The petroleum age began about 150 years ago. Easily available energy has s- ported major advances in agriculture, industry, transportation, and indeed many diverse activities valued by humans. Now world petroleum and natural gas s- plies have peaked and their supplies will slowly decline over the next 40-50 years until depleted. Although small amounts of petroleum and natural gas will remain underground, it will be energetically and economically impossible to extract. In the United States, coal supplies could be available for as long as 40-50 years, depending on how rapidly coal is utilized as a replacement for petroleum and natural gas. Having been comfortable with the security provided by fossil energy, especially petroleum and natural gas, we appear to be slow to recognize the energy crisis in the U. S. and world. Serious energy conservation and research on viable renewable - ergy technologies are needed. Several renewable energy technologies already exist, but sound research is needed to improve their effectiveness and economics. Most of the renewable energy technologies are in uenced by geographic location and face problems of intermittent energy supply and storage. Most renewable technologies require extensive land; a few researchers have even suggested that one-half of all land biomass could be harvested in order to supply the U. S. with 30% of its liquid fuel! Some optimistic investigations of renewable energy have failed to recognize that only 0. 1% of the solar energy is captured annually in the U. S.

In 1982, three conservationists in the United States discussed a growing concern they shared about the long-term biological consequences of nuclear war; they wondered what such a war would do to the air, the water, the soils 1 the natural systems upon which all life depends. I was one of those three; the others were executives of two philanthropic foundations, Robert L. Allen of the Henry P. Kendall Foundation and the late Robert W. Scrivner of the Rockefeller Family Fund. Together we began trying to find out what the scientific community was doing about the problem and what steps could be taken to alert the environmental movement to the need to address the subject. We knew that a large-scale nuclear war might kill from 300 million to a billion people outright and that another billion could suffer serious injuries requiring immediate medical attention, care that would be largely unavailable. But what kind of world wouldisurvivors face? Would the long-term consequences prove to humanity and survival of all species than the to be even more serious immediate effects? We found that comparatively little scientific research had been done about the envifonmental consequences of a nuclear war of the magni tude that toda, y's huge arsenal could unleash . ."

The SAMOS workshop is an international gathering of highly quali?ed researchers from academia and industry, sharing in a 3-day lively discussion on the quiet and - spiring northern mountainside of the Mediterranean island of Samos. As a tradition, the workshop features workshop presentations in the morning, while after lunch all kinds of informal discussions and nut-cracking gatherings take place. The workshop is unique in the sense that not only solved research problems are presented and discussed but also (partly) unsolved problems and in-depth topical reviews can be unleashed in the sci- ti?c arena. Consequently, the workshop provides the participants with an environment where collaboration rather than competition is fostered. The earlier workshops, SAMOS I-IV (2001-2004), were composed only of invited presentations. Due to increasing expressions of interest in the workshop, the Program Committee of SAMOS V decided to open the workshop for all submissions. As a result the SAMOS workshop gained an immediate popularity; a total of 114 submitted papers were received for evaluation. The papers came from 24 countries and regions: Austria (1), Belgium (2), Brazil (5), Canada (4), China (12), Cyprus (2), Czech Republic (1), Finland (15), France (6), Germany (8), Greece (5), Hong Kong (2), India (2), Iran (1), Korea (24), The Netherlands (7), Pakistan (1), Poland (2), Spain (2), Sweden (2), T- wan (1), Turkey (2), UK (2), and USA (5). We are grateful to all of the authors who submitted papers to the workshop.

Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Use Economic and Environmental Benefits Edited by David Pimentel Cornell University, USA Pest insects, plant pathogens, and weeds destroy approximately 400f all potential food production worldwide. This major food loss occurs despite the application of 2.5 million tons of pesticides at a cost of more than $25 billion each year. Pesticides provide many important benefits in pest control, returning about $4 for every $1 invested. However, this cost/benefit ratio does not include the annual environmental and public health costs of using pesticides which include 3 million human poisonings and 220,000 deaths annually worldwide. With more than 2 billion people malnourished in the world, a major effort is required to reduce the continuing 400ss of crops to pests. With a relatively small investment in research and extension, this crop destruction can be reduced. Technologies now exist to reduce pesticide use by at least 50%, without reducing crop yields or substantially altering the 'cosmetic standards' of fresh fruit and vegetables. Reducing pesticide use will lower the economic costs of pest control, protect public health, and improve the stability of the natural environment. The various pest management techniques available are discussed in all chapters of this book. It will help governmental leaders, scientists and the public to understand that many strategies, if implemented, will improve pest management, maintain crop yields, and reduce pesticide use.