茄子视频app官网

Menu

Wananga landing Wananga landing
News

Chasing future biotech solutions to climate change risks delaying action

29 November 2022

On The Conversation, 茄子视频app官网 Professor Jack Heinemann and PhD candidate Tessa Hiscox explain why we can't rely on technology to solve climate change.

HOW TO APPLY

The world is under growing pressure to find sustainable options to cut emissions or lessen the impacts of climate change.

Technology entrepreneurs from around the globe claim to have the solutions 鈥 not just yet, but soon. The biotech sector in particular is now using climate change as an urgent argument for听,听听补苍诲听听for their industry.

But the urgency of climate change creates greater risk of superficial claims and actions. In our new听, we describe how the current 鈥渢echnology push鈥 cycle perpetually promises to rescue humanity from climate change, and in doing so, delays real progress.

SDG 13 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 - Climate Action

The pipeline for salvation technology is long and the benefit is hypothetical. Like the character Wimpy from Popeye, technology developers want their hamburger today but will pay back society with climate solutions on some future Tuesday.

Climate change is an existential threat, but it is only one of many symptoms of environmental damage we鈥檝e caused. Humanity has pushed Earth beyond multiple听听and the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is merely one indicator of the many excesses of human activity.

Technology solutions not only rarely lead to sustainable solutions, they may exacerbate harm. Lulled into complacency by 鈥渢echnological imaginaries鈥, we wait too long to enact difficult but effective solutions.

Tech solutions only address symptoms

Biotechnologies could make valuable contributions to halting or ameliorating the impacts of climate change. Contributions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or better adapt plants to the changing climate would help. However, these address the symptoms, not the cause of environmental degradation.

Climate change is an 鈥渁ttractive鈥 problem because there are so many technological ways to solve it. That quality makes societies vulnerable to the siren song of technology pushers.

For example, if climatic change is described as a threat to food production, then technologies that promise to increase food production despite climate change would be appealing. One such prospect is to听. Genetic modification of the key enzyme in photosynthesis (RuBisCO) could improve its binding of carbon dioxide. More plant biomass might be the result.

However, increased photosynthesis may not increase听,听听in crops. Even if this approach worked outside of the laboratory, the plants would be no less vulnerable to increasingly frequent drought and flood stresses. These plants will also demand more听, leading to more greenhouse gas emissions.

Maybe we could have more biomass, but not better or more food for people. Some of our crops could make better use of the additional carbon in the atmosphere, but lack of access to sufficient and desirable food would continue. By not addressing this fundamental problem, we will need more crops and livestock, undermining any efficiency gains.

Technologies are not alternatives to action

Implementing such technologies also prolongs听听on wealthier countries and overlooks the rights and inputs of Indigenous and local peoples.

Identifying the fundamental social goal, rather than the proximate technological objective, is essential to achieving sustainability. 鈥淕oal pull鈥 rather than 鈥渢echnology push鈥 approaches do this.

Climate change is a symptom of environmental degradation and the multifarious听. These are wicked problems societies find hard to address, driving up the appeal of technologies as alternatives to action. The market is good at trading in technological futures.

Try recasting the goal as food security, measured through indicators of reduced hunger across the world. Governments now have at their disposal solutions that include both social and technological options.

For example, reducing food waste such that more nutritious food reaches people who need it reduces demand to produce more food in the first place.听听alone will create 5.7鈥7.9 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The excess nitrogen used in agriculture to produce food is also a significant source of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.

Reducing food waste depends on detailed planning to make use of technologies that are useful by design rather than opportunity. More indiscriminate production may result in听. For example,听听in the US resulted in much of the corn being used for non-food purposes such as bio-ethanol, despite the intensive use of resources required to produce these calories.

Failure to meet the goal of feeding more people also provides useful feedback either about the adequacy of the strategy or the chosen measures. For example, if available calories increased but nutrition did not improve, it might be because farmers need support to develop polycultures, or healthier options should be made more accessible.

The goal pull approach takes us to feedback-optimised combinations of social and technological innovation that solve root problems.

To save a patient鈥檚 life it may be necessary to treat the symptoms of the disease. We are forced into the same situation with climate change. Nevertheless, we must not use the immediacy of climate change to put off breaking habits that will lead to future environmental and social catastrophe.

This article was originally on听.听

More information
Visit our media enquiries page to contact UC Media.
What to read next
Privacy Preferences

By clicking "Accept All Cookies", you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.