|
Commentary Science and Sustainability By Jake Miller Every year the American Association for the Advancement of Science, (AAAS) holds an annual meeting. At this year's Boston meeting (February 14-18)alongside talks on mind-blowing advances in theoretical quantum physics and the astonishing world of astrophysics, there were a host of symposia, panels and papers on the scientific, technological, ethical, political and commercial implications of the inevitably interconnected elements of sustainability: food, water, energy and climate change. The sheer diversity of the discussion was both exciting (for those of us who care deeply about these issues) and a little frightening. Are massive die-offs of lentil-sized keystone species signaling the beginning of the end for wild food chains in oceans all over the world? Is the development of an efficient, cost-effective chemistry for cellulosic ethanol production days or decades away? Is there really enough biomass available to feed, clothe and fuel all of humanity’s needs, or is North America’s biofuel going to come out of the diet of Brazilians? Scientists have just begun to investigate some of these complex issues, even as farmers around the world rush to convert their crops from food to fuel production. In the panel discussion “Biofuels from Forest-Based Biomass,” talks by scientists and engineers from the academy and industry made it clean that there are still a huge number of fundamental issues— including the huge challenge of developing a commodity scale lignocellulosic supply system. With more than $2.5 billion in projects in the U.S., no one is actually making fuel. At the launch of the meeting the AAAS announced that it was publishing new research that shows that a report, published in the AAAS’s journal, Science and announced on the first day of this year’s meeting that CO2 emissions from industrial-scale biofuel is actually worse than burning fossil fuels once forest clearing and other land- use factors are considered. Will any of these obstacles slow the race to increase biofuel production? Insiders from the department of energy said that nowadays no one in the administration is using Bush’s “Twenty in Ten” tagline, calling for reducing gasoline use by 20 percent in ten years by ramping up biofuel production. Is this a sign of a more cautious, long-term commitment to biofuel or is it the end of this latest alternative energy fad? The AAAS Forum on Science & Technology Policy (May 8-9) will feature a detailed analysis of the new federal budget for research and development, which should shed some light on whether biomass fuel production will continue to receive priority funding. The organizers of the conference did an admiral job of bringing together voices from outside the scientific community. A panel on sustainability in the world’s tuna fisheries included academic researchers, scientists from environmental NGOs and a manager from a small commercial fishing fleet in the Phillipines to share their perspectives and approaches to the tuna crisis. This is a good start, but I couldn’t help wondering what we were missing my not hearing from the social movements that represent artisanal fishers and other traditional communities who have depended on these fisheries for centuries. In addition to being keepers of deep wisdom about their local ecologies, these peoples are often the first to see the catastrophic effects of environmental degradation. As much as we have to learn from cutting-edge scientific research, we (and the scientists) also have a lot to learn from the small farmers and fishers who have the most intimate connection with the land and water. Jake Miller, a communications consultant and freelance writer, covers science, culture and international development. |
|
|
