This episode focuses on 'negative emission' technologies, which aim to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, either indirectly by influencing natural processes or directly through technology.

Our guest, Dr Wim Carton, points out how carbon removal is closely linked to the idea of 'overshoot': an actively advocated agenda for dealing with the current rush to climate catastrophe. Overshoot basically means that we accept to temporarily cross critical temperature limits and then these technologies will solve the problem of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at some point in the future. It's part of the IPCC scenarios and the Paris Agreement, and it is implicitly justifying the continued use of fossil fuels. Wim also introduces us to IAMs, Integrated Assessment Models, whose underlying economic assumptions reinforce the logic of postponing fossil fuel cuts by making them seem more expensive than fixing them later through negative emissions.

Wim Carton has just written a book on the subject (with Andreas Malm) called "Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Collapse". He is a human geographer at the Centre for Sustainability Studies at Lund University and has been studying the political economy of climate change mitigation for the past decade. His research has examined the impact of 'market-based mechanisms' on climate policy.

For additional resources and a deeper exploration of Wim’s work and views, please visit:

https://www.lucsus.lu.se/wim-carton

Further reading:

Malm, A., & Carton, W. (2024). Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown. New York/London: Verso Books.

Malm, A., & Carton, W. (forthcoming). The Long Heat: Climate Politics When It's Too Late. New York/London: Verso Books.

Carton, W. (2019). “Fixing” Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future: Negative Emissions, Spatiotemporal Fixes, and the Political Economy of Delay. Antipode, 51(3), 750–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12532

Carton, W. (2017). Dancing to the Rhythms of the Fossil Fuel Landscape: Landscape Inertia and the Temporal Limits to Market-Based Climate Policy. Antipode, 49(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12262

Beyond the Fix is brought to you by Critical Scientists Switzerland, an independent network of scientists. It is made possible by the Stiftung Mercator Schweiz and produced by Podcastschmiede. Host: Thomas Kobel. Music: Mich Gerber.

If you enjoy the podcast and would like to hear more episodes, please consider supporting our work.

In this episode we focus on genetic engineering, which is often presented as a necessity for climate-resilient agriculture.

Our guest, Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, takes us on a fascinating journey through the early stages of genetic engineering in agriculture, highlighting the flaws in the very essence of the approach – its reductionism of ecological relationships – which has not changed with CRISPR/Cas and new genomic engineering techniques. She explains how the promises of genetic engineering have been consistently exaggerated, and despite vast investments in the development of GM crops for agriculture, they have fallen short of expectations. She asks whether it is not only the considerable ecological risks of the technologies that make them a questionable bet for the future of agriculture, but the poor ratio of investment to results of the whole biotech endeavour.

Angelika Hilbeck is an agro-ecologist and entomologist with over 30 years experience in the study of genetically modified crops and their impact on the environment. She has done pioneering work on the ecology of GM crops and, more recently, alternative agro-ecological approaches in Eastern Africa. In 2024, she retired from 25 years of research and teaching at the Institute of Integrative Biology at ETH Zurich.

For additional resources and a deeper exploration of Angelika’s work and views, please visit:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Angelika-Hilbeck

https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/628130/GAIA_2023_02_216.pdf?sequence=2

Further reading:

Chapela, I., Hilbeck, A. (2023). GMOs and Human and Environmental Safety. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J.A. (eds) Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume I. Collaborative Bioethics, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29451-8_39

Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N. et al. (2015). No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environ Sci Eur 27, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

Hilbeck, A., Meier, M. & Trtikova, M. (2012). Underlying reasons of the controversy over adverse effects of Bt toxins on lady beetle and lacewing larvae. Environ Sci Eur 24, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-24-9

Antoniou, M.N., Robinson, C., Castro, I. & Hilbeck, A. (2023). Agricultural GMOs and their associated pesticides: misinformation, science, and evidence. Environ Sci Eur 35, 76, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00787-4

Heinemann, J. (2024): Let’s cut the crap on gene technology. The Spinoff. https://thespinoff.co.nz/science/29-08-2024/lets-cut-the-crap-on-gene-technology

Longo, G. (2023). New Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Towards a “scientific precautionary principle”. Organisms. Journal of Biological Sciences, 6(2), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.13133/2532-5876/18307

Montenegro de Wit, M. (2023). Can agroecology and CRISPR mix? The politics of complementarity and moving toward technology sovereignty. Agric Hum Values 39, 733–755.

In this episode, we focus on one of the most challenging problems generated by human technology: where can highly radioactive waste from nuclear energy production be safely disposed for the next one million years?

Through the lens of political geology, Dr. Rony Emmenegger tells the story of the long search for a deep geological repository in Switzerland (and beyond) and its crucial socio-political implications. He introduces us to the concept of passive safety, which builds on the idea that responsibility for radioactive waste can be delegated to geological formations underground to ensure safety in the long term. Given the widespread social and political attitude to rely on techno-scientific expertise, he urges us to move away from asking whether or not a problem can be solved – in this case by deep geological repositories – and to focus on what kind of science is actually involved.

Our guest, Rony Emmenegger, is a political geographer with a keen interest in the governance of human-environment relations. His work focuses on how knowledge of the deep geological underground is produced in the case of nuclear waste governance and how it is articulated and contested in the public sphere.

For additional resources and a deeper exploration of Rony’s work and views, please visit:

https://www.unifr.ch/geo/en/department/staff/research/people/239300/a2c19

https://www.unifr.ch/geo/humangeography/en/research/political-geology.html

https://data.snf.ch/grants/grant/220005

Further reading:

Emmenegger, R. (under revision): Nuclear Strata: Enacting Clay for the Deep Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste in Switzerland, Environment and Planning E.

Emmenegger, R. (2021). Deep Time Horizons: Vincent Ialenti’s Deep Time Reckoning: How Future Thinking Can Help Earth Now. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Anthropocenes–Human, Inhuman, Posthuman, 2(1). https://www.anthropocenes.net/article/id/1015/

Hecht, G. (2014). Being Nuclear: Africans and the Global Uranium Trade. Cambridge (MA): MIT press.

Bobbette, A., Donovan, A. (2019). Political Geology: An Introduction. In: Bobbette, A., Donovan, A. (eds) Political Geology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98189- 5_1

Beyond the Fix is brought to you by Critical Scientists Switzerland, an independent network of scientists. It is made possible by the Stiftung Mercator Schweiz and produced by Podcastschmiede. Host: Thomas Kobel. Music: Mich Gerber.

If you enjoy the podcast and would like to hear more episodes, please consider supporting our work.