欧盟生物经济中的生物物理限制谈判:对欧盟政策中有关生物质使用监管的两场冲突的批判性分析。

IF 5.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Sustainability Science Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1007/s11625-024-01543-0
Benjamin Fleischmann, Andreas Mayer, Christoph Görg, Melanie Pichler
{"title":"欧盟生物经济中的生物物理限制谈判:对欧盟政策中有关生物质使用监管的两场冲突的批判性分析。","authors":"Benjamin Fleischmann, Andreas Mayer, Christoph Görg, Melanie Pichler","doi":"10.1007/s11625-024-01543-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The bioeconomy seeks to replace fossil fuels with biomass in various products and industrial sectors. The dominant political bioeconomy project focuses on economic growth and aims to increase biomass demand in the EU. This can exacerbate global land use competition and pressures on ecosystems. However, this project does not consider reducing resource use to tackle biophysical limits. Technological innovations are the means for ensuring sustainability. Few social scientific studies have investigated how actors reproduce or question the dominant bioeconomy project. We contribute to this research gap by using critical policy analysis. We explore how actors address biophysical limits and assert their positions and strategies in policy conflicts stemming from the EU bioeconomy strategy. We thereby identified two central conflicts: regulating bio-based plastics and the cascading use of biomass. Our analysis included position papers, policy documents, and expert interviews. We grouped the actors based on their positions and strategies into three political bioeconomy projects. Thus, in addition to the dominant growth-oriented project, we identified a circular and sufficiency-oriented one. Our analysis indicates that these alternative projects influenced bio-based plastics and bioenergy policies to acknowledge biophysical limits. EU policy even provides measures to reduce plastic use. Nevertheless, the Renewable Energy Directive's approach to cascading use reflects a compromise with the growth-oriented project that might not cap using primary biomass for energy. Overall, we demonstrate that there are potential alliances in promoting alternatives to the dominant bioeconomy project. Setting clear limits is constrained by powerful interests advocating for a growth-oriented bioeconomy.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-024-01543-0.</p>","PeriodicalId":49457,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Science","volume":"19 6","pages":"1935-1948"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11543732/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negotiating biophysical limits in the European Union's bioeconomy: a critical analysis of two conflicts over regulating biomass use in EU policy.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Fleischmann, Andreas Mayer, Christoph Görg, Melanie Pichler\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11625-024-01543-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The bioeconomy seeks to replace fossil fuels with biomass in various products and industrial sectors. The dominant political bioeconomy project focuses on economic growth and aims to increase biomass demand in the EU. This can exacerbate global land use competition and pressures on ecosystems. However, this project does not consider reducing resource use to tackle biophysical limits. Technological innovations are the means for ensuring sustainability. Few social scientific studies have investigated how actors reproduce or question the dominant bioeconomy project. We contribute to this research gap by using critical policy analysis. We explore how actors address biophysical limits and assert their positions and strategies in policy conflicts stemming from the EU bioeconomy strategy. We thereby identified two central conflicts: regulating bio-based plastics and the cascading use of biomass. Our analysis included position papers, policy documents, and expert interviews. We grouped the actors based on their positions and strategies into three political bioeconomy projects. Thus, in addition to the dominant growth-oriented project, we identified a circular and sufficiency-oriented one. Our analysis indicates that these alternative projects influenced bio-based plastics and bioenergy policies to acknowledge biophysical limits. EU policy even provides measures to reduce plastic use. Nevertheless, the Renewable Energy Directive's approach to cascading use reflects a compromise with the growth-oriented project that might not cap using primary biomass for energy. Overall, we demonstrate that there are potential alliances in promoting alternatives to the dominant bioeconomy project. Setting clear limits is constrained by powerful interests advocating for a growth-oriented bioeconomy.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-024-01543-0.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainability Science\",\"volume\":\"19 6\",\"pages\":\"1935-1948\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11543732/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainability Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01543-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability Science","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01543-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物经济寻求在各种产品和工业部门中用生物质替代化石燃料。占主导地位的政治生物经济项目侧重于经济增长,旨在增加欧盟对生物质的需求。这会加剧全球土地利用竞争和生态系统压力。然而,该项目并未考虑减少资源使用以应对生物物理限制。技术创新是确保可持续性的手段。很少有社会科学研究对参与者如何复制或质疑占主导地位的生物经济项目进行调查。我们通过批判性政策分析来填补这一研究空白。我们探讨了参与者如何应对生物物理限制,并在欧盟生物经济战略引发的政策冲突中坚持自己的立场和策略。由此,我们确定了两个核心冲突:生物基塑料的监管和生物质的级联利用。我们的分析包括立场文件、政策文件和专家访谈。我们根据参与者的立场和战略将其分为三个政治生物经济项目。因此,除了以增长为导向的主导项目外,我们还确定了以循环和充足为导向的项目。我们的分析表明,这些替代项目影响了生物塑料和生物能源政策,使其承认生物物理极限。欧盟政策甚至规定了减少塑料使用的措施。尽管如此,《可再生能源指令》的级联使用方法反映了对以增长为导向的项目的妥协,该项目可能不会限制使用初级生物质作为能源。总之,我们表明,在促进替代占主导地位的生物经济项目方面存在潜在的联盟。制定明确的限制条件受到了主张以增长为导向的生物经济的强大利益集团的制约:在线版本包含补充材料,可查阅 10.1007/s11625-024-01543-0。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Negotiating biophysical limits in the European Union's bioeconomy: a critical analysis of two conflicts over regulating biomass use in EU policy.

The bioeconomy seeks to replace fossil fuels with biomass in various products and industrial sectors. The dominant political bioeconomy project focuses on economic growth and aims to increase biomass demand in the EU. This can exacerbate global land use competition and pressures on ecosystems. However, this project does not consider reducing resource use to tackle biophysical limits. Technological innovations are the means for ensuring sustainability. Few social scientific studies have investigated how actors reproduce or question the dominant bioeconomy project. We contribute to this research gap by using critical policy analysis. We explore how actors address biophysical limits and assert their positions and strategies in policy conflicts stemming from the EU bioeconomy strategy. We thereby identified two central conflicts: regulating bio-based plastics and the cascading use of biomass. Our analysis included position papers, policy documents, and expert interviews. We grouped the actors based on their positions and strategies into three political bioeconomy projects. Thus, in addition to the dominant growth-oriented project, we identified a circular and sufficiency-oriented one. Our analysis indicates that these alternative projects influenced bio-based plastics and bioenergy policies to acknowledge biophysical limits. EU policy even provides measures to reduce plastic use. Nevertheless, the Renewable Energy Directive's approach to cascading use reflects a compromise with the growth-oriented project that might not cap using primary biomass for energy. Overall, we demonstrate that there are potential alliances in promoting alternatives to the dominant bioeconomy project. Setting clear limits is constrained by powerful interests advocating for a growth-oriented bioeconomy.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-024-01543-0.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sustainability Science
Sustainability Science 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
174
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The journal Sustainability Science offers insights into interactions within and between nature and the rest of human society, and the complex mechanisms that sustain both. The journal promotes science based predictions and impact assessments of global change, and seeks ways to ensure that such knowledge can be understood by society and be used to strengthen the resilience of global natural systems (such as ecosystems, ocean and atmospheric systems, nutrient cycles), social systems (economies, governments, industry) and human systems at the individual level (lifestyles, health, security, and human values).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信