“Don’t shoot the planet”  [ Return towards  Events  ]

A human being can live three weeks without eating (= without energy), three days without drinking (= without water) and three minutes without breathing (= without air). Energy, water and air are three elements that are essential for life. Hence the question: how much time do we have left before putting our planet in real danger, three years or three centuries?

In man’s relationship with nature, climate change is, I think, one of the key challenges that is raised for humanity.

We must see a dual dimension in this: that of space and that of time.

The space dimension, because it is the entire planet that is concerned. This is in fact probably the first time in the history of humanity that it is confronted with a problem that can only be treated globally on the level of the entire earth.

The time dimension, because the danger never seems to be immediate, and we believe that we still have three minutes, three days or three weeks of respite.

We are in reality in a borrower situation vis-à-vis future generations in a global system. We will have to return what we borrowed in the form of progress.

All the social and societal organizations of the planet are concerned by this new issue: citizens, countries, NGOs and, of course, companies.

And in the first place, major international companies. Why?

First because they are among the leading users of the planet’s natural resources to produce the goods necessary for humanity. They are therefore on the front line for developing responsible attitudes in the sustainable use of these resources and preventing their depletion.

Next, because these large companies can also provide solutions, notably technologies, for preserving the planet:

At Air Liquide, we estimate that the applications of our products that help proactively preserve the environment and life represent 1/3 of our revenue.

On the other hand, over 1/2 of our R&D budget is earmarked to these themes:

• Energy efficiency, for our own plants
• Cleaner production processes, with fewer emissions of polluting products for our customers
• New energies and life sciences.

Lastly, because the countries themselves see their role changing, since they can only act inside other countries as a partner or negotiator, whereas the major companies operating throughout the whole world, and for some of them for a long time (AL is celebrating its 100 years in Japan), play a direct and growing role in the equation of preserving our planet.

It seems to me that the economic initiatives that we, the companies, can and should take in this area fit into three time frames and we have to act on all three:

The short term, because many products already exist.

Example in our industry: hydrogen to enable refining companies to produce sulfur-free fuels and therefore to reduce emissions into the air of sulfur oxides, which are the cause of acid rain Or the “first generation” biofuels for which our German engineering department is building production units

The challenge is to invest and take market shares where the markets are developing. This is therefore a classic question of risk-taking and economic profitability, but we must move.

The medium term, because we know that the decisions to go forward have already been made by certain manufacturers or certain countries.

Example in our industry: combustion with pure oxygen that makes it possible to concentrate CO₂ emissions in the stacks of production plants in this way making its capture much more economical, and its storage in the long term able to be envisaged. This is one of the ways to produce clean electric or thermal energy, and industrial pilot projects using this oxygen combustion technology are being built in France and Canada.

Another example for us: the photovoltaic industry, which is booming and a major consumer of our products, which still requires the countries’ support to develop.
Or so-called “second generation” biofuels that, leaving the “fruit” of the plant for food, will use the rest of the plant to produce fuels, a subject on which our German engineering department is also working.
The challenge here is to anticipate and make a few decisions notably in terms of developing industrial pilot projects, but also strengthening competencies and recruiting.

Lastly, the long term, because other ideas or technologies exist and have already been tested, even if they are still not at the level required for competitiveness.

Example for Air Liquide: the hydrogen used in the fuel cell, a clean energy carrier leading to zero local pollution. This H₂ is still not completed “green”, but results in emissions that are at least 30% below a very good diesel. As the costs are still prohibitive at this stage, there are other stages left to be mastered in this field, but that are neither insurmountable nor unusual for an industry. We are moreover the leader of a program on this subject that has been submitted to the Industrial Innovation Agency.

My conviction is that it is of vital importance to place innovation at the heart of the company’s strategic thinking whatever the time frame. It is also essential to maintain an incentive framework or even to extend it. This is what many other countries are doing and the competition will be ruthless.

It is obvious that three products will play a key role over these three time frames for the preservation of our atmosphere, oxygen, hydrogen and CO₂, which, I’m sure you agree, is good for us. The Air Liquide Group plans to fully play its role in these areas, of course.

It is therefore less through a limitation of production or through the accumulation of constraints that we will find the solution, but more through a sort of environmental redefinition of the company’s core business lines and products, because we must not forget that one company can make another cleaner.

This will take tangible form through investments for the international community: we must prepare ourselves for this and to do so explain and communicate, create the appropriate fiscal and competitive environment and promote innovation and risk-taking.

Relevant indicators should also be developed. We could think about a sort of Return on Intangible Investment, alongside the traditional Return on Capital Employed.

To conclude and because I have a certain affinity for the fables of La Fontaine, I will say that between “Rushing is useless, one has to leave on time” and “What did you do when it was hot? – I sang, I hope you don’t mind! – You sang, I am quite content, now dance the winter away”, we have to find our own moral.

Thank you.