Deforestation in the next five years will release more CO2 than all aircraft since the Wright Brothers until at least 2025, but unlike almost all other sources of CO2, there are no market based incentives for efforts to reduce deforestation. Considering that forests have many other values on top of carbon storage - conserving biodiversity, generating rainfall, protecting watersheds, and cycling minerals to name a few - while there is little extra value to carbon stored underground by Carbon Capture and Storage for instance.
The Forests NOW declaration calls for new market based mechanisms to protect tropical forests, and end this illogical market failure. Sign it here and keep up to date with all their latest news on their new blog which will be continually updated from Bali.
Friday, 30 November 2007
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
GM Crops
I have been meaning to write about GM crops for a while now, but kept putting it off, as I was unsure that I wanted to tackle what has become such a central policy of many environmental groups I know and love. However, a story that tied together so many environmental and health issues, which could all benefit from a new GM technology. The story was about a new strain of GM crop that has been engineered to contain higher levels of omega three fatty acids. Omega 3 is found in large quantities in fish, and is very good for the brain, memory and heart, so demand for fish oils is driving over-fishing. This new crop will provide an alternative sustainable source for omega three, meaning that everyone will be able to get the recommended allowance cheaply and without causing enormous damage to the oceans. Presumably many environmental groups will oppose trials of this crop, on the grounds that it could cause ill health, or that it could contaminate the environment.
Fortunately, an enormous experiment has been going on for the past twelve years on over 100million hectares of farmland in 22 countries and involving most of the food consumed in many of those countries, so we test whether their fears are founded. A review of the environmental impacts of GM technology concluded that it had caused reductions of GHG emissions equivalent to taking 4m cars of the road, 20% reduction in pesticide use, and 15% reduction in herbicide use. The review was published in a agricultural biotech journal, so may have been inclined to favour GM, but their methods seem sound. In terms of costs, there have been 160 reports of GM crops escaping into the environment, according to the Independent, but these were easily contained, and in terms of large scale environmental problems, I know of none.
On the scale of the environmental problems that exist around the world, GM crops have great potential for good, not only for protecting the Oceans, but also for protecting forests. Their potential for protecting forests is quite simple - GM crops can provide higher yield meaning that we can feed the world with less land. They can also make crops cheaper to grow, which may sound like the talk of a corporate whore, but it is also crucial for world hunger, and for deforestation. George Monbiot makes the first connection very clearly in this excellent article arguing for a moratorium on use of biofuels, in which he explains how each "increment in the price of flour or grain, several million more are pushed below the breadline". The second connection is similar; with each increment in the price of crops, the economic incentive for cutting forests to bring more land into cultivation increases, and the rainforests fall. A single hectare of rainforest generally contain ten times more species of tree than in the entire UK (300 vs 33). All British tree species can be found elsewhere.
Therefore, the kind of visceral opposition to GM technologies that has dominated the debate in the UK for the past ten years, and led to incidents such as this, as well as smoothie companies and supermarkets falling over each other to declare how free they are of GM foods, is completely at odds with the evidence for the environmental impacts of this new technology in the world. The time has come to think about the actual impacts and the possibilities of this not so new technology. Does anyone know of any environmental groups that support the principle of GM technology (even if they oppose the way it has been used by certain large multinational companies)? If not, then who on the OUSU environment committee likes the idea of becoming the first?
FURTHER READING
Dick Traverne's very pro-GM article in Prospect Magazine
Jonathon Porritt's reply
Fortunately, an enormous experiment has been going on for the past twelve years on over 100million hectares of farmland in 22 countries and involving most of the food consumed in many of those countries, so we test whether their fears are founded. A review of the environmental impacts of GM technology concluded that it had caused reductions of GHG emissions equivalent to taking 4m cars of the road, 20% reduction in pesticide use, and 15% reduction in herbicide use. The review was published in a agricultural biotech journal, so may have been inclined to favour GM, but their methods seem sound. In terms of costs, there have been 160 reports of GM crops escaping into the environment, according to the Independent, but these were easily contained, and in terms of large scale environmental problems, I know of none.
On the scale of the environmental problems that exist around the world, GM crops have great potential for good, not only for protecting the Oceans, but also for protecting forests. Their potential for protecting forests is quite simple - GM crops can provide higher yield meaning that we can feed the world with less land. They can also make crops cheaper to grow, which may sound like the talk of a corporate whore, but it is also crucial for world hunger, and for deforestation. George Monbiot makes the first connection very clearly in this excellent article arguing for a moratorium on use of biofuels, in which he explains how each "increment in the price of flour or grain, several million more are pushed below the breadline". The second connection is similar; with each increment in the price of crops, the economic incentive for cutting forests to bring more land into cultivation increases, and the rainforests fall. A single hectare of rainforest generally contain ten times more species of tree than in the entire UK (300 vs 33). All British tree species can be found elsewhere.
Therefore, the kind of visceral opposition to GM technologies that has dominated the debate in the UK for the past ten years, and led to incidents such as this, as well as smoothie companies and supermarkets falling over each other to declare how free they are of GM foods, is completely at odds with the evidence for the environmental impacts of this new technology in the world. The time has come to think about the actual impacts and the possibilities of this not so new technology. Does anyone know of any environmental groups that support the principle of GM technology (even if they oppose the way it has been used by certain large multinational companies)? If not, then who on the OUSU environment committee likes the idea of becoming the first?
FURTHER READING
Dick Traverne's very pro-GM article in Prospect Magazine
Jonathon Porritt's reply
An Update on Fish
Things are moving pretty fast in the campaign to stop unsustainably caught fish from being served in Oxford, but here is an excellent article (the economist again) about the economic benefits of marine reserves. As mentioned below, Britain has only one marine reserve (Lundy Island), which makes up about 0.002% of our waters. The government has been discussing a Marine Bill for some time now, but it did not make it onto the draft legislative programme that Gordon Brown outlined in July, nor onto the Queen's speech this month, despite thousands of letters of support for the bill, and strong pressure from environmental groups. The interests of the fishing industry have consistently been focused on short term benefits (Hurry while stocks last), and the government doesn't appear to be taking any action to preserve biodiversity for the future, which shows why consumer led action to dry up demand for unsustainably caught fish is so important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)