From the ESA blog:
All of this research is needed. But where is the balance? It is the ecologists who know about primary productivity, about the effects of harvests on biodiversity, and about designing sustainable systems. We know about fluxes of greenhouse gasses. We study the effects of biomass removal on biodiversity. In summary, it is the ecologists who should be the leaders in this debate. The Ecological Society of America and other representatives of the community of ecologists should demand that our science receive proportional attention. Otherwise, we will merely end up studying the ecological effects of yet another uncontrolled industry.
Amen. Isn't running headlong into industry without considering sustainability what placed these burdens on our natural systems in the first place?
The author of this entry, Mike Palmer, runs his own blog on biofuels and ecology.
- Log in to post comments
I'll suggest that the award for "first place" in burdening natural systems should go to tilling the soil. 10,000 years of "traditional" agriculture is responsible for more habitat destruction than any other human activity. A rush to biofuels will predictably make the situation worse.