Wow. Where to begin. I've been participating in a "bioenergy workshop" at Michigan State and it's been a heady mix of physical/natural/social science. One thing that's clear to me is that risk/benefit perceptions surrounding advances in bioenergy (and energy in general) depend largely on place-based assumptions. Who do those risks/benefits affect, how do they play out (in the past, present, future) and why? There is a lot to unpack there. I know we (at this workshop) are not solving any grand problems. But we are moving dialogue forward, among this group anyway (an influential group at that).
Public opinion on bioE is still developing, which makes it ripe for study and influence both. As public awareness of bioE issues grow, risk perceptions change - even though actual risks remain relatively static. This makes it an area of technological innovation where social influence can be somewhat easily used; where media messages can have strong impacts; and where public, deliberative participation is all but essential for long-term sustainability.
Since I am typing this on an iPad which is not as convenient as a regular keyboard I'm going to keep this short. If you are on Twitter you can search #SMEP to see how I have followed discussions throughout the day. More to come when I get back to a real keyboard. Until then, simply consider how much energy you use. It is largely invisible and embodied in the products we buy and the fuels we use but it is there, driving our First World lifestyles at the (often considerable) cost to others around the globe. Keep it in mind and conserve as if someone's life depended on it. Because it probably does.
No comments:
Post a Comment