Daimler-Benz News from August 24, 1995

Environmental Report
from Daimler-Benz

Prof. Werner Pollmann

Statement from Prof. Werner Pollmann, Chief Environmental Officer of the Daimler-Benz Group and head of the research field Production and Environmental Technology, at a press conference held in Stuttgart on August 24, 1995.

Ladies and Gentlemen

Environmental protection here in Germany has taken on a new quality in the last few years. Recent events surrounding the "Brent Spar" North Sea oil platform have clearly shown that purely quantitative information - such as emission levels per cubic meter - is no longer dominating public debate. Nowadays, instead, it is the impact of environmental protection measures that is attracting attention.

In fact, a debate is currently raging as to how we can best evaluate environmental protection measures. Take "Brent Spar" for example. Is it more sensible to sink the oil platform and thus pollute the sea bed with the heavy metals it contains? Or is it better to carry out disposal on land - with all the risks involved, not to mention the unsolved problems of final storage?

Daimler-Benz is also being continually forced to tackle questions of this nature. For example, consider the issue of recycled packaging material such as cardboard. Is this really the most ecological way of providing packaging? After all, enormous amounts of water and electricity are required for cleaning and disinfection purposes before the recycled cardboard is ready for use. Maybe it really is more ecologically sound to use and then burn plastic packaging instead?

We at Daimler-Benz make a point of trying to define environmental quality goals. In this context, there is currently a lot of political discussion about the so-called "life cycle analysis" of a product and the "ecological tax reform." I'd like to take a closer look at these topics later. However, let me just briefly say in passing that we are very aware of our responsibilities here and are correspondingly playing an intensive role in the proceedings.

The Environmental Report 1995: An Even Better Balance

Let me now say a few words about the Environmental Report in front of you. It is a summary of Group activities for the year 1994. As always, it is difficult to present everything we do for the environment in raw figures. For instance, it's becoming increasingly difficult to determine how much of the investment cost of a new machine can be booked against the "environmental protection" account. And these problems are not going to get easier to solve in years to come. This is because we have almost forgotten just how bad - from an ecological point of view - manufacturing processes can be. Yet, the old approach whereby a competitive price advantage could be gained at the expense of the environment can still be witnessed in factories outside our group and beyond the borders of our country. In my opinion, the ultimate price required to obtain such a competitive advantage is too high.

Let me give you an example of the way we like to do things. Last year, in our Mercedes-Benz plant in Argentina, we commissioned a sewage treatment plant which uses bacteria to clean the waste water. It is the first sewerage plant in Argentina to make use of this modern biological technology. It is already fulfilling environmental standards not yet locally demanded by law.

If you look at the figures in the Environmental Report you will notice that running costs for environmental protection have increased conspicuously. Between 1992 and 1993, annual costs here rose from 579 to 669 million DM. By 1994 they had reached 861 million DM per year. In other words, the rates of increase were 15% and 20%. These figures alone document the new quality of environmental protection previously mentioned. A one-off investment in a new plant is no longer the end of the story. Nowadays, it is much more the case that environmental protection systems and a company's own preventative measures demand ongoing expenditure when it comes to maintenance and operational activities.

That investment has dropped in comparison to the previous year to a level of 132 million DM in no way cancels out the overall cost increase. You see, as far as investment is concerned, the years 1992 and 1993 saw the realization of two fundamental milestones. These were the conversion to water-based paint at Mercedes-Benz and the completion of the final assembly line at Daimler-Benz Aerospace.

To illustrate the dimensions of these projects, I would like to briefly describe the Mercedes-Benz dip-coating facility in Düsseldorf. With its capability for giving vehicles a 425-cubic-meter "bath" in primer, this is the largest cataphoretic dip-coating plant in Europe. All our new "Sprinter" van bodies-in-white are given such a bath before spray robots cover them with filler and top coats. Before painting begins, the bodies are cleaned and covered with a zinc phosphate layer measuring a mere 1.5 thousands of a millimeter in thickness. One major advantage of this new technology is that the plant consumes just 20,000 cubic meters of water a year. The previous process required 97,000 cubic meters. In other words, we have reduced water consumption by 80%.

There's also good news from the energy front. In spite of increased production, energy consumption has remained more or less constant at around 7,700 gigawatthours (GWh). In fact the long-term trend is downwards (1992: 8100 GWh; 1993: 7700 GWh). Our success here is due to the consistent introduction of measures aimed at better utilization of energy. As far as process water consumption is concerned we have also been making progress. In spite of increased production, consumption decreased from 7.3 million cubic meters in 1992 to 5.8 million cubic meters in 1993. 1994 saw a further reduction to 5.5 million cubic meters. As you can see, measures aimed at saving water, such as the introduction of circulation processes, are proving effective.

We have also succeeded in reducing waste. In 1994, we registered 7% less waste than in the previous year. This corresponds to a drop from 124,300 to 115,000 tonnes. In fact, we have actually managed to reduce waste by 27% since 1992. At the same time, the percentage of material recycled increased by 25% from around 450,000 tonnes in 1992 and 1993 to over 550,000 tonnes. In other words, we now have to dispose of less than one third of our waste and are able to recycle two-thirds back into production.

We have also been making progress in reducing emissions. The use of solvents is on the decrease thanks to the consistent conversion to water-based paints. As I explained to you last year, the dramatic decrease in dust and sulfur dioxide emissions is a special effect. It is the result of our implementing our in-house environmental standards in a power station we took control of in the former GDR. Only the decrease in levels of nitrogen oxides is still relatively small. This is due to the fact that the reduced emissions from the combined heat and power stations have been almost completely balanced by longer engine running times at Daimler-Benz Aerospace's test stands. However, let's not forget that these test activities will ultimately help reduce the levels of NOx emitted by these aircraft engines.

Naturally, we are also using technologies available to us to obtain new measuring data on the environment. Daimler-Benz Aerospace Airbus has signed contracts with several airlines aimed at obtaining environmental data, for example, regarding ozone and water vapor concentrations at high altitudes. We are equipping A340 Airbuses with special sensors, which record measurements every four seconds during a flight. The French Research Center CNRS and a multitude of associated European research facilities are involved in the scientific evaluation of the data gathered.

We are also using sensors to monitor the quality of our everyday environment. In spite of the speedy advancement in environmental measurement technology in recent years, we are also using bioindicators to achieve our aims in this area. Bioindicators are living entities, which we can use to provide information on the quality of our water and air. For example, plants in open greenhouses located at 14 different sites spread throughout Mercedes-Benz's Sindelfingen complex are helping keep tabs on air quality. The plants react particularly sensitively to the presence of paint solvents in the air. Waste water tests are being carried out at 21 on-site locations. The amount of pollution contained in the effluent is sometimes so low that, for example, higher aquatic organisms such as water-fleas or fish do not react to it. Here, photogenic bacteria, whose luminosity is directly related to the amount of pollution in the water, have turned out to be more sensitive.

These examples should give you an idea of some of the things we were doing last year. They should also show you that we are trying hard to make both our products and our production processes environmentally friendlier. And our efforts have not gone without recognition. Just a few weeks ago the city of Ulm presented our researchers with its environmental award to celebrate the development of the first ever process for separating plastic composite waste.

However, ladies and gentlemen, the more we progress, and the more we learn about environmentally-relevant processes in nature, the more we are confronted by the question of whether our activities really represent the best way forward from an ecological point of view.

Environmental Quality Goals - a Necessary Prerequisite for Evaluating "Life-Cycle Analyses"

As you all know, environmental protection has been a fundamental goal of environmental policy at Daimler-Benz AG for many years now. The Group has drawn up an environmental code prescribing how we can best preserve the natural foundations of life. We have committed ourselves to integrated environmental protection designed to tackle the causes of environmental strain at the roots - both with regard to products and production processes. This means that the effects of a new development are evaluated right at the start. Moreover, we consider these effects over the entire life cycle of the product concerned and compare them with alternatives, where appropriate. Using the life cycle analyses as a basis, an investigation to determine weak points is carried out. By referring to energy and material flows, the investigation also focuses on the potential impact of individual materials. It is, however, not possible to draw general conclusions regarding the toxicological impact of the various materials and material groups on humans and the environment. Moreover, we still lack reliable approaches for evaluating individual effects. Consequently, it is not yet possible to compare products and product alternatives on the basis of impact criteria.

One important result of all this is a discrepancy between the expectations generated by politicians and environmentally-motivated political interest groups with regard to life cycle analysis, on the one hand, and what is actually achievable, on the other.

Let's be clear about this. As far as Daimler-Benz is concerned, a life cycle analysis in its current state of development represents a useful tool for determining weak points. Such an analysis can be used to improve both products and processes even without ecological balances. Against this background, we have already analyzed and improved a range of products, product components and production processes.

However, we are by no means content to rest on our laurels, and have initiated talks aimed at further improving the situation. These talks are focused on two areas:

We have been conducting a series of talks with representatives of the German Research Association aimed at improving our knowledge of the toxicological impact of pollutants on humans and the environment. In the course of these talks we have ascertained the importance of this theme and defined key research fields. The German Research Association is to prepare an interdisciplinary research program, and has already decided to form a working group in pursuit of this goal. In this manner, the scientific community has become integrated into the process of validating existing - and helping define future - criteria for impact evaluation. This represents a first - and vital step - towards integrating scientific-based impact criteria into the process of drawing up a life cycle analysis.

If we are to evaluate the various environmental effects, it is necessary to be able to assess the individual impacts on humans and the environment. In our opinion, such assessments can only be realized using environmental quality goals defined by experts from the fields of politics, economics, and science, alongside representatives from social interest groups. It was in pursuit of precisely such a broad-based consensus that we initiated a cooperative venture last year with the then environment minister Klaus Töpfer. Our priority was to define environmental quality goals. The first workshop was held at the Ministry for Environmental Affairs on November 18, 1994. It was attended by experts representing politics, science, industry and various social organizations. During the discussion, it was agreed that the evaluation of life cycle analyses was simply not possible, given our present state of knowledge and lack of definitive environmental quality goals. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency will be tackling this theme during the autumn, when - in conjunction with experts from social organizations and the fields of politics, business, and science - it will attempt to come up with suggestions for environmental quality goals. The necessary interdisciplinary dialog is thus assured. We hope and demand that the working group will start work in the near future and will quickly come up with results. This is because the "environmental quality goal" theme has recently also been attracting attention in another context - namely, that of an ecological tax reform.

We, at Daimler-Benz, support measures aimed at taxing emissions as a means of reducing unavoidable pollutants. However, here, there must first be a consensus on whether, for example, it is more important to reduce the pollutants associated with climatic change or pollutants that lead to ozone formation at ground level. Environmental quality goals are necessary if plausible answers to such questions are to be found. The resource tax demanded by certain political groups is just one consequence of the present dilemma. However, as far as we are concerned, such a tax does not represent a feasible way forward.

Press text on the Environmental Report
Online version of the Environmental Report

Back to the News Archive