Does Opposition To Genetic Engineering By Groups Like Greenpeace Amount To A Death Sentence For Millions?

The pop-environmental movement has a long history of supporting public policy approaches that, when implemented, end up causing irreparable harm to the environment, and, often, millions of premature deaths, especially deaths among children. 

As just one example, this blog examined, some time ago, the tens of millions of deaths brought about over several decades as the result of Rachael Carson’s misguided attacks on the chemical DDT and the subsequent soaring in the death rates from malaria in much of the tropical world. http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8791618495827652206#editor/target=post;postID=7534575162541163376

In recent years a technology labeled “genetic engineering” has come to the fore as a weapon in the fight against hunger, disease, and other ills suffered by mankind.

Some think this will be the result of genetic engineering

Always a reliable rider on any environmental bandwagon with the capacity to create big dollar donations, the group, Greenpeace, has leaped aboard the anti-genetic engineering wagon with enthusiasm.  In New Zealand, where the discussion regarding genetic engineering has been spirited, in part because of a public relations campaign mounted by a number of organizations allied with Greenpeace, the organization’s website declares, “Greenpeace is opposed to the release of genetically engineered organisms (GE organisms) into the environment and the food chain. Greenpeace is also against the patenting of life.”http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/campaigns/genetic-engineering/

Others Think This Is An Appropriate Place For Genetic Engineering

On the other side of the discussion, a November 26, 2012 article published by National Review Online asks the question, “Is Opposition to Genetic Engineering Moral?  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333980/opposition-genetic-engineering-moral-henry-i-miller

The subtitle to the piece comments that, “Sentiment and bad science are killing the world’s poor.”

As summarized by the National Center For Policy Analysis, a free market based think tank dealing with many policy issues, including the environment, the National Review Online article addresses a number of new advances demonstrating the potential for saving lives and/or creating significantly enhanced quality of life for the citizens of the world including (bold is mine): http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=22636

“Biopharming.

This is a new way to fight diarrhea, the number two killer of children under the age of five throughout developing countries, accounting for around 2 million deaths per year.

• Since the 1960s the standard care for diarrhea was the World Health Organization's formulation of a rehydration solution. However, this treatment does not lessen the severity.
• Research reflects that reinforcing oral rehydration solution with two proteins, lactoferrin and lysozyme, decreases duration and recurrence of diarrhea.
• Biopharming synthesizes the large quantities of necessary proteins.

Dengue fever.

• A British company, Oxitec, uses genetic engineering techniques to create new varieties of the mosquito species that transmits the disease.
• Oxitec's approach introduces a gene that produces a protein that stops mosquitoes' cells from functioning normally.
• The modified males, once released, survive long enough to mate with wild females, but the offspring die.
• This approach has reduced the infected mosquito population by 80 percent in the Cayman Islands and by 90 percent in Brazil.

The third example is the medical breakthrough called Golden Rice.

• Rice, a staple for billions of people, lacks specific micronutrients needed in a complete diet.
• Vitamin A deficiency is prevalent among poor people whose diet consists largely of rice.
• Every year, about half a million children go blind as a result of the deficiency, and 70 percent of those die within a year of losing their sight.
• The introduction of Golden Rice -- rice groups that are biofortified by the introduction of genes that construct vitamin A -- holds promise for public health.

Other examples exist by the dozens, if not hundreds.  In an article written by myself and soon to be published in an American magazine dedicated to crops a product called Bt is discussed as a natural substance allowing growers to avoid using much harder insecticides.  Bt is a natural bacterium important to the American corn and cotton industries.  Bt can be sprayed onto the surfaces of crops to provide temporary protection against insect pests or, can be genetically engineered into crops to protect plants for the lifespan of the plant. 

Bt has been in used for most of 100 years.

So, what is right, and what is wrong when it comes to genetic engineering? 

If millions of lives can be extended, hunger can be reduced, quality of life can be enhanced, and the environment improved, can it ever be right to withhold the results of genetic engineering from a world in harm’s way?  And, if millions die as the result of withholding the benefits of genetic engineering, who is responsible for those deaths?  Will we ever see Greenpeace stand up and say, in a forthright manner, “We think a world free of genetically engineered foods is worth giving up a few million lives for?” 

I doubt it.

More on this in a future blog.

We Can Have Our Carbon And Eat It Too

There’s an old expression in English, “He wants to have his cake and eat it too,” used to describe someone who wants to enjoy each of two contradictory things.  The saying might apply, for example, to someone who is a spendthrift throughout his life but also wants a handsome retirement fund at the end or, a government imposing confiscatory taxes on business but, wanting a vigorous economy as well.

In the environmental world a product exists, biochar, that may allow earth’s citizens to “Have their cake and eat it too.”

Biomass from thinning the forest for health and fire reduction could be used to create biochar, synfuels, and other products.

Biochar is hardly anything new.  Most famously the use of the material to enhance poor soils is attributed to the indigenous natives of the Amazon basin who are said to be responsible for some of the deep, rich soils found in some areas of the basin.

Biochar is produced by heating biomass in a very low, or even a, no oxygen, environment, an environment in which combustion does not occur.  The process is called pyrolysis.  In the pre-industrial world biochar was created both deliberately and accidentally (shovel a pile of dirt over a still burning camp fire and some biochar will result. 

When the conditions necessary to create biochar are present oils and syngas are produced.  The material left after the volatiles have been driven off is called “char.”

In an uncontrolled setting the oils and gasses are emitted to the atmosphere or absorbed into soil as what we today call pollution but, in an industrial setting the oils and gasses can be captured and used to create a host of high value products.

But the real “magic” in the process comes because the char can be worked into agricultural soils as an amendment capable of significantly improving productivity and, research seems to show, working over time to actually capture greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.

In short, the research seems to show that creating biochar is actually a carbon negative process.  Oils and syngasses are captured and utilized in place of fossil fuels like petroleum while the char, worked into the soil, eventually captures more carbon than was contained in the biomass in the first place.

The implications are obvious.  In the forests of North America, for example, several hundred million acres of trees grow in overcrowded forests prone to massive fires.  In Washington State this year climate change gas emissions, toxic chemical and elemental emissions and particulate emissions to the atmosphere may have resulted in pollution exceeding all the industrial and auto related pollution created in the entire state for a year or more.

But what if the forests were to be thinned, as most professionals believe necessary, with the biomass used to create synthetic oil to fuel our vehicles, natural gas substitutes to heat our homes, and biochar to absorb the carbon emissions that must occur in the course of man’s living on the planet?  What if, in nations where most of the wood grown ends up fueling home fires, the fuel could be diverted to produce biochar with the resulting oils and gasses heating homes and the char going into the soil to enhance food production?

The pop-environmental community appears to prefer this.

Stunningly, there is little impetus among the pop-environmental community to press forward with investigations into the many benefits bio-char appears to offer.  One would think, if people who think of themselves as environmentalists were really interested in environmental enhancements, there would be massive pressure on the governments of the world to step up research and, if the conclusions are as favorable as initial investigations appear to indicate, to begin large scale production.

But then, there’s not much money for activist groups in actually solving problems.  In fact, resolving a large scale environmental problem is, in terms of the climate change discussion, revenue negative, for the pop-enviros so, don’t expect to see much excitement about a potentially paradigm changing solution to carbon emissions in the environmental community.  

We can only hope that someday we will actually get serious about environmental enhancement. 

Is Climate Change Beneficial?

Is global warming real?

If global warming is real is it being caused by the actions of humans?

For every billion words written about the two questions, global warming (now reconfigured as “climate change” by the spin doctors) about ten words in total are written about the more valid question, “What does it matter whether the earth’s atmospheric temperatures are warming or cooling?”

If global warming, or global cooling, were not taking place the earth would be in a great deal of trouble.  The earth is just not set up to be static.



Even an 1870's school child understood thermal zones and their importance



 The second question is a silly one as well.  Of course the actions of mankind have some amount of influence on overall warming and cooling.  This blog includes many entries discussing how the inappropriate actions of the pop-environmental movement result in increased releases of carbon to the atmosphere.  In fact, if it could be measured, I believe the pop-enviros are almost certainly responsible for as much climate change as industry is, at least in the United States (see earlier blogs on the greenhouse gas and toxic metals emissions of forest fires).

Politically, of course, the two questions posed above matter a great deal.  In idle moments between inventing the internet and helping to run the United States Al Gore almost singlehandedly invented global warming and, just incidentally, made a great deal of money doing just that.

The pop-environmental movement raises and spends more money each year than the Democrats and the Republicrats (we used to call them Republicans in the United States but now, for the most part, the two parties are pretty much indistinguishable) do in a presidential election year.  A large part of the money raised is provided by raising the specter of death and destruction coming to fuzzy little creatures as the result of climate change.

More significantly, especially in terms of the ability of "environmental" groups to raise money, individuals may be impacted, or be led to believe they are impacted, by climate change. 

American politician Tip O’Neill is famously cited as at least one source for the quote, “All politics are local.”

In terms of global warming, or any other issue, the perceived impact a person feels overcomes all the science surrounding an issue.

By way of example, one of the most influential people in the world is Bjorn Lomborg, a European scientist who’s written devastating critiques of the hysteria surrounding climate change.  It should be noted, the devastation is not due to Lomborg’s positions; instead, Lomborg is hated by the pop-environmental movement because he fearlessly puts forward irrefutable science regarding warming and cooling of the earth's atmosphere.

If you don't already own this book, you should buy it and, more importantly, read it!

Lomborg points out that far more people in the world die each year as a result of cold than die from heat.  But if your 110 year old grandmother dies in the middle of summer on an especially hot day you will, if you are like most people, be forever convinced that global warming killed the old girl.

But Grandma’s death leads to a more important question.

Are there benefits to global warming?  Should we, as Al Gore would try to convince us, automatically assume global warming, or climate change, is a negative thing?

If ten grandmas die from heat, for example, but 20 children do not die from cold have we not benefitted from global warming?

As the atmosphere warms, temperate zones move north and south in terms of the globe.  The area where I live was, a few thousand years ago, covered by a thick sheet of ice.  Now it is home to some of the world’s most livable cities, large expanses of forest and thousands of acres of farmland.  We’ve certainly benefitted from global warming and climate change in Bellingham, Washington.

The movement of the temperate zones opens up incredibly productive lands to agriculture.  It’s no accident that the Canadian northlands are breadbaskets for the rest of the world.

But we concentrate on the downsides of the equation.  Forest composition, for example, changes when the temperate zones move.  Old trees die as their surroundings lose their hospitality to this or that species.  But that is the nature of things.  The sandstone found near Bellingham contains palm frond fossils meaning that before the region was buried in ice, it was covered by tropical forests.  Tropical forests that died at least partly due to climate change. 

Of course climate change is real and, of course the activity of mankind is responsible for at least some small amount of that change. 

What we really need much more discussion about is the possible benefits of climate change and about how we can use some of the tens of billions of dollars we waste on “fighting” the inevitable to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change on those who are harmed by the change.

The earth will change with or without us.  If we are willing to use that change in beneficial ways we can build a better future for all human kind.  If we are not willing to adjust to that change, the earth may go about its own change; without us!