Environmental Movement Has Lost Its Way, by Dr. Patrick Moore
A seriously interesting article that brings up a lot of the beefs I have with that most vocal segment of the environmentalist movement, Greenpeace. One little snippet—the one that hooked me—out of a very terse and well-written piece:
The emphasis is mine.
Moore also had an opinion piece in yesterday’s Washington Post titled Going Nuclear about why environmentalist should be supporting nuclear energy.
I used to be a member of Greenpeace, but resigned for exactly the reasons Dr. Moore states for his abandoning Greenpeace.
As I understand, that’s not the only objection that people have to GE crops. GE crops do not propgate naturally, meaning that you have to buy seed every year, rather than retain some of what grows for next year’s planting. GE seeds are also more expensive than regular seed. These two factors could put a great financial burden on small farmers who are already struggling to survive.
This is not true of Golden Rice. Farmer’s were encouraged to save seed and replant the next year.
I think I heard this fellow on Fresh Air. He sounded like he was more dedicated to the idea of getting realistically planned pro-environmental steps implemented and less interested in magically getting people to say “Oh! How silly of me! I’ll immediately revert to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle!” as many in the environmental movement seem to be. Apparently, for example, there is simply no form of energy other than solar/wind that environmentalists find acceptable, whereas this guy is saying “Look, there are some ways that are better than others. Let’s go for the least harmful that people will actually accept!” Unfortunately, Greenpeace is too busy being a collection of Angry Young Men (or Women) to deal with realistic goals.
This is what happens when ideology trumps reason.
Over this patch of planet there´s quite a fuss concerning the installation of two cellulose procesing plants LINK , Greenpeace organized one of those protests on the street where they make some kind of performance, they dressed as scholl teachers with two guys disguised as the presidents of Uruguay and Argentina, they were teaching them how evil the plants are… appart from the press there where 4 or 5 people that watched by. :rolleyes:
You know, I was going to post and then read the article later, but I see that Moore wrote almost exactly what I planned to say about “Frankenfood.” The hysteria from the environmentalist movement on that topic has become absurd and anti-science. I can’t speak to some of the other subjects, although I think they’re way off on tree farming as well, but it occurred to me a couple of years ago that the people I used to know on the left had completely abandoned their senses when it came to genetically altered food. The stuff can do a ton of good. Maybe the companies should be more public about what they’re doing, but some of the “risks” they talked about have no connection to reality. Observing their behavior on that topic has made me start to wonder what else they’re wrong about, including nuclear energy.
Marley23, and Lissa, I agree with both of your points about GM foods.
They have the potential for great of benefits, often especially in third world areas where kwashiokr is a regular childhood hazard. And a lot of GM seeds are hybrids that cannot be replanted by the growers by holding back seed corn.
Neither of these points are complete, however.
Not all GM crops are created equal. Some, such as golden rice, are intended for poor areas to grow, and as such require very little by way of industrial farming techniques to bring a decent crop to market. Many GM crops are what I call ‘hothouse’ crops that require a massive input of energy in the form of industrial farming techniques and fertilizers. My sympathy is entirely, for example, with the Indian farmers a few years back who were adamant in refusing free GM seed. The opposition wasn’t entirely because the seed was GM, but because the farmers lacked the resources to actually bring a profitable crop to market from that seed. If a seed requires massive fertilization, as many GM crops do, it’s counter-productive to expect poor countries to embrace the crop.
But the concern about hybrid seed is not something that exists with only GM crops. IANAF but my understanding is that most modern crops are hybrids that do not reproduce true, so each season the farmer has to go back to the seed company for more seed. Using the argument that GM seed are often not self-replicating would carry more weight if it weren’t for the fact that most modern seeds already are not self-replicating.
What bothers me more about GM foods, especially Golden Rice, is that often they are proposed to be the sole food crop for a given area. Which is fine, when conditions allow for a good crop to be brought to market. But anyone familiar with American and European history should remember one of the more dramatic cautions with respect to the risks of monocropping: The Irish Potato Famine. When a country expects the majority of the caloric support for its population to come from a single crop - the potential for disaster has been seeded. And this is a hazard that I feel is just as real with non-GM crops. Monocropping can be an effective way to maximize food production. But it’s only one potato weevil away from disaster.
And none of these more serious problems can be addressed, while the current Green leadership is viewing GM foods as the incarnation of the Beast.
Those all seem like entirely legit points, OtakuLoki. And I’m no farmer either, that’s for sure. My experience with environmentalists is that they are not opposed to GM crops for those reasons, though - the reasons I’ve encountered are “Frankenfoods cause cancer!” (how? anybody?) “terminator seeds” (a point you dealt with) and other issues related to mistrust of big business. And don’t get me wrong, I have my own issues with trusting big business. But like I said, these people lost touch with reality at some point.
No worries. I wasn’t trying to offer reasons that the more vocal, and radical, Greens are using to fight GM foods, just expand some of the real concerns I have with them. GM foods, nuclear power, and food irradiation are three issues that really irk me when trying to fight the willful ignorance that most people seem to bring to those topics. As such, my soapbox is rarely far from me.
I am a serious computer geek who surprises people sometimes when I complain about Bad Tech. I like some stuff, but not other things.
This is what is wrong with some Greens. GM crops are not all bad nor are they all good. Pick and choose. Be rational and informed.
Another example of self-propagating GM crop is a type of corn that is now spreading in S. Mexico. It is squeezing out traditional corns which rely on cross-pollination with wild varieties for vigor. Eggs in one basketry will ensue.
I am still a member of Greenpeace, but I don’t have to agree with everything they say. I like what Moore said about the GM foods and I am pro-Nuclear Power Plant building. I feel burning Coal and to a much lesser extent Oil and building Hydro-electric dams are more hazardous overall to the environment. Conservation alone won’t meet our power needs and while I have Solar Panels on my house, it is not a mature technology and will not meet our needs for decades if ever. I think we need an agressive push for Solar, Wind and Nuclear to replace Coal Power Plants.
Jim
Where do they get the seeds? Couldn’t the farmers just reproduce that effort?
Another major (IMHO) issue with GM crops is that the legal ramifications of gene patents and IP laws applied to such things are not well-defined. And it seems that the spoils tend to go to big business. Read here about the farmer who lost a legal battle with Monsanto over Roundup resistant Canola that cross polinated from other fields, even though he made no attempt to either sell the seed as Roundup resistant or to take advantage of its resistance by spraying Roundup.
AIUI the seed companies keep fields growing the root stock for the various hybrids, then arrange for cross pollenation between the two dissimilar stocks, to produce a hybrid seed that has the desired traits.
I don’t know the details nor the mechanics of this, but I suspect that there’s a certain effort and specialized skill to avoid having the flowers of the dissimilar stocks just pollenating themselves. Hybrids are usually hardier, offer greater yields, and while more expensive than a non-hybrid stock, are still far cheaper than the cost of keeping the dissimilar stocks oneself to hybridize. And that’s where the farmer will have a clear definition of what the hybrid is derived from. I’m sure that some hybrids are protected by patents and trade secrets.
I’m sorry, but I’m a little suspicious of Moore’s argument…not because of what he said about GE foods, but because he completely left out one of his detractors’ most compelling arguments about the issue of forestry (near the end of his article.) Knowing that this guy has been studying these issues for all of his professional life tells me that there’s simply no way he could have left the argument out accidentally. It had to be a purposeful ommission, and that casts doubt on everything he says, IM Professional O.
He says:
The issue he so glibly skips over (and, in fact, glosses over with misinformation) is biodiversity. He even goes so far as to quote the old timber company chestnut about the total amount of forest in America now as compared to 100 years ago. This fact is utterly irrelevant. The composition of that forest is completely different now than it was, and in many cases, inferior. A loblolly pine stand, managed for pulp wood, for example, may as well be a desert. It is a monoculture which supports a tiny fraction of the life that the hardwood forest it replaced did. This is a major ecological issue, not to be ignored…but he does it.
The other thing he fails to mention, which does potentially have to do with GE foods, is one of the largest ecological crises in the world…exotic species. Now, at the moment, the threat from GE food plants to surrounding ecosystems is small, but if these plants were self-propagating and genetically viable, it could be a huge disaster on a global scale for native biota.
Granted, that’s a big ‘if,’ but it’s an issue he expressly failes to deal with.
Seems to me the guy has an agenda as well, and he’s not being very honest about it.