Public ecology: an environmental science and policy for global society

Public ecology exists at the interface of science and policy. Public ecology is an approach to environmental inquiry and decision making that does not expect scientific knowledge to be perfect or complete. Rather, public ecology requires that science be produced in collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders in order to construct a body of knowledge that will reflect the pluralist and pragmatic context of its use (decision context), while continuing to maintain the rigor and accountability that earns scientific knowledge its privileged status in contemporary society. As such, public ecology entails both process and content. The process is that of a post-modern scientific method: a process that values the participation of extended peer communities composed of a diversity of research specialists, professional policy-makers, concerned citizens and a variety of other stakeholders. The content of public ecology is a biocultural knowledge of dynamic human ecosystems that directly relates to and results from the participatory, democratic processes that distinguish public ecology as a citizen science. The primary goal of public ecology is to build common ground among competing beliefs and values for the environment. The purpose of this paper is to help unify and establish public ecology as a distinctive approach to environmental science and policy in global society.     

Sustainability as an educational agenda

The mounting evidence about human-induced environmental change, and about its expected detrimental effects on humans and their societies ( [IPCC, 2007], [Reid et?al., 2010] and [Rockstr?m et?al., 2009]), has turned out to be exceedingly difficult to turn into political action to mitigate the change and adapt to its consequences. Economic self-interest creates friction between nation-states, within regional alliances like the EU, and across the divide between the developing and developed world. A significant factor is a vocal and well-funded group of climate skeptics, who question the credibility of mainstream earth system science, overemphasize the disagreements within the scientific community, argue for more research before any action is warranted, and in general create doubt to justify inaction or delay (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). A further problem is that both the decision-makers and the public have a very superficial understanding of the issues, cannot intellectually handle complex problems and uncertainty, and do not always know what and whom to believe. This constitutes a challenge to the education establishment.     

Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: an emerging agenda for social science research

The ‘modernist’ project that has come to dominate food and agricultural policy has failed to provide sustainable outcomes for many poor people in developing countries. Conventional agricultural science is not able to explain let alone address these concerns because it is based on a static equilibrium-centred view that provides little insight into the dynamic character of agri-food systems. This paper analyses how prevailing narratives of technological change and economic growth have come to dominate key food and agriculture policy debates. It seeks to counter these orthodox notions by emphasising that agri-food systems are embedded in complex ecological, economic and social processes, and showing how their interactions are dynamic and vulnerable to short-term shocks and long-term stresses like climate change. The paper makes the case for a deeper understanding of diverse ‘rural worlds’ and their potential pathways to sustainability through agriculture. Moreover, it argues for a normative focus on poverty reduction and concern for the distributional consequences of dynamic changes in agri-food systems, rather than aggregates and averages. Finally, it sets out an interdisciplinary research agenda on agri-food systems that focuses on dynamic system interactions in complex, risk-prone environments and explores how pathways can become more resilient and robust in an era of growing risk and uncertainty.     

生物学模型与海洋学模型的耦合

海洋生态系统的动力问题,如可观测的化学-生物量的时空变化是由于生物和物理过程决定的.预报海洋系统的未来发展需要有一个理论框架.如模型,而这个模型是根据对相关的各个不同过程的研究和了解而发展的.从理论上描述海洋系统的自然方法似乎是把化学生物模型与环境模型结合在一起.但是,环境模型相对比较先进,而化学-生物过程的定量理论描述比较落后.本文讨论了一些关于发展相容理论的方法和问题,指出了海洋生物学模型和海洋学模型耦合的潜在盖处.     

生物学模型与海洋学模型的耦合

海洋生态系统的动力问题,如可观测的化学-生物量的时空变化是由于生物和物理过程决定的.预报海洋系统的未来发展需要有一个理论框架.如模型,而这个模型是根据对相关的各个不同过程的研究和了解而发展的.从理论上描述海洋系统的自然方法似乎是把化学生物模型与环境模型结合在一起.但是,环境模型相对比较先进,而化学-生物过程的定量理论描述比较落后.本文讨论了一些关于发展相容理论的方法和问题,指出了海洋生物学模型和海洋学模型耦合的潜在盖处.     

谈生物教学中的环保教育

在教学过程中,通过例举大量环保实例,渗透环境保护的重要性,从而达到增强同学们的环保意识.     

Life Cycle Assessment as an engineer's tool?

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an increasingly important evaluation tool for decision making and stakeholder discussion; especially when applied during the planning phase, it can pinpoint process steps with a high environmental impact and thus, provide guidance towards optimising the actual technology implementation. These aspects influencing the engineer's work are investigated on the basis of an LCA of the production of Biodiesel from Tallow and Used Vegetable Oil. Impact assessments with the Sustainable Process Index (SPI) and with the problem-oriented approach, show largely concordant results. The highly aggregated indicator SPI makes comparison between options possible. It provides “a bigger picture” of the environmental impacts and is helpful in decision making.     

Pure science or policy involvement? Ambiguous boundary-work for Swedish carbon cycle science

In theory, the interaction between the worlds of environmental science and policy may seem straightforward. From a realm outside politics and power, scientists provide relevant knowledge about nature upon which informed policy decisions could be based. However, in reality this linear model tends to be replaced by a much more complex relationship where the distinction between facts and values, knowledge and interests is less clear cut. In this paper, I explore links between science, policy and power through an interview study conducted with Swedish carbon cycle scientists and government negotiators to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Drawing on a co-production model of science–policy interplay this paper addresses the implications of a mutually constitutive relationship between carbon cycle science and climate policy.     

低碳发展应被视为一种机会

抓住机会德班会议对于各国来说都是一次难得的将问题转化为机遇,将现有体系持续提高形成各种转型解决方案的契机.但同时,各国也面临一个转折点,即中国提出的解决方案将起核心作用.对于中国以及那些最近开始对低碳问题深度关注的其他国家来说,重要的是要了解,目前西方国家政府和组织上正在进行的工作已经变得过时.