World 'needs Plan B' on climate - UN

[Monkfish]

Correct. Now try that yourself.

[Guest]

Correct. Now try that yourself.

Everything I have said can be supported by evidence, why don't you try that for a change

Br Cornelius

[Phaeton80]

I recently ran across an article saying that the anticipated Arctic Ozone Hole has not developed. And, it seems, the Antarctic one is shrinking, albeit slowly. We seem to be getting a handle on CFCs. It's not all gloom-and-doom.

This is neither here nor there, and has no bearing what so ever on my remark about it not being wise to stare onesself blind on one aspect, be it CFCs, be it CO2.

Capping, as in cap-and-trade, won't work. At best, it only moves pollution around a little. There are also too many exceptions for some politician's buddy (or "campaign contributor"). AND: it doesn't give the consumer a stake in combatting CO2. But that can be solved by a fee on carbon charged at the source (mine mouth, well-head, port-of-entry) and distributed to ALL citizens as nearly as possible on an equal basis; the billionaire and the derelict both get the same-sized check. Each year the amount charged is increased slightly and the money evenly distributed. Every bit, excluding a small amount needed to operate the system, is returned to citizens. NO money can be diverted for other uses. That would work (maybe). Nothing else that has been proposed has much chance of success.

Yet this is what is being done. I agree with you, it will not work like this. The reason why it wont work is not merely the chosen method to combat a single aspect, it is mainly the chosen (limited) spectrum of environmental preserving action(s). Which again, is extremly selective, lacking.

Deforestation in the Amazon has only a small effect on atmospheric CO2. That's because the land is abandoned within a few years of being cut or cleared. It takes only four years to restore the canopy and the functioning of the forest. There is a loss of carbon sequestration capacity due to removal of large trees, so the net effect is negative. The people of Brazil will have to live with what they do to the land, just as we in the US must live with the damage done by slash-and-burn cotton and corn production in the south, but for the rest of the world, the Amazon is not that big of a deal.

Thats exactly the mindset I was talking about. And it was not only the Amazon I was referring to, and it was not just tropical rainforests either. Here, some more for you to read, Doug.

http://scitechdaily.com/deforestation-adds-more-atmospheric-co2-than-the-sum-total-of-cars-trucks-on-the-worlds-roads/

And:

Oxygen is almost exclusively the product of photosynthesis (Lyons, 2007), and as one of the precursor chemicals of this process is carbon dioxide, we can expect an inverse correlation between the atmospheric oxygen curve and the carbon dioxide curve through time in absence of other processes affecting carbon dioxide and oxygen levels. This is in fact observed by Keeling et al. (1996) in measurements taken last century.

Although recent media attention has focussed on the claim that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide introduces inefficiencies to the process of photosynthesis, it is widely known as a matter of verifiable fact that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide drastically increases plant growth. Plant growth not only depends on the photosynthesis of carbon dioxide but also increases the photosynthesising infrastructure. This is supported by studies of past growth (Waddell et al., 1987; Graybill & Idso, 1993; Grace et al., 1995; Smith et al. 2002). It is also supported by experimental results (Idso & Kimball, 1991; Idso & Idso, 1994; Idso & Kimball, 1994; Kimball et al., 1995; Pinter et al., 1996; Idso & Kimball, 1997; Kimball et al., 2007). Carbon dioxide also drastically accelerates reproduction of algae (Shapiro, 1973) and plankton (Riebesell, 1993).

The sum of this research is that the photosynthesising biomass of planet Earth adjusts its growth to best exploit available atmospheric carbon dioxide. Thus any increase in carbon dioxide emission by human beings, fossil fuel combustion, volcanoes, or any other cause in absence of factors affecting the mechanism of photosynthetic carbon sequestration, is easily absorbed by the planet's photosynthesising biomass. This indicates that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is not controlled by any carbon dioxide emission, but by the reduction of natural carbon sequestration infrastructure such as photosynthesising biomass. Deforestation is the most direct and prolific anthropogenic reduction of a natural self-regulating carbon sink.

http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/

In Europe and North America we are planting more acres than we are clearing. That's a result of increased efficiency and the loss of government price supports. But we are running out of plantable sites. I don't foresee a great improvement in that area.

The problem with forests is that they are highly-susceptible to warming and are rapidly declining worldwide. Foresters are trying to anticipate future conditions and prepare with proper planting and selection systems, but even in the American South it takes forty years to change over the rotation, so it's a slow process.

What you are saying here is that because it is getting warmer, given fossil fuel emissions are increasing CO2 levels, forests are rapidly declining world wide. Care to prove that statement? Interesting you should marginalise actual human deforestation, and inflate temperature related, rapid forest decline (mind you, you didnt imply forest range shifts, but 'rapid forest decline').

Problem with building things to last: they cost more. And that means the rich can buy them, but the rest of us can't afford them. You have to have a little money in the bank before you can afford the more-expensive item, even if it is cheaper in the long run. So the question is really: how do we help those at the bottom of the economic ladder get ahead enough to buy the more-efficient products?

Thats a wee bit simplistic, wouldnt you say? I could even mark it as obfuscation of my point. Which was and is; why the massive attention for CO2, while almost no one knows about planned obsolescence. The crazy thing is, quality products cost less in the long run. Not only for the consumer, but especially for society as a whole.

I just gave you one: charge a fee on carbon at the source. That affects all users equally. And all uses equally. When the money is returned to the citizens, just get out of the way and let them decide how best to spend it. Most will shy away from high-carbon products because of the expense and put the money into making their lives better. The greatest effects will result from decisions made by millions of people living on the margin.

You dont seem to understand. The point made was to not only focus on carbon emissions.

You have just hit a mighty big nail on the head. I think the US is headed for a real revolution if we don't figure out how to throw the billionaires out of government peacefully and soon (like within one or two election cycles). Revolutions follow a predictable course. Right now, we're in the politics stage. If most people start believing that the politicians aren't getting the job done, then efforts will get more forceful.

I dont see anything like that happening any time soon. Your very 'election cycle' stands by virtue of donations from big business. If US pres. candidates dont have the support of big business, they havent a chance in hell to win the election. You can call me a pessimist, but Id wager that system isnt going to change within two election cycles. Conditioning c.q. social engineering is too strong, made into an art. Especially in the US.

Would you mind presenting a few concrete examples? It's really hard to answer an unsupported rant.

Sure, Doug. Nobody likes 'unsupported rants'.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

http://www.examiner.com/article/how-the-lie-of-global-warming-consensus-among-scientists-came-to-pass

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/united-nations-caught-lying-again-on-climate-claims-climate-change-chief-says-sorry-for-hot-air-claim-over-melting-glaciers/

http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=1067

That's politics. And I don't believe in "moral high ground." That's for the snooty folks. All I'm looking for is effective action.

In all honesty, you could have fooled me.

What's this? A signature? Does that indicate "self stroking arrogance?" Welcome to the club, Phaeton80.

This was obviously meant in jest. And given you werent joking, one would be inclined to conclude you didnt catch that fact. Which, in turn, would be rather disconcerting.

I don't know about "arrogance," but I have been working in forestry, agriculture and now, environmental science for 43 years. I have first-hand experience with farm programs and what they are trying to do. I work with climate science daily - it's my job - they pay me to do it. I like to think I have learned something in that time.

Doug

I respect that. That doesnt mean I have to blindly accept everything you say. Must be a magnificent job though. Beats the hell out of ICT. ;-)

[Monkfish]

It's sad but true that parallels can be drawn between the born again ecologists and the born again Christians. They each fight their corner with blind enthusiasm and refuse to be deterred by even the most compelling of arguments. These days they only knock on doors and poke their long noses into other peoples affairs believing wholeheartedly that the world will not be a better place until everyone is in their church and we all sing from the same hymn sheet.

Fortunately things have changed slightly since 1525. But not that much.

‘I assure you that with the help of God I will enter powerfully against you, and I will make war on you in every place and in every way that I can, and I will subject you to the yoke and obedience of the church and their highnesses, and I will take your persons and your women and your children, and I will make them slaves, and as such I will sell them, and dispose of them as their highnesses command: I will take your goods, and I will do you all the evils and harms which I can, just as to vassals who do not obey and do not want to receive their lord, resist him and contradict him. And I declare that the deaths and harms which arise from this will be your fault, and not that of their highnesses, nor mine, nor of the gentlemen who have come with me here.’

[Doug1029]

As I said previously, brevity is the soul of wit.

I wasn't being funny. While we're at it, what have you been doing lately for the betterment of society?

Doug

[Guest]

It's sad but true that parallels can be drawn between the born again ecologists and the born again Christians. They each fight their corner with blind enthusiasm and refuse to be deterred by even the most compelling of arguments. These days they only knock on doors and poke their long noses into other peoples affairs believing wholeheartedly that the world will not be a better place until everyone is in their church and we all sing from the same hymn sheet.

Fortunately things have changed slightly since 1525. But not that much.

‘I assure you that with the help of God I will enter powerfully against you, and I will make war on you in every place and in every way that I can, and I will subject you to the yoke and obedience of the church and their highnesses, and I will take your persons and your women and your children, and I will make them slaves, and as such I will sell them, and dispose of them as their highnesses command: I will take your goods, and I will do you all the evils and harms which I can, just as to vassals who do not obey and do not want to receive their lord, resist him and contradict him. And I declare that the deaths and harms which arise from this will be your fault, and not that of their highnesses, nor mine, nor of the gentlemen who have come with me here.’

I have simply asked you to make an argument. All you have done so far is state that you disbelieve in anthropogenic global warming and provided no evidence to support your position. Is it to much to ask for you to make a case for your belief ?

You can attempt to take the moral high ground when you stop posturing and stand up to the plate.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

This is neither here nor there, and has no bearing what so ever on my remark about it not being wise to stare onesself blind on one aspect, be it CFCs, be it CO2.

Then why'd you bring up CFCs?

I see what you're saying about a holistic approach. The holistic answer to the myriad problems we face is population control. Limit that and the other problems go away. And I think that will happen, but will it happen soon enough? Population growth is declining and it seems the world will likely reach ZPG by the end of the century. Northern Europe is already there and the US will likely get there by mid-century. But another three billion people will be born before we achieve that and that means a huge pressure on all types of resources. Eventually I expect we will see a long, slow population implosion, but that won't even get started before about 2100 and will take a long time to become effective. We'll see an awful lot of environmental damage before then. At this point, that is unavoidable.

but for the rest of the world, the Amazon is not that big of a deal.

Apparently I didn't explain it very well. The reduced photosynthetic capacity of the Amazon forest is restored about four years after the land is abandoned. Amazonian agriculture is mainly of the slash-and-burn variety where land is cleared, a few crops are grown until the soil fertility starts to wane and the land is abandoned. Thereupon, the jungle returns, restoring the canopy in just a few years. That restores the photosynthetic capacity. Ecosystem function has been restored, even if the original forest hasn't been. Carbon sequestration still occurs, but at a reduced level, so it is desirable not to clear the forest in the first place.

But that brings up the people problem: how are you going to feed Brazil's poor if you don't do it this way? Brazil does not have an economy capable of supporting large numbers of people on welfare. It had to do something, so it gave anybody who wanted to try, some seed corn and some land in the Amazon. Homesteading worked for America, why not for Brazil? But Brazil's tropical forest is not America's temperate forest. There were unintended consequences; among them, the permanent reduction in fertility.

Oxygen is almost exclusively the product of photosynthesis (Lyons, 2007), and as one of the precursor chemicals of this process is carbon dioxide, we can expect an inverse correlation between the atmospheric oxygen curve and the carbon dioxide curve through time in absence of other processes affecting carbon dioxide and oxygen levels. This is in fact observed by Keeling et al. (1996) in measurements taken last century.

The earth's atmosphere is 20% oxygen. A slight downward trend has been noted recently. That's to be expected when one starts using up two moles of oxygen for each mole of carbon burned. Just another confirmation of the cause of global warming.

Note one thing about the Keeling curve: it's sawtooth seasonal fluctuation. If plant growth could keep up with rising CO2 levels, that sawtooth effect wouldn't be there and the curve wouldn't have a net positive slope. Trying to blame rising CO2 on reduced plant cover doesn't wash. Undoubtedly, there is an effect, but it's not the whole story:

Although recent media attention has focussed on the claim that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide introduces inefficiencies to the process of photosynthesis, it is widely known as a matter of verifiable fact that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide drastically increases plant growth. Plant growth not only depends on the photosynthesis of carbon dioxide but also increases the photosynthesising infrastructure. This is supported by studies of past growth (Waddell et al., 1987; Graybill & Idso, 1993; Grace et al., 1995; Smith et al. 2002). It is also supported by experimental results (Idso & Kimball, 1991; Idso & Idso, 1994; Idso & Kimball, 1994; Kimball et al., 1995; Pinter et al., 1996; Idso & Kimball, 1997; Kimball et al., 2007). Carbon dioxide also drastically accelerates reproduction of algae (Shapiro, 1973) and plankton (Riebesell, 1993).

The sum of this research is that the photosynthesising biomass of planet Earth adjusts its growth to best exploit available atmospheric carbon dioxide. Thus any increase in carbon dioxide emission by human beings, fossil fuel combustion, volcanoes, or any other cause in absence of factors affecting the mechanism of photosynthetic carbon sequestration, is easily absorbed by the planet's photosynthesising biomass. This indicates that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is not controlled by any carbon dioxide emission, but by the reduction of natural carbon sequestration infrastructure such as photosynthesising biomass. Deforestation is the most direct and prolific anthropogenic reduction of a natural self-regulating carbon sink.

http://deforestation...ogist-1011.net/

Most photosynthesis on earth is done by algae.

Forests conduct photosynthesis and sequester carbon, but they have a limited capacity. I would like to see 20% of the world's land area permanently committed to forests, maybe even more than that. But forests have a limit to how much carbon they can store. Once that capacity is reached, then what? After that, no matter how much CO2 gets into the atmosphere, photosynthesis is not going to increase. Why? Because growth is limited by available light, not by CO2. Any forester can tell you that. That's why they conduct thinnings and selective cuts - to get more light into the stand to increase the growth of crop trees. Once the canopy closes, growth stops.

And that's why this paper is a crock.

What you are saying here is that because it is getting warmer, given fossil fuel emissions are increasing CO2 levels, forests are rapidly declining world wide.

Not exactly. The increase in temps so far is something most species can handle easily. Same with CO2. It's the shift in precip that is causing the problems for forests. I used to work on a pinyon blackstain control project in southwest Colorado. I left that area in 1987. In 2003-2007 the area suffered a major drought. The drought-stressed trees were susceptible to Ips beetles. Something like two million acres of pinyons died. They don't have a blackstain problem there anymore.

It's pretty much the same story world-wide. Drought stresses trees which are then killed by beetles. Google "mountain pine beetle." Spruce beetles are producing similar results at higher elevations and southern pine beetles are increasingly damaging southern pines.

Care to prove that statement? Interesting you should marginalise actual human deforestation, and inflate temperature related, rapid forest decline (mind you, you didnt imply forest range shifts, but 'rapid forest decline').

I'm not going to do your homework for you. You can track this down in a couple hours using Google Scholar. "Mountain pine beetle," "spruce beetle," "southern pine beetle," "four corners pinyon die-off" and "forest inventory analysis (FIA)" are good ones to start with.

And I'm not marginalizing the damage to forests done by people. The major cause of acreage loss is clearing land for agriculture. With an increasing population, we have to grow food somewhere. Increases in efficiency will cover part of loss, but only part. How do you plan to reforest large areas when those large areas are needed to grow food? In the US we have already reforested most plantable sites. There's still a few acres that could be planted and probably should be, but what then? The CRP has worked wonders for reforesting cropland, but should that program end, a large portion of the acreage will be cleared and planted. To forestall that, we need a way for the owners to make a living without using that land. Any suggestions?

Thats a wee bit simplistic, wouldnt you say? I could even mark it as obfuscation of my point. Which was and is; why the massive attention for CO2, while almost no one knows about planned obsolescence. The crazy thing is, quality products cost less in the long run. Not only for the consumer, but especially for society as a whole.

Of course it's simplistic. This is UM. If I were doing a detailed study, I'd publish it in a professional journal, not here.

You're right that quality products last longer and are cheaper in the long run, but to buy them you need money that you don't have to use for food and rent. That requires a surplus that most of the world's people don't have. I've spent a good part of my life in that predicament. I can't afford an electric car because I have to eat and it takes way too long to amortize the cost of the car.

You dont seem to understand. The point made was to not only focus on carbon emissions.

Carbon sequestration and conservation are the other two parts of this triad. We could also solve the problem(s) by reducing population. If you can think of some other approaches, please post them. There's no reason you can't work on some of those problems yourself. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

I dont see anything like that happening any time soon. Your very 'election cycle' stands by virtue of donations from big business. If US pres. candidates dont have the support of big business, they havent a chance in hell to win the election. You can call me a pessimist, but Id wager that system isnt going to change within two election cycles. Conditioning c.q. social engineering is too strong, made into an art. Especially in the US.

The amazing thing about revolutions is how much people will put up with before they start one. I probably over-estimate the chances of a popular uprising. The Romanovs sucked around for a revolution for four hundred years before they got one. And we're just getting started. But we did have a successful evolution of society back in the 30s, done under the threat of a communist revolution here in the US. Maybe we can accomplish something along the same lines, but a little less drastic than a full blown revolution. "The revolution you start is rarely the revolution you get." Be wise to think twice, then think again before starting anything.

Sure, Doug. Nobody likes 'unsupported rants'.

http://www.forbes.co...nsensus-claims/

http://www.examiner....ts-came-to-pass

http://socioecohisto...lting-glaciers/

http://www.vijayvaan...y.aspx?aid=1067

You're not allowed to support a rant with another unsupported rant. How about some specific examples so we'll have something to talk about?

That doesnt mean I have to blindly accept everything you say. Must be a magnificent job though. Beats the hell out of ICT. ;-)

And you shouldn't accept what I say without checking. Read up on climate change and see for yourself.

Doug

[regeneratia]

The world needs to respect the cycles of the cosmos and the sun. And learn to adapt. Good gods, just adapt.

It never ceases to amaze me how warmists, who also tout evolution, simply refuse to initiate adapting to the environment.

It isn't survival of the fittest. It is survival of the most adaptable.

Edited April 16, 2014 by regeneratia

[Monkfish]

Hi Doug

I've been really nice to my fellow man. I was secretary to the local scout group. I've brought three really nice people into the world. See Doug I'm an ordinary guy. Don't suffer like some from an inflated sense of my own importance. Don't steal, don't cheat, faithful to my wife. Generally accepted as a useful member of local society. And hopefully like you Doug I have control over my carbon emissions.

Oh ! Doug and I don't preach, make stuff up and try to tell others how to live their lives. The world is 4.5 billion year old yet we have only been on it for around 200,000 years at best guess. And aren't we just the little know it all's.

Sorry to be the one to tell you this but the world will probably end in 2.8 billion years time. You'll probably still be around still saying I told you so.

[Doug1029]

The world needs to respect the cycles of the cosmos and the sun. And learn to adapt. Good gods, just adapt.

It never ceases to amaze me how warmists, who also tout evolution, simply refuse to initiate adapting to the environment.

It isn't survival of the fittest. It is survival of the most adaptable.

That approach seems to be the one we're taking. Do nothing and hope for the best. The sea is rising - move farther inland. The world's farms are less able to grow food - eat less. The problem is that some folks barely have enough to eat now and if they have to get by on less, they won't get by at all.

The solution is to do more with less. We can harness wind energy - that's an adaptation. Solar power is making strides - that's an adaptation. Maybe we can do something with nuclear fusion - that's an adaptation. We can sequester carbon in farmer's fields - that's an adaptation.

One way or another, we are going to adapt. Whether or not we like it, is another question.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Hi Doug

I've been really nice to my fellow man. I was secretary to the local scout group. I've brought three really nice people into the world. See Doug I'm an ordinary guy. Don't suffer like some from an inflated sense of my own importance. Don't steal, don't cheat, faithful to my wife. Generally accepted as a useful member of local society. And hopefully like you Doug I have control over my carbon emissions.

That's a good start.

Oh ! Doug and I don't preach, make stuff up and try to tell others how to live their lives.

Neither do I. I do climate research. I don't have to make stuff up.

I do not tell others how to live their lives.

I do advocate conversion to wind energy. If that actually happens and nobody tells you, you'll never know it - until you see a lower power bill and start to wonder why. If we adopted the carbon fee system and nobody told you, you might notice a slight increase in prices of some of the things you buy. And a year later, you'd get a check in the mail and wonder what it was for.

Nobody would force you to re-roof your house. Except maybe a rainstorm. When you went to buy the roofing, you'd find only white ones available - or you could reroof with sheet metal or slate like nothing ever happened.

You wouldn't have to put solar heaters in your windows - you could choose not to save the money. Right now, you don't have to add weather stripping around your doors - you can always pay the higher heating bill. In most places, right now, the local gas company and maybe electric company will help you do an energy audit of your home - but you don't have to do it.

Nearly everything I'm advocating would save you money on heat and lighting. And it's all optional. You can choose to save the money - or not. But enough people will choose to save the money and that's all we need.

The world is 4.5 billion year old yet we have only been on it for around 200,000 years at best guess. And aren't we just the little know it all's.

I understand that you don't accept global warming. But you have yet to say why. Do you think that as a climate scientist, I don't know what I'm doing? That's certainly the gist of what you're saying. Why would you say that?

Sorry to be the one to tell you this but the world will probably end in 2.8 billion years time. You'll probably still be around still saying I told you so.

The earth will likely still be here in another 500 or a thousand years. The question is whether we'll be on it.

2.8 billion years? I don't think we'll here then, regardless of what happens in the near term.

Doug

Edited April 16, 2014 by Doug1029

[Phaeton80]

Thank you for your input Doug, I appreciate it.

[Phaeton80]

If anything, if anything should be focused on in relation to environment, it should be GM products. If, or rather when, this contaminates the natural environment - and it will if it has not already - were in deep doodoo.

[Doug1029]

If anything, if anything should be focused on in relation to environment, it should be GM products. If, or rather when, this contaminates the natural environment - and it will if it has not already - were in deep doodoo.

This morning I attended a seminar on invasive grasses in the plains. The discussion focused on a grass from the Czech Republic that has been introduced here. In a series of competition and germination experiments the researcher determined that the naturalized grass has different characteristics than either its Czech ancestor or the native grasses it is replacing. The grass has evolved a whole new subspecies since it was introduced about a hundred years ago. Natural genetics can be as big a problem as GM plants.

I do agree that we've got to stop being stupid about our use of GM crops. But there are many GM products that can greatly contribute to food supplies and productivity of croplands. If we can grow the same amount on 100 acres that we used to grow on 120, that's 20 acres we can use for warm fuzzy things. It makes more sense to grow older crops on "museum" farms and use most farmland to grow food than it does to grow food in just a few places and use the rest of the planet as a museum.

GM crops should be used as another tool for feeding the world, but we need to do so carefully. Put it this way: which people are you planning to condemn to death by starvation because you don't want to use a GM crop?

Doug

Edited April 18, 2014 by Doug1029

[Guest]

Unfortunately Doug as yet no GM crop has shown the sort of productivity gains you suggest. The EU which is mostly GM free has the same on farm productivity as the US which is now heavily penetrated by GM crops. Plot scale trials are not a very useful indicator of real world productivity.

Until GM's can be demonstrated to pose no threat and increase productivity - there is no place for them outside of contained bioreactors.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 19, 2014 by Guest

[Phaeton80]

This morning I attended a seminar on invasive grasses in the plains. The discussion focused on a grass from the Czech Republic that has been introduced here. In a series of competition and germination experiments the researcher determined that the naturalized grass has different characteristics than either its Czech ancestor or the native grasses it is replacing. The grass has evolved a whole new subspecies since it was introduced about a hundred years ago. Natural genetics can be as big a problem as GM plants.

I do agree that we've got to stop being stupid about our use of GM crops. But there are many GM products that can greatly contribute to food supplies and productivity of croplands. If we can grow the same amount on 100 acres that we used to grow on 120, that's 20 acres we can use for warm fuzzy things. It makes more sense to grow older crops on "museum" farms and use most farmland to grow food than it does to grow food in just a few places and use the rest of the planet as a museum.

GM crops should be used as another tool for feeding the world, but we need to do so carefully. Put it this way: which people are you planning to condemn to death by starvation because you don't want to use a GM crop?

Doug

Doug, Im sorry, but I can only laugh at that. An absolute ridiculous statement if I ever did see / hear one. Starvation has a lot of causes, but not using GM crops is NOT one of them. Although ofcourse, those making hard cash on GM crop patents will say exactly that. Maybe you should apply for a job with the good people at Monsanto, and save the world population from starvation!

[bmk1245]

Doug, Im sorry, but I can only laugh at that. An absolute ridiculous statement if I ever did see / hear one. Starvation has a lot of causes, but not using GM crops is NOT one of them. Although ofcourse, those making hard cash on GM crop patents will say exactly that. Maybe you should apply for a job with the good people at Monsanto, and save the world population from starvation!

Interesting... When IPR laws are being applied to conventionally bred varieties (long before GM technology) thats ok, but when it comes to GMO - thats evil...

Anti-GMO crowd reminds me (in some way) of Lysenko and his pals, who basically killed genetic research in former USSR...

[Phaeton80]

When IPR laws are being applied to conventionally bred varieties (long before GM technology) thats ok, but when it comes to GMO - thats evil...

Interesting, making definite - accusing - conclusions based on absolutely nothing. Where, pray tell, did I state IPR laws being applied to conventional (hybrid) crops is fine and dandy?

I didnt. So I guess your whole statement is kind of erm.. null and void. What I am saying is that GM crops pose a comprehensive threat to the natural environment. Which is often kept from the general public in defence of multinational interests,

[bmk1245]

Interesting, making definite - accusing - conclusions based on absolutely nothing. Where, pray tell, did I state IPR laws being applied to conventional (hybrid) crops is fine and dandy?

I didnt. So I guess your whole statement is kind of erm.. null and void. [...]

Ok, fair enough, but you stressed patents and GMO, hence my reply.

[...] What I am saying is that GM crops pose a comprehensive threat to the natural environment. Which is often kept from the general public in defence of multinational interests,

No more than conventionally bred varieties. What threat can pose GM maize (whether HT, or Bt) in Europe, USA? What threat can pose GM tomatoes able to grow in saline environment where nothing else, basically, can grow? More damaging to the environment is "your" hippy garden growing in the place where forest once was...

[Phaeton80]

More damaging to the environment is "your" hippy garden growing in the place where forest once was...

'Your hippy garden growing in the place where forest once was..'

Sir, are you allright? Am I supposed to take this serious? You wont mind when I do not, Im quite sure.

[bmk1245]

Sir, are you allright? [...]

Yes, thanks for asking.

I case you missed quotation marks, that wasn't directed at you personally, but at those "environmentalists" who are screaming about all sorts of GMO dangers, yet growing invasive plants (and mutation bred) in their hippy gardens without giving rats munch about it.

[Doug1029]

Doug, Im sorry, but I can only laugh at that. An absolute ridiculous statement if I ever did see / hear one. Starvation has a lot of causes, but not using GM crops is NOT one of them. Although ofcourse, those making hard cash on GM crop patents will say exactly that. Maybe you should apply for a job with the good people at Monsanto, and save the world population from starvation!

OK, so I was being facetious. But GMO crops have a huge potential to contribute to the world's food supplies. We should consider the ecological impacts carefully before releasing them into the environment, but if there is no compelling reason not to use one, then it should be used. As I mentioned above, the higher productivity rates of GMO crops allows some areas to remain uncultivated. And that's a pretty important benefit if you're interested in avoiding environmental damage and loss of genetic diversity, which is a large part of what opposition to GMO crops is all about.

Before you start laughing, back off and look at the big picture.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Unfortunately Doug as yet no GM crop has shown the sort of productivity gains you suggest. The EU which is mostly GM free has the same on farm productivity as the US which is now heavily penetrated by GM crops. Plot scale trials are not a very useful indicator of real world productivity.

Until GM's can be demonstrated to pose no threat and increase productivity - there is no place for them outside of contained bioreactors.

Br Cornelius

I don't remember all the details, but there was an incident several years ago where the US shipped a large amount of GMO corn to Africa to help with famine relief. The receiving country normally shipped a fair amount of food to Europe. It was afraid that the GMO genes would get into its corn crops and the European countries would ban them. So they left the corn in warehouses without distributing it. The anti-GMO hysteria thus resulted in needless suffering. I don't know if there were any deaths that resulted. I wonder why they didn't just grind it into corn meal, either before or after shipping.

The GMO salt-resistant tomatoe that I mentioned in a previous post has actually been produced and is being grown in California on saline soils that previously could not grow tomatoes at all.

Admittedly, Monsanto is using GMOs as a means of creating and maintaining a monopoly. But, if non-GMO crops really are as productive as Monsanto's, then there is no reason a farmer can't grow non-GMO crops competitively - and sue Monsanto if their genes contaminate his crop.

Doug

[Doug1029]

What I am saying is that GM crops pose a comprehensive threat to the natural environment.

There are two threats posed by GMO crops, hence the need to engage our brains before growing (or rejecting) them:

1. A gene from one species introduced into another one could render the second one poisonous to people with a food allergy. This actually happened when a peanut gene was introduced to tomatoes. Starlink showed that we can't contain transgenic crops once they are released, so we can't release this type of crop. Better not to produce it at all.

2. A gene for resistance to a particular herbicide (like Roundup) could be transferred to a weed species, rendering it resistant to the herbicide. The nightmare scenario is bt-resistant ragweed.

Those two types of transgenic plants cannot be released. I should note that interspecific bt-resistance transfer has never been known to occur naturally. The uproar is about a hypothetical posisbility, not a real-life situation.

Doug

[Doug1029]

What threat can pose GM tomatoes able to grow in saline environment where nothing else, basically, can grow?

It should be noted that in California those saline soils were made that way by irrigation. Irrigation water dissolves salt, moves it to the surface and evaporates leaving the salt behind in exactly the place you don't want it. If you have a subsurface drainage system in place, you can wash the salt out of the soil with large amounts of water. But water costs money and cleaning up a salt-laden field is expensive. The salt-poisoned areas are now being used mostly for dairy farming. This transition happened over the last 50 years.

More damaging to the environment is "your" hippy garden growing in the place where forest once was.

In Booneville, Arkansas is a research facility dedicated to agroforestry - the growing of crops and forests at the same time. It's about getting two uses out of the land. The "hippy garden" is going industrial. Some ideas developed there:

1. Need a windbreak? For one row, plant a species that produces a fruit - like plums. As it turned out, that idea worked better in Colorado than in Arkansas and the American plum worked better than the eastern plum, but there is now a small-scale plum industry in eastern Colorado using fruit grown in windbreaks.

2. Grazing pine understories with goats. Milk and wood production on the same ground. And goats hold down the green briers and kudsu - goats LOVE kudsu.

The "hippy farm" has its place.

Doug