Search

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestThe authors declare that they have no financial interests. The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 may impair blood coagulation less than other HES solutions and, thus, may be used at larger doses without increasing the risk of postoperative bleeding. This study tested the hypothesis that volume replacement with 6% HES 130/0.4 at a dose of up to 50 ml/kg does not increase blood loss and transfusion requirements in elective coronary artery bypass surgery compared with 6% HES 200/0.5 at a dose of up to 33 ml/kg., Methods: One hundred twenty adult patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass surgery were randomized to receive up to 50 ml/kg of 6% HES 130/0.4 or up to 33 ml/kg of 6% HES 200/0.5 for volume replacement during surgery and until 24 h thereafter. Volume requirements in excess of the respective maximum dose of HES were treated with gelatin. Colloid use was at the discretion of the attending physicians and not dictated by protocol. The primary outcome variable was chest tube drainage volume during the first 24 h after surgery., Results: The data from 117 patients (HES 130/0.4, 59 patients; HES 200/0.5, 58 patients) who completed the study according to protocol were analyzed. The median volumes of HES administered were 49 and 33 ml/kg in the HES 130/0.4 and HES 200/0.5 groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Consequently, patients in the HES 130/0.4 group required less gelatin in addition to HES than those in the HES 200/0.5 group (medians: 7 ml/kg vs. 20 ml/kg, P < 0.001). The combined volumes of HES and gelatin were similar for both groups (P = 0.21). The 24-h chest tube drainage (medians: 660 ml vs. 705 ml, P = 0.60) did not differ significantly between the groups, nor did transfusion outcome., Conclusion: Six percent HES 130/0.4 at a median dose of 49 ml/kg did not increase blood loss and transfusion requirements in coronary artery bypass surgery compared with 6% HES 200/0.5 at a median dose of 33 ml/kg.