Monika Griefahn

  • Home
  • Monika Griefahn
    • Dr. Monika Griefahn,
      Former Minister
    • Curriculum vitae (PDF)
    • Photos
    • References appointments
  • Volunteering
  • institute for media,
    environment, culture
    • Cradle to Cradle
  • Service
    • Archives German Parliament
    • Publications
    • References
    • Downloads
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • Culture
      and
      Media
    • Opinion
    • Cradle
      to
      Cradle
    • Right
      Livelihood
      Award
  • Contact
    • Site Notice/Imprint
    • Privacy Policy
  • Deutsch
You are here: Home / General Article / Bioeconomy and its changes and risks

16. March 2020 | Monika Griefahn

Bioeconomy and its changes and risks

The recent symposium of the Michael Otto Foundation in Hamburg on the possibilities and limits of the so-called bioeconomy began at an elementary level with a debate over the exact definition of the term. Does agriculture in itself qualify as a form of bioeconomy? In their respective literal meanings at least, the terms bio and economy do have a certain proximity. Does the term bioeconomy specifically describe the shift from a petroleum-based to a plant-based future? The German organization, the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU), applies a rather broad approach: “Bioeconomy is defined as the sum of all sectors and services that use biological resources such as plants, animals and microorganisms.” From this perspective, conventional agriculture would be a bioeconomy. Every hobby gardener would be a bioeconomist, as would highly specialized genetic scientists.

HELPFUL TOOL AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE?

The debate at the Hamburg Conservation Talks, which provided the context for the symposium, ended up being more about bioeconomic sciences and the extent to which it can possibly develop helpful tools with which to respond to climate change. In her opening lecture, for example, the author and journalist, Christiane Grefe, referenced a multitude of examples including the sheer analysis of genomes and the cultivation of climate-resistant plants as well as a vision to re-create organisms that have long been extinct.

Grefe believes that the bioeconomy could have the potential to reduce the consumption of raw materials and energy. For example, enzymes used in detergents could reduce the water temperature required during washing. A great risk she identifies is the concentration of power over technology in large corporations – namely those that fund research. Grefe also added: “The finiteness of available space remains, with or without a bioeconomy.” And she inquired how our way of dealing with life changes I we see nature merely as a construction site for economized life.

NO SYSTEMIC APPROACH

The participants at the symposium attempted to solve a peculiar conundrum: How can the opportunities of the bioeconomic sciences be taken advantage of and the risks avoided? Florian Schöne from the German Nature Protection Ring (DNR) for example made a call for what he called “ecological guard rails” for research. In contrast, Juan Gonzalez-Valero from Syngenta very simply said: “Innovation won’t take place where we regulate ourselves to death.” The demand for a transfer of knowledge into the financial world – so that it can initiate the required innovations – was voiced just as loudly as the demand for a cultural-systemic approach. Unfortunately, the presence of civil society representatives in political committees was only marginally provided for, said Steffi Oder from NABU. And there also was fundamental criticism: “Bioeconomy currently serves economic prosperity, but that’s the wrong paradigm. The paradigm must be: We want to solve problems.”

WHAT STINKS AND IS URGLY IS OUT OF THE QUESTION

Hermann Fischer from Auro, a manufacturer of natural paints, recommended an esthetic approach as a guide to what constitutes good practice: chemistry, he said, had helped mankind emancipate itself from nature. Now however, it was to take a different approach, because too much collateral damage had been done. If the principles of the biosphere were to be applied in research, Fischer added, loud, smelly and ugly processes could be eliminated – in plants, no chemical took place in this way. “However, with the help of chemistry, we have created an unaesthetic everyday life,” he complained, quoting the words of climate activist Greta Thunberg: “How dare you?” And then, there was the maybe overriding question: Do science, the economy and society really have a knowledge deficit, or is it really just a deficit in terms of willingness?

POLITICAL FRAME-SETTING

The discussions make one thing apparent: bioeconomy seems to be a sector that’s torn apart by opposing interests. It is therefore aimless and a sector that displays little holistic thinking. Frames set by the political sphere could help. The author Christine Grefe made some suggestions: The topic should be directed by the EU’s Circular Economy Act. The bloc’s agricultural policy, which is still waiting to be greened, could also take over the task. Research funding should no longer be unevenly distributed.

It was a day full of enriching discussions, but it was exhausting on the mind and soul. The idea that scientists in research institutions around the world actually want to bring back to life long-extinct species is scary. On the other side, the idea of responding to the challenges of the present with the mechanisms of nature is fascinating.

You will find more Information here.

Filed Under: General Article

Please share this in your community:

« Cradle to Cradle Congress takes place in Berlin for the first time
New RLA winners have been announced »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search

Please stay in touch!

  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • xing
  • YouTube

Insights

Appointments

April 26, 2022: Participation in the event “Rethinking Growth – Visions for Buchholz” as part of the Climate Advisory Board Buchholz in der Nordheide. More information (in German).

May 2, 2022: Buchholz Climate Advisary Council with presentation of the Climate Action Plan.

May, 5-6, 2022: Committee meeting and “Round Table” of the Foundation Lebendige Stadt.

May 10, 2022: Right Livlihood laureate and Russian environmental activist Vladimir Slivyak speaks to the “Alternative Nobel Prize” parliamentary group of the German Bundestag. Slivyak received the award for his commitment against nuclear power and fossil energies. More about him here.

May 12, 2022: Participation in the Congress Cradle to Cradle  –Shaping municipalities of the future.

June 22, 2022: The Central Real Estate Committee (ZIA) organizes the Real Estate Industry Day in Berlin; participation in the panel “Climate Protection” with the topic Cradle to Cradle. More information (some in English).

September 22, 2022: Lecture on “The Cradle to Cradle principle – necessary for climate protection” at the Lions Club Hamburg-Hoheneichen.

October 20, 2022: Introductory statement at “eKKon 2022” – the Austrian congress on eFuels in Vienna. It is about the growing importance of eFuels in the climate debate.


Cradle to Cradle Congress 2021

Logo C2C-Congress

Cradle to Cradle Congress 2021: Because of the Corona pandemic the C2C Conress took place in three parts this year: The first one was on June 14, 2021 in Freiburg. The second took place on September 7, 2021 in Mainz, the third November 4, 2021 in Mönchengladbach.


eFuels

Synthetic fuels are one of the decisive factors for the energy transition away from fossile fuels. That is why I am committed to the further development and practical use of eFuels and became a member of the Sounding Board of the eFuel Alliance in May 2021.
English website of the eFuel Alliance


Climate committee

Constituent session: Photo: City of Buchholz / Helms

In May 2021, the climate committee was constituted in the climate forum at my place of residence in Buchholz in the Nordheide. I am pleased to be chairwoman of the advisory board! The city has set itself the goal of becoming climate neutral and there is still a lot to do to achieve this. The committee advises the municipal  administration on fundamental questions of climate policy.
To the article on the Buchholz website (in German)


Right Livelihood Laureate 2021

Right Livelihood Award

They stand up against violence and climate change and address the most pressing questions of our time: Marthe Wandou (Cameroon), Wladimir Sliwjak (Russia), Freda Huson (People of the Wet’suwet’en, Canada) and the Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (India) are the winners of the Right Livelohood Award (“Alternative Nobel Prize”) 2021. Please find here the award ceremony documentation or read more about the laureates in our blog.


Federal Order of Merit

After the award ceremony, Olaf Lies, Monika Griefahn and Rainer Rempe stand together. Photo: Frank Ossenbrink

After the award ceremony, Olaf Lies, Monika Griefahn and Rainer Rempe stand together. Photo: Frank Ossenbrink

Our CEO Dr. Monika Griefahn received the Federal Order of Merit. Please read more about her biography and about the award ceremony in our blog.


Blog Archive

  • Home
  • Monika Griefahn
  • Volunteering
  • institute for media, environment, culture
  • Service
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Site Notice/Imprint
  • Privacy Policy

 

Logo Monika Griefahn GmbH/institut medien umwelt kultur Monika Griefahn GmbH
PO Box 1135
21231 Buchholz
Germany
Phone: +49 4181 4069262
Email:
Website: www.institut-muk.de
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • YouTube
Customise Privacy Settings
Copyright © 2013–2022 | Zurück zum Seitenanfang/Back to top | Alle Rechte vorbehalten! – All rights reserved.