漂浮的技術地景:台灣生質能源計畫的技術選擇與規模的三重邊界

作者資訊
李宜澤
Yi-tze Lee

中文摘要

 

  這篇論文針對農業技術發展的全球化與在地性特質,以及國家政策之歷史因素,探討生質燃料計畫過程中相關行動者如何形成網絡,以及不同規模涉及的技術思維:包括行動者參與計畫的軌跡,農業轉型的想像,以及種植規模的討論。本文以能源作物發展的背景以及在台灣試驗的「失敗」,討論農地種植需求的實際考量,除了呈現政策設計與實際種植考量的差異,也討論不同參與者以歷史記憶,對專家論述的質疑與重塑。從台灣設置雜糧種植區的歷史背景,以及2005-2008年間以休耕雜糧區作為示範能源作物的種植為實例,討論技術使用在田間種植與實驗規模的不同。比較能源作物實驗田區計畫中農民與農政系統,國營與私人技術投資公司,以及生技實驗室研究人員的不同觀點。本文主要關注技術的敘說如何連結不同行動者,並且操作環境治理議題在地化的過程。整個台灣就是各種農業技術的實驗田區,透過對於不同規模操作上的差異和實際需求的問題,本文以三種生質能源運用模式,討論當代生質能計畫在禮物經濟,區域組裝,與生物資本間的不同。進一步指出脫離農民參與的農業生技成果,不易回到農業生產部門的困境,並以此計畫反省生質能源導向社區公共性的思考。
 
A Floating Technoscape: The Threefold Boundaries of Biofuel Projects in Taiwan
 
Abstract
 
  In this paper, I take the innovative project of bioenergy in Taiwan as an example to show the case of problematic professionalism in applying agricultural materials for fuel production. The experiment of energy crop cultivation was promoted vigorously from 2005 to 2008 in Southern Taiwan based on the expectation of revitalizing dormant farmland into open lab for agricultural residues and coarse grains cultivation. My discussion delves back to the establishment of assigned coarse grain regions as a convenient but bounded scale for energy crop plantation under subsidy policies and local specialties. For the farmers in Southern Taiwan, their memories over massive plantation on sugarcane during Japanese colonial period resonate with personal evaluation of current project. Furthermore, the contested responses to the failed advocacy indicate diverse imagination on the efficacy of bioenergy and related environmental initiatives. This paper then focuses on the cacophony of different interest parties, including agricultural specialists, farmers, policy makers, biotech scientists, and venture-capital investors, among three types of bioenergy projects. Two points are discussed in the end of this article: First, the conflict between land application and biotech professionalism results in the miscalculation between “scale” and “model.” Second, responses of local communities transform biofuel project into new social common interests, and creates an arena for new perception on agrarian environment, turning the failed initiative into public awareness of alternative modernity.
引用: 
《科技、醫療與社會》,第15期,頁187-252,2012年10月出版