Green growth and a leap in prosperity through technology

Interview with Stientje van Veldhoven, member of the House of Representatives   “She has only been a member of D66 for seven years and is already Alexander Pechtold's running mate,” wrote the Volkskrant in 2012. Stientje van Veldhoven had already been named 'greenest politician of the year' for two years in a row. In the current parliamentary term, Van Veldhoven 'sits' on the Energy & Climate dossiers; Environment; Sustainability; Track; Foreign trade; Development cooperation. An interesting mix. Not a Member of Parliament who constantly seeks the spotlight and runs after hype, but a political talent who opts for substance. How does she view the themes that are important for FHI's technology sectors? “What moves me to be politically active? I have always been committed to public affairs, in Europe, but also at the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Innovation, research and development, these have traditionally been my subjects. Since Jan Terlouw, sustainability has been in D66's DNA, but it is also really the biggest challenge for the next thirty years. That is why I asked for this portfolio when I started in Parliament.” What is the relationship between sustainability and technology? “I expect a lot from technology. Of all the fuel a car uses, no more than two percent is actually used to move the occupant. The rest of the energy released during combustion is used to shift the weight of the car or is discharged through the cooling system. This must be possible better and smarter, right? I believe in growth. Growth is good. But it has to be green growth. I believe that we can make a leap in prosperity with technology. Technology is really the key.” Van Veldhoven makes the link to the international effortless. “The key lies in the emerging countries, in Asia, especially India, and in Africa. It is important to develop technology for and with those countries beyond the fossil era. That is also in our interest. What about our government as a 'launching customer'? “There must be the right incentives. There is an agreement that the government will purchase 100% sustainably. But that is not monitored. In rooms around the country I sometimes ask: “Who here thinks that the government purchases 100% sustainably?” I have never seen anyone raise their hand. The government purchases 60 billion per year. there are enormous opportunities for innovative companies that offer sustainable solutions. In one municipality I see that insulation is removed from a construction project for budgetary reasons, while another municipality firmly demands that all used parts of the town hall can be reused when that building is dismantled. D66 wants the government to purchase and tender truly sustainably. What role could building automation play? “Construction, real estate, is a very interesting sector. We must especially look at the existing stock of buildings. It is relatively easy to apply new technology in new construction. The interesting challenges lie with old buildings, where I also see wonderful examples of sustainability. The problem with the real estate chain is that 'split incentives' still exist there.” We are surprised that Van Veldhoven has done her homework so well. That is exactly the problem that the FHI Building Automation sector is harping on, that each link focuses on optimizing its part and then almost literally throws everything 'over the fence'. Guarantee for sub-optimization of the chain and cause of failure of automation applications. “Some things are happening through minimum agreements and labeling of sustainability requirements, but that is absolutely not conclusive and certainly not sufficient. If we get the chain in better order, we can make a lot of money, but it is a lot of work.” We confront the Member of Parliament with the concept of 'commissioning', a daily practice in industrial automation, but not or hardly accepted in the real estate chain. “I would really like to think about that with you, how we could implement something similar at system level.” The appointment stands. If we look at the industry, the biotransition, how are we going to get it off the ground in Europoort, for example? “New long-term policy is needed there. Now another four billion is spent on co-firing biomass in coal-fired power stations. This creates jobs in Canada, but does nothing for the structural strengthening of the Dutch economy. That money would have been better spent on pilot plants for biobased processes to help our industry transition to a biobased economy. D66 wants to allocate extra money for research and innovation in the next government period. That money should be made available to companies that really come up with solutions for sustainability.” I see enormous changes in the market, especially in the energy market. The raw materials agreement must be extended to agriculture and horticulture. We can then make room for decentralization of production, including of basic products.” Here we hear a politician who appears to know what she is talking about! What about the National Science Agenda? “The D66 objective is that at least one percent of the Gross Domestic Product is spent on R&D. We won't achieve that. Of course, some of the business community has to come, but we aim for both fundamental and applied research. Because where will Europe get its prosperity in the future? Not from free raw materials, such as our gas, and not from low wages. It is about the geographically concentrated strength of people here. In the Netherlands, we must rely on innovative power and invest in the infrastructure required for this, such as education, research and laboratories.” And then the internationalization of our technology companies, how can the government contribute to this? “This is a good point. Our high-tech start-ups must indeed be able to operate Europe-wide immediately. It is still more difficult to grow here than in the US. Collaboration in all kinds of 'valleys' within the Netherlands is great, but how do you get out of that valley? When I hear how you as FHI do that for the nanotechnology companies with the embassy attachés, it makes me proud. I myself have been a Technical Scientific Attaché. We should make more room for the customization approach you choose.” The appointment is made immediately. We are going to set a date for a working visit to a number of FHI member companies.   See also: Report 3, 2016