Birte Holst Jørgensen ~ Full interview

Managing Director of Nordic Energy Research

1.  What are the most urgent problems in the field of climate change?

Climate change is closely related to the energy sector. The Stern report states that 65% of GHG emissions are related to the energy sector. Energy consumption is an integral part of our economic activities, I would even say that energy is the pre-condition for our highly developed societies. So with improved world economic development like for example in the emerging economies in China, India and Brasil, we also experience increased energy consumption as in the highly developed countries. All in all, these developments have a major impact on the climate.

The CEO of a large Swedish energy company has said that as part of the problem, the energy sector must be part of the solution. Conventional technologies based on fossil energy are to be made more efficient and cleaner with Carbon Capture and Storage. We also need renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind and bio-energy technologies. This change will not take place from one day to the next. It requires a dedicated R&D effort in new sustainable and affordable energy technologies as well as favourable framework conditions. The easiest and cheapest way to do something is to use energy more efficiently. Denmark is a good example of how economic growth can be decoupled from energy consumption. For more than 20 years, Denmark has experienced economic growth and at the same time stabilized its energy consumption.

2.  How did Denmark keep energy use low? Can the Danes be an example for other countries?

The short story is that you should have an intelligent mix of favourable framework conditions and longer term research activities. Energy efficiency is primarily about changing people’s and companies’ behaviour. This takes time and both carrots and sticks are probably necessary. However, research can provide solutions that may qualify people’s choice and the realisation of that choice.

3.  What solutions do you see for these problems?

There is not one solution but several solutions. Denmark offers one example, but I am sure that there are other good examples of how to balance economic growth and sustainability.

4.  Are there any biotechnological solutions for these problems (from question 1)? What biotechnology solutions are already available and what solutions may be available in the future? Is there a difference between genetic modification and other biotechnological techniques?

I prefer to speak about bio-energy instead of biotechnology. Bio-energy technologies are very promising. One has to make a distinction between first, second or third generation bio-energy. Biofuels based on first generation technologies use grain, sugarcane etc. The increasing demand for biofuel in for example the USA has led to higher food prices. So the question is if that is good or bad for poor people. Some argue that food is a scarce commodity and should not be used for fuels whereas others argue that this is about access to food. Biofuels based on second or third generation technologies use non-food crops and waste. These technologies are not fully developed and need further R&D before they can compete with first generation technologies in the market. This development may be speeded up when a large country like China states that it will only produce bio-fuels based on non-food products.

Do GMOs have a role to play in the provision of bio-energy? Two strategic research agenda reports from European technology platforms address this. One report is the Technology Platform Plant for the future and the other is the Forest-Based Sector Technology Platform’s ‘A Strategic Research Agenda’. As it is highlighted in the reports, Europe has a good starting point for combining genomic approaches with analytical techniques, molecular breeding and biodiversity studies. Public acceptance has to be taken into account. When using GMO feedstock for bio-energy be it for biofuels, heat or power, the question is not whether it is a healthy food product but rather the environmental implications of the GMO production. Can it be produced in a controlled way, will it threaten biodiversity?

5.  What are the necessary conditions for successful solutions?

In our highly developed societies with appropriate framework conditions, control and public involvement, I think it should be possible to produce GMO energy materials without polluting the environment and threatening biodiversity.

6.  Should biotechnological solutions be placed higher on the social, political and/or scientific agendas? If so, why?

The topic is already high on the agenda. Politicians seem positive about biotechnology. But it is difficult to communicate about biotechnology in such a way that people don´t get afraid of what is going on. It has to do with how people perceive risks. Scientists and other people working in biotechnology are in general very positive towards the use of this technique, because they consider it a technique in line with other techniques used in agriculture and forestry. Risk is thereby perceived as something contained which can be assessed and controlled with the right measures and procedures. Lay persons perceive risks much more broadly and therefore more difficult to manage. Decision-makers need to take this into account.

7.  What are the differences between developing and developed countries (in terms of both problems and opportunities)?

There is a paradox here. Only recently the EU lifted its moratorium on GMOs and has applied rather strict procedures to get permission to grow GMOs. Most developing countries do not have such sophisticated legislation but are open for unrestricted use of GMOs. Although developed countries may have the best conditions to allow for the use of GMOs, they also have well organised NGOs, informed citizens and others that advocate a ‘Not In My Backyard’ kind of standpoint. This paradox is not helpful in achieving broader acceptance.

8.  In your view, what will the field of food look like in 20 years time?

This depends on which actions are taken over the next few years, for example in relation to an international replacement of the Kyoto Protocol. Bio-energy is just one among other sustainable energy technologies. With further development in second and third generation bio-energy technologies, the discussion about competition between energy and food will disappear. We have to develop a good energy mix that is environmentally friendly and gives a reason for people and companies to save energy.

We need more action to find different solutions. There is no ideal energy mix, this depends on local circumstances. We should not put all eggs in one basket. Building a new energy system is a long-term process that requires strategic decisions.

9.  Do you have any other remark on this subject?

There is a difference in risk perception between experts and lay persons. This calls for an open and transparent communication. Difficulties should be addressed, not put aside. You can not hide when a storm passes, you have to face it. Technologies must be socially accepted, this also includes GMO.

9.  Which statement/question/dilemma would you like to put to the readers of this interview? (We would like to use this statement/question/dilemma for the internet discussion.)

One has to acknowledge that risk perceptions vary among people (see also question 9). Information, transparency and dialogue is needed to deal with concerns and views of people.