Share
As part of Earth Month, Connecting Genetics to Climate took part in this year’s LA Climate Week. Director of Strategy and Partnerships Geoff Hunt hosted “Using Biology to Respond to Wildfire: An Exercise in Dialogue”, an interactive event aimed at generating dialogue and discussion about biotechnological approaches to countering wildfire. The event featured a presentation from Teal Brown Zimring of the Lab to Land Institute, followed by an interactive discussion of a case study pulled from the Institute’s report on Biotechnology and Wildfire. Participants then generated a series of questions about the technological, political and societal approaches described in the report, using our newly-developed questioning tool. Some of the questions raised:
- What additional, unseen consequences result from natural disasters?
- What sort of long-term changes to natural systems will result because of natural disasters?
- How can actionable priorities be pulled out of technical reports?
The event was part of a larger panoply of activities taking place across the Los Angeles region against the backdrop of the January 2025 wildfires that destroyed the Pacific Palisades and Altadena neighborhoods, and traumatized the entire area. Several of the events had either a direct or indirect intersection with the work being done in the climate biotech sector.
An interesting discussion came earlier in the week during a talk on agriculture and climate change presented by a group of farmers. Panelists talked about how often they were approached by researchers with the latest and greatest technology to increase crop yields and/or decrease costs, only to see the product fail to match the hype. Given this backdrop, biotech was seen as an additional, and often unnecessary, risk on top of the inherent risk of farming. However, there was some reluctant agreement that biotechnologists could play a welcome role, mostly by helping farmers address existing problems by eliminating the guesswork involved in their traditional processes (such as nutrient tracking in soil).
At a separate event, panelists from UCLA, the California Air Resources Board, and the Climate & Wildfire Institute discussed gaps in wildfire prevention technology, talked about developing public-facing data tools, and pointed out how different research paths converge (such as the impacts of wildfire smoke and extreme heat), all areas that tie into climate biotech. When looking at solutions to fire-related challenges, the panelists emphasized the importance of engagement between researchers and policymakers with local communities. Decision-makers are actively looking for input on policies and potential research areas, presenting an opening for those working on climate biotechnology to be part of these wide-ranging discussions.
Turning to the issue of resilience and rebuilding, a full-day event capped off the week by focusing on how the LA region could successfully bounce back from the tragic wildfires. A major theme was cause and risk, and how these factors have been, and should be, taken into consideration when discussing housing, infrastructure and community building. However, nature-based solutions (including climate biotechnologies) were not front of mind for people in the room, who were rightfully focused on getting their homes and communities rebuilt as quickly as possible. This tone showcased the challenge of framing discussions on climate change through the lens of nature, which too often is presented as separate from, and secondary to, our built environment, a challenge regularly seen in the climate biotech space.
Is your city hosting a climate week? If so, what kinds of discussions do you want to see?
