobody actually does that, so the world stays as it is. And, I don’t know, look, whether I buy a Teflon pan and release some substance into the environment that way — there were some good shows on that topic too — or whether I do something else, I have to make decisions. I know that. Decisions get made by my brain, and that has to do with attractiveness. And still, I believe we all have responsibility. And just like I have responsibility when I light a cigarette, we also have responsibility when we flip a light switch. And you really noticed that this past winter — tell people, we need to turn the temperature down now, and the outcry was huge. Let’s say we’d done it more like, “no, we need to think about the next generation, that’s why you should do this” — “no, well, I’m going to keep going, I want to take long-haul flights.” I understand that. And still we need to figure out how to untangle this a bit. So, I’m back at the topic of education — that we simply help people make this decision. And that we really try, as Jürgen said, to decide things a bit more globally, and not based on economic interests, or “this substance is great, I’ll just release it into the environment now, because it’s really cheap to produce, and besides, there’s no known negative effect so far, so go for it.” Well, I don’t know, I don’t want to use the word reckless — well, I just used it anyway — but I do find it a bit difficult, honestly. That’s why the climate really needs better marketing, because it’s really important for all of us.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much, and especially because marketing, and the stories that get told, so to speak, play such a special role here — I already mentioned earlier this week that we’re expecting Thomas Pyczak this Sunday for this very topic, to look at storytelling under this umbrella too. And that really does play a very essential role that shouldn’t be underestimated, which a lot of people might not even be aware of. That means we’ll also, in inverted commas, prepare and make accessible stories, so to speak, under this aspect of storytelling, to create motivation, for example, to make people want to get involved, contribute, and so on. And we’ll look into these topics accordingly this Sunday at 8am under the umbrella “Bestselling Authors.” So you’re all very warmly invited to join us there too. And we’ll also pick up this aspect you mentioned in passing, Layla, about waste and so on, again this week too, actually, on Saturday, when it’s about economy and sustainability in that room, and we’ll bring in recycling topics, for example, as keywords too, to set corresponding impulses and take a closer look at that. So I find it wonderful that the first connections are already being made here, so we can build wonderful bridges. Erdal and Jürgen, do you have further additions or thoughts you’d like to bring in, before we slowly move into today’s closing round? Erdal, go ahead.
Yes, I’ll jump ahead to my closing remarks, because I have another meeting coming up shortly. What I find interesting — I recognize myself in this aspect, I can find myself in the thought Layla brought up, that one of the reasons why exemplary projects like Desertec fail is this human tendency to ignore the now versus the future perspective. So, saying, right now I can give myself, or do to myself, something that’s supposedly good, with the perspective that I’ll be worse off long-term, but that’s so far away that it doesn’t concern me for now. In the same way, a country, a corporation, can decide, I know exactly that I actually need to do this, that I’m in a position here to move something globally, but I don’t do it, because right now I’m interested in maximum profit, and accordingly, why should I care about the long-term perspective. My perspective right now is to get a great severance package in the next five to ten years, and that’s what I’m working toward. Everything else, we’ll see — that doesn’t concern me. That’s the part where you need an institution that, by mandate, doesn’t actually have these personal interests, but has the common good in mind — that’s actually the government, or governments, who would actually have the mandate to keep the common good in mind, and not just their own personal interests and advantages. Because then you could connect the dots and say, future technology and production and prosperity for your own country, and a perspective, energy and work and prosperity for another country, and fundamentally address a globally emerging issue that simply can’t be solved locally or nationally. And when you put all of that together, it seems so extremely simple, and almost insane, that people aren’t actually capable of making that happen. Thank you.
Yes, great, thank you, thank you so much, Erdal. And yes, and if you say, for example, that this is why we need an “authority” that takes care of this, or keeps an eye on it, then we relatively quickly tend to think in the direction of regulations or something like that, along the lines of, if you don’t do it voluntarily, then it needs to be centrally mandated, for example, and then we’re relatively often quickly at regulations. And here too it’s worth making clear again that, sure, one thing or another might get implemented, but we’ve already talked about how this triggers chain reactions too, and competition, for example, shouldn’t be neglected either, and what that means for people’s livelihoods and so on. So the aspect of, if there’s such an authority, or who is this authority — the government, for example — then looking at what other possible means there are to act here, in inverted commas. And then we’re already relatively quickly back at this communication aspect too, storytelling, which plays a really special role here, to move people, maybe without regulations, along the lines of “now you have to” or “you’re bad if you don’t,” in inverted commas, but to find other means and ways instead, which then also requires that the corresponding knowledge is there, that you understand the connections, and how people tick, in inverted commas, and that it’s not just about doing pure politics, but really other fields that are relevant here too, so that I’m even able to shape the communication accordingly, and so on, in order to get people moving, in inverted commas. Right, with that I’d like to move into today’s closing round — Jürgen, then Layla, and then I’ll wrap up and announce tomorrow’s room. Dear Jürgen.
Thank you, dear Yasemin. Let me briefly pick up on your last train of thought, and that’s also why I’m grateful for today’s room, because this room too has added fuel to something that’s been turning in my mind for a while now, not just regarding this topic, but generally, across a broad range of topics with an entrepreneurial basis. And that’s the topic of complexity. We keep running into two or three really essential core themes across all our topics. That’s, on one hand, education, and on the other, complexity. You also mentioned communication, which ranks at the same level for me. But with this topic too, it was, for me, about continuing to develop this train of thought regarding how you deal with, how you manage complexity. And for me that’s a meta-level that can be applied to all subsequent specific topics, professional topics, to companies, to industries, and to political action. How do we deal with complexity? And I can’t go into detail here, but just one mental hook for myself, a possible meta-level, to make this more concrete. I always have the choice to view a complexity as a given, and derive political actions from that, which I can then always justify with this given complexity, as is happening right now. But on the other hand, I also have the option to say, no, I no longer accept this complexity, I reduce it. And I reduce it in light of our neural makeup, by creating a clear distinction from the outset between what benefits me and what threatens me. Your topic, dear Yasemin. That should also be my closing word on this topic. Have a nice day, all of you.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And that’s exactly the theme that keeps popping up here again and again. And it’s really exciting too, that it shines through so strongly across different overarching themes and so on, and makes it so clear. And I’m really glad and grateful, in these rounds, so to speak, and in this exchange, this dialogue that takes place, that it becomes really, really massively clear that it doesn’t matter, in inverted commas, which topics we pick up — we always come back to these essential points, education and complexity, and then with this connection, how people tick, so how our brain works — and it’s not really about having a medical degree, but understanding the basics, basically, in order to make that connection, and also to pick this up in the planned measures, in inverted commas, and, as you put it so nicely, Jürgen, to reduce complexity by taking these circumstances into account accordingly, the neural circumstances, and here too, then we have the aspect of communication that I brought in too, against the backdrop of how people tick, what’s needed, which direction we need to go, and then, factoring in communication as a stylistic device — that can be storytelling or something else accordingly — but through communication, looking at how I steer this, and that ultimately also means leadership, in inverted commas, gets a really special relevance in this context, and we’ve talked a lot about that too, both leadership in general and self-leadership. That’s had a lot of different facets too, and I find it really exciting to bring that together now too. Thank you, thank you so much for that. Layla.
I’d like to quote Hape Kerkeling today, because he has a really wonderful character, Evi van Dampen, who’s a relationship coach, and she says, love is work, work, work. Marketing for the climate is roughly the same — climate is work, work, work. And the thing is, yes, and it’s meaningful and it’s great. And I’m looking forward to your future topics too, because I watched a show yesterday, haven’t finished it yet — it’s a kind of show about India, the pharmacy of the world. And, yes, they can’t even drink their own water anymore, because they have to produce so fast that pollutants get generated. And that happens with fast fashion too, by the way, whenever we make a purchase decision and don’t upcycle. And I’m sounding pretty eco right now, I notice, and that’s okay, because “eco” isn’t a bad word. When people say, “she’s an eco lady,” that’s actually a good thing. It doesn’t mean I’m sitting in the corner in my Birkenstocks with my singing bowl, all left-wing and grungy, I don’t know. And even if that were the case, it’s nobody’s business, and maybe I’m doing something for the climate that way. Long story short, climate isn’t just work — climate is meaningful. The people up there should do something, and we can do something too, with our purchasing decisions, with the decision of how high we turn up our heating. And I thought that was really wonderful, and I’d like to say a heartfelt thank you — it was a really lovely room, it was a lot of fun.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And especially this last aspect, “love is work,” I find that a really wonderful bridge too. I looked at various things yesterday, and at one point this aspect came up, and I’d like to pick it up too, and think in this direction. When we’re in love, imagine this, when we’re in love, we do so many things to give the other person, in inverted commas, our attention, and so many things to be there for the other person, to show them appreciation, maybe do some surprises, and so on and so forth. And what might seem quite distant at first, if we build a bridge here to these flirting or love relationships, so to speak, and pick that up as a thought — if we approach many different places, where content-related aspects are concerned, with this perspective, this level, really courting, so to speak, showing this — and communication is a really important tool we can use for that here too. Then we can shape things quite differently, and develop a completely different kind of power here too, and I think that’s why it’s worth making this connection to love again, and seeing what can be adapted or transferred, so to speak, to the actual content-related aspects we discuss, to develop a kind of pulling power here too. And I find that a really lovely perspective on this topic too. So thank you for this bridge too, dear Layla. Yes, wonderful. I think we picked up quite a few aspects again today. And tomorrow, as I already announced, we want to go deeper into the topic of space travel again. Tomorrow we have the topic of space travel — where do we stand with developments regarding space travel and the exploration of other planets? That’s the question we want to look into tomorrow. And then we’ll continue on, until we go through this communication idea, under the focus of storytelling, so to speak, on Sunday with Thomas Pyczak. And then next week we’ll also look again, at a political, societal level, at the topics we’ve picked up and gone deeper into up to this point, again from various perspectives, on a different level. That means we’ve looked at various technologies so far, and are now slowly starting to bring that together, and via the authors’ breakfast we’ll be guided, so to speak, to a different level, to make the connections clear on one hand, and then look at the topics again on a societal, political, ethical level, and so on, from various perspectives, and see what that actually means. So what can we do with this now? How does it continue from here? And what aspects need to be discussed, questioned, or taken into account on these different levels — and I’m really, really looking forward to that. So you’re warmly invited to join again tomorrow morning at 8, when we continue together here. With that, I wish you all the best, and see you tomorrow. Ciao!
