Some British economist puts out a report on the economics of climate change for her majesty the Queen and the Australian media and the Left go gag-gag. Fran Kelly from your ABC announced it as The Report the world has been waiting for.
Lying in bed this morning listening to Fran, I was wishing, yet again, that Australia was a republic.
I’ve since made it to my computer, opened the report and discovered the Executive Summary, at least, isn’t too bad.
Sir Nicholas Stern begins by repeating that the scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response.
Sir Nicholas Stern then explains the methodology used to determine the global economic cost of climate: “a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks.”
I am impressed that the report acknowledges that climate change is a global issue and therefore stresses the need for an international response. Contrast this with Kyoto where the expectation is that only the developed world needs to actually do anything. The Executive Summary suggests a key element of any future international framework should be the expansion and linking of the growing number of emissions trading schemes to promote cost-effective reductions in emissions and bring forward action in developing countries.
The Executive Summary also acknowledges the importance of adapting to climate change with reference to the importance of building resilience because it is no longer possible to prevent climate change. Building on this theme the Executive Summary finishes with comment about the importance of research into new crop varieties that will be more resilient to drought and flood. On this point I assume Sir Nicholas Stern would support the lifting of the ban on GM food crops which limit the commercialization of new crop varieties in Australia.
Interestingly the Executive Summary states that coal will continue to be an important source of energy into the future and advocates carbon capture and storage to allow the continued use of fossil fuels without damage to the atmosphere. This could be interpreted as an endorsement of the Australian Government’s approach with money pledged just yesterday for a carbon capture project in central Queensland.
The report appears to be based on at least one very flawed assumption. The Executive Summary repeats and repeats the misconception that we can some how stabilize atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. If what Sir Stern is trying to say, is that we should endeavor to not add any more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere then he should be clearer in his language. Even Al Gore, in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, acknowledged that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have always fluctuated. Does anybody seriously think they could be stabilized in the future?
The Executive Summary is as misleading as Al Gore’s movie when it states that the cost of extreme weather, including floods, droughts and storms is already rising. Why yes, because there are more people building more expensive houses in places like Florida. But this does not mean that the number of extreme weather events has increased, a mistake both Gore and Sir Stern appear to make.
I haven’t yet read beyond the Executive Summary, but I note that according to today’s The Australian in a piece entitled ‘Bell tolls down under on warming’ in the detail of the report, it is claimed the east coast of Australia already has longer droughts and declining rainfall. Surely Sir Stern checked the charts at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology which don’t show any long term decline in rainfall. I hope he didn’t base his analysis on media headlines or modelled output?
I am also concerned that the economic analysis fails to mention any of the benefits of living in a warmer world. Then again the report does state up front that it is based on “costs and risks”. But, hang on, there will be some benefits. For example, there are significant potential benefits from the likely longer growing season for agriculture in Europe and North America.
It is also a bit annoying that the Executive Summary of such an evidently important report, apparently based on “costs and risks”, fails to explain what the biggest costs are going to be. According to the report, global warming is going to cost trillions, but I guess I am going to have to read 700 pages if I am to understand exactly why. Is the biggest cost the potential displacement of people now living in cities beside the sea?
The Queen of England’s House of Lords brought down a very large report on this same topic just last year and it came to a very different conclusion. Interestingly that report was pretty much ignored by the Australian media. What is it about Sir Nicholas Stern, that the Fran Kelly’s of this world so like? Does Sir Stern have a good publicist, or is it all in his name?
You can read the full stern report by clicking here.
You can read the House of Lords’ report by clicking here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Funny, I had a completely different reaction to the ABC radio report from Fran Kelly.
Particularly when Fran interviewd Peter Costello, I had to laugh.
For a start, Costello was quite rude to Fran Kelly. over-talking her, and telling her what she “must consider’ “must realise” etc – i.e. we’re supposed to think “Poor stupid, ignorant Fran!”
Then Costello evaded every question, and waffled on piously about what would be needed “over the next 50 years” etc.
But I laughed most, when Costello dismissed “Nick Stern”s report. Are we supposed to think that Costello and the former Chief Economist of the World Bank are old buddies? I bet Sir Nicholas Stern has never heard of Costello!
Christina Macpherson http://www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Sir Stern? You mean Sir Nicholas? Or is that usage supposed to be a pun? If so, it either doean’t work or is a bit over used.
I rather think Fran would have been working herself into a frenzy about Stern’s report, republic or not!
But some good questions asked as usual, and as usual the completely unbalanced approach of the mainstream media is laid bare.
Re #1
Well, I’m pretty sure it never occurred to Fran to look at and question Stern’s underlying assumptions because, like all of these kind of reports, it is based on a series of large IFs.
And with the recent publication by the Royal Society of research that suggests that the main driver of climate change is fluctuations in the sun’s magnetic field and its influence on cosmic rays in the lower atmosphere, those ifs have gotten even iffier.
And why wasn’t fran giving equal attention to the House of Lord’s report awhile back?
The report also says that acting on climate change will create business opportunities, more markets worth $$ hundreds of billions each year, and more employment. Win-win. Who could argue with that?
No sceptic can convincingly argue that investing to cope with climate change is a waste of resources that’ll ruin us because our consumption economy thrives on unnecessary and wasteful expenditure.
Some folk here like to argue that it would cripple our economy but no-one has put up a cost-benefit analysis to support that claim yet.
Global warming fanatics sound worse than life insurance salesmen talking about what terrible things could happen if you don’t buy their product today–and, don’t take the weekend to think about it because that might be too late. The only difference is that death is certain. Global warming isn’t.
The plans of GW activists will build a huge bureaucracy that will cost more than the problem itself, just like all government programs. The main people helped by the war of poverty are those who were hired to fight poverty.
Economic assumptions from the PwC economic report on global warming, often cited as being undisputed, has its share of flaws.
As for ABC, consider this:
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=265464
“ABC News Reporter Bill Blakemore declared “I don’t like the word ‘balance’ much at all” in global warming coverage…. Blakemore said skeptics of global warming should be ignored because some of them are being funded by industry. But he has failed to note that scientists he promotes such as James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, are both recipients of huge sums of money from environmental special interest groups. When Blakemore reported on January 29, 2006, that NASA scientist James Hansen was alleging that the Bush Administration was censoring his scientific work, he failed to inform viewers that Hansen had received a quarter of a million dollars from Teresa Heinz Kerry’s foundation, the Heinz Foundation, and subsequently endorsed her husband Democrat John Kerry for President in 2004. In addition, Michael Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of the group Environmental Defense. Blakemore has also lavished praised on Vice President Al Gore and his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, comparing Gore to Shakespeare and Robert Frost.”
Shakespeare and Robert Frost??? Make me gag. I trust journalists less than Al Gore.
Jen, in welcoming longer growing seasons and possible increase in productivity, you’re not accidentally taking a narrow view of the issue are you?
Jen, Kyoto was always a first step and the Stern report will be used for used as a basis for Kyoto II. Kyoto put some initial costs on the richest and the economies that had benefited most from CO2 emissions, which I thought was fair. The next step should be an expansion of this to developing nations such as India and China.
I don’t know how Kyoto became anti-coal in the eyes of both detractors and supporters as Kyoto just set targets and provided a framework that allowed GHG trading – it didn’t say what technology you can and can’t use.
Also Stern’s report doesn’t just look at ‘costs and risks’ on page VI of the long excutive summary he comments on some of the benefits:
“At mid to high latitudes, crop yields may increase for moderate temperature rises”
&
“In higher latitudes, cold-related deaths will decrease.”
but juxtapositions this with the downside of lower crop yields in Africa and increased heat related health effects.
From what I recall in the House of Lord’s report one of it’s conclusions was that Treasury should be involved in modelling and have input into any future climate discussions which is what the Stern report is.
Pinxi, using your logic, the U.S. should declare wars everywhere, as that will create business opportunities and “who could argue with that?” What about people who run schools and hospitals needing that same money for education and medical research?
Regarding studies on crippling the economy and a cost-benefit analysis…shouldn’t the burden of proof be on those who want the money–and, that burden needs to show a better return on investment than alternate uses?
Let’s just crank up the currency printing presses.
Let’s not forget what it is all about in practical terms.
+ 2 C = + 2M; when?
Well the Russians and the Canadians would (do) welcome longer growing seasons and less snow cover periods. Also the Sahel is apparently getting greener due to CO2 entrichment.
There will be many shocks as people attempt to bring the theory into reality.
Flying people, animals, food and other products will attract green taxes which will distort trade and leisure markets and add to inflation.
There needs to be an agreement between the US, China and India before any meaningful action can be taken.
howz ye beach house looking today rog?
Just filing this link to a piece by Wayne Swan here: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20671704-27197,00.html
It includes comment that:
“Stern stressed two important things: our response must be global as well as national, and it must be ambitious. That is why [Australian] Labor will ratify the Kyoto protocol, implement a national carbon trading scheme and significantly increase the renewable energy target.
In addition, Labor is also committed to practical community-level policies like putting solar panels on every school and encouraging the manufacture of green vehicles.”
And I prefer red cars! 🙂
Then again, this blog piece by Graham Young suggests Wayne Swan doesn’t know that much about climate change: http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001704.html .
The EU have committed to lowering their emissions but at present rates will not achieve their targets, their emissions are going up not down. To be more able to achieve targets it has been suggested that airlines will now be required to lower emissions.
I read where airlines are threatening to shift their bases out of the EU if attempts are made to restrict their business.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4284386.html
“Environmental policy is now economic policy” said Gordon Brown.
He also says that his new international advisor on climate change is Al Gore.
What nobody has explained to me is how green taxes will reduce emissions other than by stopping economic growth.
rog: while you or I are using someone elses share of resources we don’t need to see how green taxes will reduce carbon emissions
The old one about fooling some of the people some of time is wrong.
A 9 NSM poll is running at 78% in favor of siging Koyto.
Do any of these people have any idea of what they are in favor? Do they think that it stops GHG emissions? Probably.
Do they know that harvesting timber for building, or furniture is considered as Co2 emitted then, at harvest?
Do they know that the Co2 from our coal is emitted when we dig it up, & charged to us? Its not emitted when the Chinese burn the stuff, nor is it charged to them.
Koyto is a social engineering exercise, & has nothing to do with reducing those emissions, just shifting them.
Pinxi, I’m not sure about global warming, & I’m very boubtful that Co2 has much to do with it, but I’m sure mucking with Kyoto type actions is a recipe for disaster for urban Australians.
We will not be able to afford millions of people, pushing bits of paper about, if we don’t have our mining exports, or if the return on them is compromised by this rubish.
Chinese coolly-dome beckons.
Interesting view here:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=460
John Howard:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1777025.htm
PM stands firm on Kyoto decision
The Prime Minister, John Howard, says he will not sign the Kyoto Protocol despite the ominous warning on climate change from a prominent British economist.
Sir Nicholas Stern has completed a report which says the economic impact of climate change will be as great as the the two world wars and the Great Depression.
Mr Howard says a new international agreement is needed to tackle global pollution.
“Most of the sermonisers and the lecturers on this issue – namely many of the European countries – are falling a long way short of their Kyoto targets,” Mr Howard said.
“In many cases 50 per cent short of their targets, yet they are the people who are running around the world giving us a lecture.
“Australia will go very close to meeting her target.”
Hasbeen asks: Do they know? It’s my guess they sure do and expect that our dependence on mining here or there has to change if not stop.
Make that read – coal mining
Exports of fossil fuels have no impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions because
emissions count in the country where the fuels are combusted. Only energy used in
mining and transporting fuels appear in Australia’s emissions inventory. Coal exports are
therefore not relevant.
The problem is that Australia is a climate taker not a climate maker. You could turn us off and China would mop up our shortfall in a year. We’re supposed to be 1.4% of the world’s emissions.
So if you turn every power switch and vehicle off in Australia it will make little difference.
The nation has gone rabid on climate change due to the drought. And the real reason for our PM’s Damascus conversion. What if it rains. Will both the PM and other recent devotees revert. And it will rain again sometime.
The Stern review will add a few extra hundred rpm on the spiritual tachometer for a while. But save your energy for the long haul.
Australian certainly needs to do it’s bit to avoid undue criticism as the worst per capita global emitter or an excuse to ban our exports. We do need to keep up our scientific and diplomatic effort internationally and apply pressure.
We need to be very careful not to take our economy down in an over-enthusiatic fit of zealotry. Or we’ll be doing nothing. But we do need to move our butts. The science behind the CO2 warming effect is comprehensive and compelling. The broad scale effect well demonstrated already. There is no current solar or cosmic ray influence.
Failure to move will lock us into a stone age energy system and despite the posturing the good ol’ USA and Exxon are heavily investing in alternatives. When they move they’ll leave us in the dust if we’re not careful and we’ll be buying their technology yet again.
Requires a multi-pronged approach. But being cynical about enough world action – I think we need to plan to adapt – we’ll be getting our climate from the global emissions regardless of what we do (if not already – greenhouse x ozone interaction!). So I think “it’s on!” – we are not going to haul it back.
In the end the joke may be on us ! Don’t feel that safe sitting on the receiving end of El Nino and a misbehaving SAM. I’m sure God will reward North American god-fearing WASP farmers with more warmth, more rain and more CO2 in their grain belt.
So what to do ? Hard call.
Luke,
I’ve used your “Australia is a climate taker, not a climate maker” in the piece I wrote for the Courier Mail which they will probably publish tomorrow … thanks in advance. And for the other stuff.
So, what to do? Well lift the bans on GM food crops for a start!
“In many cases 50 per cent short of their targets, yet they are the people who are running around the world giving us a lecture.
“Australia will go very close to meeting her target.”
Don’t forget – this bulldust. The only we’re “complying” is by a one-off ban on land clearing by the Queensland state government with no involvement or assistance from the Federal government. Thanks Qld graziers (suckers) for laying down your carbon for the nation to go energy berserk. The reality is that like all the other similar western nations Australia’s stationary energy and transport emissions are up, up and up !
Why do you think the “Australia clause” for land use was added at Kyoto as well as getting 108% of 1990 emissions. Our guys aren’t that dumb.
So at least 25 megatons in trees saved. Work out the value on the market.
And maybe anothe 100MT in woodland thickening. But alas you can only claim any increase in the “rate” of thickening – compute that ?!?
About 5 months ago the shopping centres where I live were full on earnest advocates of one particular political party seeking signatures complaining about the high price of petrol and demanding “something” be done to reduce it. Now we have a representative of the same flock of roosters worried about asphyxiation from CO2 and believing that China and India are just waiting to cut their energy consumption if only Australia signs a piece of paper (that would be the same piece of paper that the Clinton/Gore administration didn’t bother to sign). Why would India and China listen to roosters when they know that Australia could shut down its whole economy tomorrow and it wouldn’t make any detectable difference to future temperatures? But as an excercise in conspicuous compassion (about the globe no less), the crowing rooster sure beats telling the electorate how much the price of propeller driven electricity and “grow-your-own” biofuel will rise to to satisfy a mere symbolic gesture.
Lifting the state’s GM moratoria would certainly be a good start (among many other things). I’m actually fairly positive we can adapt, providing we first admit there is a problem. By admitting we do face a real problem we can direct funding to where it is needed. For example, breeding drought-tolerant crop varieties through molecular marker-assisted and GM-assisted breeding programmes. It’s time-consuming and expensive, and it could be better funded (and the resultant varieties legally planted). Offset against climate change and more variable rainfall in Southern Australia, where most of our wheat and barley is grown, it’s worthwhile.
Of course, it’s a given that stabilising or reducing human GHG emissions is essential.
Luke: a hit in the pocket of all consumers would be good for their soul.
You can talk woodlands till you are green in the face but fossils still go up in smoke, ours, theirs, everyone’s including the next dozen generations. Australia remains hell bent in the race to help all and sundry to do it. No one has made a personal sacrifice.
QLD is up to its arm pits in quarries and let’s Howard in the back door with nukes. Meanwhile people are flying around and going for their private lives every which way they can while it lasts.
Thing is Luke you get to loose your airport about the same time as I loose mine tucked away behind my birth place with it’s fine view of the cape and the sea.
Here is the irony; the old ketch was taken off the run to the mainland because of our sand bar. With each tide now there is an ever so slightly greater back wash from the estuary. Surging in surging back, how long will it take to hoist another gaff rig hey
Posted by: Luke at October 31, 2006 07:21 PM
Have to agree with Luke, cluttering up the coastline with windmills might be good for the soul but wont change the weather one dot.
Nexus: I’m more than a bit curious about how GM crops stop GHG
GM crops have nothing to do with stopping GHGs. They are essential for adapting to climate change (and other changes such as salinity and boron toxicity in Australia) IMO. There has to be a dual approach: 1. Stabilise GHG emissions and 2. Adapt to the climate changes that will occur even if GHGs are stabilised (due to the lag effect).
So how about some climate change GM crops that make better use of more CO2, more rainfall efficient, fix their own nitrogen, and store lots of soil carbon in roots? Trade-offs with yield?
How wide would the crop tolerances need to be? Hasn’t there been a disaster with countries planting different crops in expectation of different el nino / la nina patterns that didn’t arrive as anticipated? (admittedly they were completely different crop types from memory, not crop variations)
Woody – a rhetorical question so not to get the discussion off topic – why else does the US go to war? It’s an economically rational decision even if it doesnt always go as planned. Not to continue that line of discussion. However, some poor and lowlying countries who are likely to bear the worst effects of climate change and have fewer resources to adapt apparently see themselves as victims of AGW caused by many years of rich country industry. I’m not defending that point of view, but 1st world countries need to ask themselves if they should bear some responsibility. Anyway, as discussed in a previous post recently, costs of meeting environmental regulations are consistently overestimated and business opportunities often underestimated.
Would reducing GHG emissions and developing technologies to adapt destroy Australia’s economy or provide an important pathway for structural adjustment in the economy? A range of technological and business approaches to energy production, crops, transport etc (more diversified than we have today) could create stronger and more resilient markets and improve security.
Pinxi, without getting too deep into something off topic, the U.S. engages in war to preserve freedom and help the oppressed. Okay, back to the subject.
THE STERN REVIEW OF THE ECONOMICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE: A COMMENT
Richard S.J. Tol
Economic and Social Research Institute
Hamburg, Vrije and Carnegie Mellon Universities
October 30, 2006
Conclusion
In sum, the Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasizes the most pessimistic studies. The discount rate used is lower than the official recommendations by HM Treasury. Results are occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent.
This is not to say that climate change is not a problem, nor that greenhouse gas emissions should not be reduced. There are sound arguments for emission reduction. However, unsound analyses like the Stern Review only provide fodder for those skeptical of climate change and climate policy.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/sternreview.doc
1% GDP to reduce GHGs. Will that break the economy? Bear in mind there will be beneficial returns and Australia might have a chance of developing some export opportunities for once.
Bizarrely, our prominent economist Henry Thornton who is conservative leaning (& connection with Louis), called it a “must read, must think about, must act on report”. He’s called on Costello to release the Australian Treasury’s assessment of the Stern report
Not all news is bad news;
(AAC) Thriving Despite Drought
31-Oct-2006
Australian Agricultural Company has released a clarifying statement saying that rather than struggling the company was actually thriving in 2006. The Company has reported that better than average on many of their 24 stations in Queensland and the Northern Territory has meant good times. In August the company reported a net profit of $8.5 million, showing a 27 per cent increase.
Jennifer: Allow me another correction. In many ways we are still in the Iron Age and the PM is right to protect this old dependence. In fingering coal mining further up this thread I forgot the other major component in our exports for steel making, iron ore from WA. Two states at least can’t back off mining yet and this is where we must first focus our GHG improvements.
Apologies I should know better than most about our interests in what happens to our other resources in during secondary processing. Although aluminum was last century’s big contribution to domestic appliances and has been replaced by stainless steel today it is still being mined and made up for something such as aircraft in vast quantities. There are many similar cases where we can’t back off without considerable pain because we are so dependent on handling resources.
The amount of secondary processing we actually do ourselves was an old argument of mine. Oddly enough zinc production has been an issue this week. There was a time when we could not give it away.
Nexus: I’m really interested in how any crops will survive in my region and your region where ever that is or the outback for that matter but given one of my household worked for CSIRO in soils for years I know we will wait a while before scientists can get round to each of our problems, with and without GM up their sleeve.
Nexus: One of our nearby farmers with a reputation for his link to the top said last week our dry land farmers should move to the tropics. However certain people with clout favor keeping them all at home for a bit longer. Not one word about GM from the PM.
BTW nexus CSIRO did a lot of work in irrigation, broad acre crops like canola and cotton. Soils and other CSIRO divisions not under particular industries thumb are in another kind of drought. It’s been a long time since I heard a word about cellulose or dairy products for instance.
Although I will dismiss GM for the short term we could debate GHG and other surface system lag here for decades.
Paul: You don’t suppose Tol is an expert on ice do you?
Not all news is bad news;
(AAC) Thriving Despite Drought
31-Oct-2006
Australian Agricultural Company has released a clarifying statement saying that rather than struggling the company was actually thriving in 2006. The Company has reported that better than average on many of their 24 stations in Queensland and the Northern Territory has meant good times. In August the company reported a net profit of $8.5 million, showing a 27 per cent increase.
Gavin – I know Stern isn’t a climate scientist. The use of the ‘Hansen Splice’ from the PNAS ‘paper’ beggars belief.
OPEC reaction:
EUROPE INCREASINGLY ISOLATED AS OPEC REJECTS STERN REVIEW
OPEC says British climate change report “unfounded”
Reuters, 31 October 2006
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-10-31T101400Z_01_L31174050_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-STERN-OPEC.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
By Tanya Mosolova
MOSCOW (Reuters) – A hard-hitting report on climate change published by the British government on Monday has no basis in science or economics, OPEC’s Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo said on Tuesday.
The report written by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern said that failure to tackle climate change could push world temperatures up by 5 degrees Celsius (9 Fahrenheit) over the next century, causing severe floods and harsh droughts and uprooting many as 200 million people.
The study recommended taking action now to offset the far greater cost of dealing with climate change later.
But Barkindo told an energy conference in Moscow that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) — which holds around two thirds of the world’s oil reserves — opposed such research (sic) efforts.
“We find some of the so-called initiatives of the rich industrialized countries who are supposed to take the lead in combating climate change rather alarming,” he said.
“One recent example is the review on climate change that was issued yesterday by the UK government in London.”
Stern’s report was welcomed by environmental activists as well as by the British government and the European Commission. The White House Council on Environmental Quality said it was a contribution to an abundance of economic analysis on climate change.
Barkindo said it was misguided but he did not elaborate on possible solutions to the problem.
“The mitigation and adaptation to climate change can only be accomplished on the principles of common responsibility and respected capabilities and not by scenarios that have no foundations in either science or economics as we had yesterday from London,” he said.
OPEC is made up of Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.
Australia, which alongside the United States has not signed the Kyoto Protocol designed to curb Greenhouse gas emissions, also said on Tuesday it did not accept the British report.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved
Pinxi: Grab a copy of the Australian. The front page features our real dilemma. I am particularly impressed by the personal view of a true insider, your average bloke in a blue hat. He is saying it’s time for reductions.
But it’s been my considered view for a long time; none of this academic or scientific stuff will do the job at the coal face. Pinxi; the best item on the front page is the cartoon. I am not alone in my view.
As the “PM pushes for a new Kyoto” our hardest job is in engineering and that’s my focus with our next “industry statement”. Although Denis Shanahan writes a good article on the lib lab tiff on not signing Kyoto and grasping or not grasping doomsday from the Stern report leading up to jobs either way he has not mentioned once our technical skills shortage.
Stern I believe was looking at us to fill that gap quickly.
Nexus “What has GM got to do with GHG”
A lot. First many of the applications of GM technology and its track record for improving carbon retention are documented in the Stern report
I’ve listed the main ones here
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/stern-suggestions-agscience-biotech-rr.html
One of the chief areas in conservation tillage, in which their are improvements from less diesel use, and better build up of soil carbon (and water savings too). The massive recent increase in conservation tillage is documented here
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/no-till-revolution-gains-ground.html
Note how all the main players in conservation tillage are the GM crop using countries.
Australian states banned a conservation tillage option for canola when they banned GM canola. Go figure – “The Green” city vote know sfa about conservation tillage.
Another area is crop physiology traits. C4 plants like sorghum and corn use water more efficiently than C3 plants, and it may be that climate change will put more stess on water use efficiency. There are numerous ways that GM can assist breeders to produce better crops for new envirionments. One of the more surprising is putting C4 genes in the C3 plant rice which has been done with surprising success.
Luke:
“So how about some climate change GM crops that make better use of more CO2, more rainfall efficient, fix their own nitrogen, and store lots of soil carbon in roots? Trade-offs with yield?”
Yes I agree, but basically that what a lot of plant breeding is all about allready, and yes its also an area where more the phenotype is complex. You need to be a Yuhudi Menuhin of crop breeding like many of the CSIRO mob are to make progress, and they are. But the gains can be measured and the interesting thing is that in the GM criops allready developed, simple traits like Bt and glyphosate resistance can be (AND HAVE BEEN) expoited to give some of these gains in the hands of intelligent farmers and breeders. That’s amazing.
Paul – so we now have the foxes opinion on the proposed security measures for the hen house.
OPEC rejects the Stern Report.
Now, THAT”s a SHOCK!!
good cartoon Gav. can’t see the forest for the eyebrows, so to speak
“The Prime Minister’s comments that low and zero emission technologies will never replace “cleaner coal” and nuclear power demonstrates one of two things: political obfuscation of the challenges of climate change or he has been poorly briefed on our energy market. Either way, they are just plain wrong.”
-> The words of Ric Brazzale, Executive Director of the Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy. He elaborates on Crikey (subscription required). I’ll summarise key points, purely out of the love I feel for you all:
* ‘base load’ demand artificially inflated by deliberate policies to support inflexible coal-fired power stations
* cogeneration can meet much ‘base load’ industry demand
* abatement from the mix of sources (renewables + cleaner coal + maybe even nuclear)
important due to economics eg now China has a 15% renewable energy target
* go natural gas too
So again sceptics, do your homework before you jump on the economic-ruin-if-we-reduce-GHGs wagon! It’s being drawn by half-starved, poorly-shod, blind mule.
the point about China’s renewable energy 15% target was that they get the economics of energy production and the need to make structural preparation, hence that inspired policy. Australia’s economic preparedness is lacking as usual, hence some of our own energy innovations get driven off-shore. (Would like to copy in that whole explanation, but ah copyright issues perhaps.)
Detribe: good response, Thanks. I half expected it with, Nexus “What has GM got to do with GHG”
But lets play devils advocate. Please note I have no axe to grind other than I love cutting down trees, a bad habit hey
Pundit says “Better technology helps” and I must aggree however handing it off to an exclusive use in the form of GM, mono crops, patents etc is not the way forward for a vast majority of the world’s people. Efficiency is not our only criteria. Who is empowered by any progres is so very important.
Pinxi: I believe Ludvig on OLO also followes us with similar thoughts.
Resources mut be shared if not owned by everyone. Publicly funded R&D should remain relativly neutral in an ideal world. CSIRO “meat industry” diets are currently in a mess of publicity bless them.
Detribe: Plant breeding is something we must do more of. Notice though how little we do for native celulose production. That is perhaps a cop out related to the hundreds of eucalypts we have at our fingertips.
Her with the day job reminded me early today about the Irish and their potato famine (yes we like our spuds). It was her short comment about control versus native variety that I was meant to savor. How can I ever be a purist?
“Biomass is not a zero carbon technology because of the emissions from agriculture and the energy used in conversion”. Hmmm From experience anything in a quarry takes a lot of energy in extraction and conversion. Detribe; I like the idea of returning to a slightly negative energy source. Lets convert some wood.
“Cellulosic ethanol is a not-yet-commercialized fuel derived from woody biomass” Aaaah But we nearly had it back in the 1950’s with a slightly different approach. Reverse in fact. At APPM they were burning a liquid made from wood, admittedly in a reactor however my point is it took many years to scale up.
Another point, straw etc is probably a target for as much use in packaging as it is as a substitute fuel for oil and coal.
PS
I have posted some basics on C3 versus C4 plants here,
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/crop-physiology-301-session-1-c4.html
and on the drive to improve C3 rice for instance.
Ill track down and add the more recent break-throughs on C4 rice later, after I have a few cafe lattes.
“Pundit says “Better technology helps” and I must aggree however handing it off to an exclusive use in the form of GM, mono crops, patents etc is not the way forward for a vast majority of the world’s people. Efficiency is not our only criteria. Who is empowered by any progres is so very important.”
Who says handing off exclusive use is happening, and necesarily bad. Who says GM crops are mono cultures : soybeans arnt.Who says selling better crop seeds to farmers to increase their cash flow doesnt empower them?
Monsanto is mainly trading in licenses for traits and can partner with local for their germplasm, so there can be partnerships.
Let me put it this way: is it wise to stop Africans using mobile phones because the chips a patentented by say Motorola?. Your comments are like cutting off your nose to spite your face!
The issue is that its expensive to develop this technology. Are you going to waste all that sunk investement by reinventing it in alternative form in the developing world, to be ready for use in say 10 years, about 15 years too late!
BTW way I understand there is no cotton technology fee in India the crops are “protected ” by being “hybrids” and they also perform better.
It short I honestly think your prescriptions for the economic future of developing countries are badly judged and wrong.
For food security we need to ensure we have sufficient diversity, resilience and redundancy in the system
the potato famine is an early documented eg how causes of famines can be political not insufficiency
most of the figures on agric productivity & methods abstract at the national level, but at the sub-national level there are fast spreading groups establishing grass-roots democracy and in doing so, spurning GM, rightly or wrongly, because they’re unable or unwilling to participate in the economic system – for a whole host of reasons.
How concentrated is the ownership of GM technologies? Is there sufficient competition? Is there enough diversity in staple crops? I know there are lots of variants, but…? (Anyone who interprets this post as rabid anti-GM socialism rah rah suffers comprehension problems so pls don’t try it on, I’m friendly with people in varying biotech roles and they dont have devil horns).
Ages ago I started to put together a post for detribe with an assortment of studies into organics and the growing number of regions that are realising economic empowerment and more independence through farming organics because boutique markets pay more. Diversity and choice.
Important to remember that the GM discussion is much greater than just the science. The resistance in some quarters against GM isn’t just about the science (real or fudged) but it’s also to do with democracy, culture and self-determination. (This is not just an NGO fabrication). GM technology and biotech profits are largely a 1st world domain and 3rd world nations are tired of being on the sharp end of 1st world conceived solutions to their problems.
Luke: On the question of recovery in our hard yards, I got into cohutes back in the 60’s with a bunch of amateures in several states trialing hundreds of native species. One trick was to plug the ground beside each unfortunate seedling with an upturned long neck bottle of? beer – hardly but you can guess in rough plots a long way from home.
My trick after a few failed attempts in my own fine powdered clay just past the brick quarry in overworked orchard country around Wantirna Sth was to pile my topsoil over wood waste from a timber mill and machine shop up the road. Candlebarks thrived there and every where else in the country I sent a selection of “Treeplanter’s” tube stock. Vic forestry and Vic ag got me over the interstate quarantine regs each time.
What a few discovered was how the essentially arbitary overall selection evolved and grew depending on location. Initial and sometimes spectacular recovery in any man made mound was no indication of nature’s final selection for a particular site. But we all got a lesson in the interdependence of a selection stage by stage.
Wattles featured in all my picks as our starters. In several places I let the cattle in to clean them up as they took over. Keeping balance between root deep development and foalage demands in a dry climate is always a trick business. But undiciplined development is my first choice for bare ground provided there is severe species competition at hand.
How can I be mesmerised about the particular science of mono crops?
Detribe: I am highly amused by your mention of Monsanto and Motorola in the same post. We go a long way back.
At the time Motorola predicted each house hold world wide would have four micro chips within ten years I blew up my D2 evaluation kit we had to have and was therefore out of the control feedback loop. I can’t recall what the Fox2 (PDP 8 or11) industrials used but my next exposure to a micro chip was a National in dairy processing gear from Denmark.
Getting a chip endorsed by a government is quite tricky. Of course their whole technology follows. But that how GSM and Nokia got round Motorola here in our first stage of digital mobile conversion. But since I believe in open competition I let Telstra have a practical look at the other lot with Qualcom (CDMA). Both rapidly become history. Point is we can’t be stuck on anything while hanging on to the leading edge.
Monsanto: Hmmm. Have they changed lately? I won’t go on except to say American sponsored enterprise is probably still after my hide after one or two brushes over various practices including safety disclosure on a level playing field.
Detribe: From experience if I worked for you, the British, the Danes, CSIRO, the Feds, or a whole raft of others I would not get through their door . Without naming companies one by one I moved freely elsewhere including most of our big industries. In sharing our technical experience I could easily be welcomed or banned on a daily basis as I moved a lot between projects.
I must say thought Motorola big as they are were quite easy to live with when I was totally dependent on using their technology.
Detribe, there’s a bit more to increasing drought resistance than just inserting 1 or 2 C4 genes into a C3 plant. If only it were so easy.
See:
Mitchell PL, Sheehy JE. Supercharging rice photosynthesis to increase yield. New Phytologist(2006) 171 : 688–693
“Sinclair et al. (2004) gave examples of how improvements made at the level of molecular biology are dissipated when scaled up through biochemical and physiological levels to the response of crops in the field.”
Sinclair TR, Purcell LC, Sneller CH. 2004. Crop transformation and the challenge to increase yield potential. Trends in Plant Science 9: 70–75.
Pinxi, in a world with changing climate and reduced native bio-diversity, inefficient organic crops may be a luxury we cannot afford to have any more (large-scale anyway). In a way, it’ll be like driving a big ol’ gas-guzzling CO2-emitting V8. Fun, but not really the right thing to do.
‘Some British economist’ eh?
‘Former head of World Bank” a little more accurate?
Once again Kyoto is being misrepresented by you Jennifer. It was always meant to be developed nations first (well, we have more money to afford such change) with the developing later. As is Aust was the only developed nation allowed an INCREASE on their 1990 levels, and even that we wouldnt be getting if it wasnt for re-forestation. And although Aust has the highest per capita C02 output and can afford to make change, its a case of saying ‘do as i say, not as i do’. any wonder if india and china tell us to take a running jump? pathetic!
As for the natural CO2 fluctuations, Gore did also point out that the current high level is unseen in 600,000 years of ice core tests, so far from naturally occurring.
does anyone actually believe that Monsanto has farmers best wishes at heart? people must be living under rocks to be so ignorant and deluded! GM crops are the biggest scam ever inflicted on the public at large. We’re talking about giving control of the entire food chain to the hands of a very few, ethic-lacking agri-industrial giants whose primary goal is making money, not to feed the third world or to adapt to climate change.
nice distortions once more, im still waiting for some non-junk science on your blog.
i can but wait i guess…
Nexus we may need a mix of approaches and freedom for farmers to choose from among them. Is there an accepted authoritative and decisive picture on the longterm productivity of industrialised farming techniques including total land area, ie land that’s been degraded and abandoned? Some organic yields have been reported to rival industrial yields per land area. We can’t assume, for global food’s security sake, that the performance in certain conditions of GM in recent years will be universally applicable and sustainable. Yes some modern industrial methods & GM can be adapted by smallscale farmers and that can be beneficial esp where yeilds per land area increase. But can we be 100% confident that sustainable yields from GM will outperform organics over the longterm in most or all situations? Certainly not sustainable if subsistence farmers can’t afford them! Adapt to global influences, local conditions, local cultures and local wishes I reckon. When can we expect peak phosophorus, btw?
Gavin, look up RFID tags if you haven’t already. Tiny and unnoticeable on grocery items and clothing. Getting more sophisticated. Helps marketers learn more about consumer behaviour – location of consumption, time to reach landfill etc. Also inserted into the arms of some willing VIP club goers with credit card details inside. Interpreted as the mark of the beast by the Rapture Ready crowd (not an insignificant number of people in the US! it’s even been reported by the Economist). The mark of the best is one of the final signs that the true believers will ascend to heaven very shortly to watch the rest of us perish from pestilence and drought and flooding and assorted horrors (due to AGW?) and then God remakes the world anew for the righteous (Shiller will have a front seat no doubt).
Julian I read the post above a couple of times and got the impression that Jennifer’s heart really wasn’t in it.
Suddenly the climate change debate is getting more nuanced in Australia and more businesses are publicly supporting action. I reckon the IPA will be redefining its partyline to maintain business support which it needs to survive. We’ll hear less denial of the science and more layered recommendations to mitigate or adapt selectively in areas where businesses see opportunities such as geosequestration and corporate-scale alternative technologies.
We’re already seeing this with the AP6 support which Jennifer hasn’t been able to explain, ie if AGW isn’t happening and mitigation attempts are futile then why does Jennifer support AP deals? (She answered with reference to clean development but didn’t seem to be aware that Kyoto already has a CDM and JI etc)
I agree Pinxi, people shouldn’t be forced. However, when it comes to low-rainfall or degraded land (e.g. high-salinity, high-boron, high-aluminium) there probably will not be a choice. Either abandon the land or, in cases where insufficient stress-tolerance already exists in available germplasm, use GM varieties.
One thing we can assume is that the performance of GM in recent years will be radically improved upon. Current commercially-available varieties come from 25 year old technology. New varieties will far surpass them for agronomic characteristics.
Also, one can never be 100% sure of anything (except in mathematics). It is likely, however, that crop varieties specially bred and engineered to thrive in abiotic stress conditions will outperform those that aren’t. Add in biotic stress (i.e. pests), and organic farming is at a disadvantage. That is not to say that positive aspects of organic farming (e.g. agronomic practices like growing complementary crop species together) should not be integrated into non-organic farming practices. They should be. I just see organic farming as unnecessarily limiting. All options should be on the table, so to speak.
Pinxi, no fear here dear I got off my chair and went right back to my roots for a mo this arvo. After a phone call to check my facts on research dear to the heart I met this guy who can claim forty years in the game.
Since I’m almost as honest as the day itself, I needed uplift. Guess what I got given BOM said we had the warmest October ever in the region? My new acquaintance reckoned it will come back to normal Howzat?
Over my donation of home grown seed we chatted on about using the bush log for log. Seeing some of the action first hand beats reading blogs on blogs any time, but we have a big problem and its just what you expect, ongoing funding.
It seems somebody has done several years’ contract study of companion planting native species after all. Someone else read it in passing and it is an influence in current programs. Good! But where is all that science recorded? We have an academic vacuum.
When I pick on GM here it’s for a very good reason. Home grown ag technology is only ever a seedling.
“Important to remember that the GM discussion is much greater than just the science. The resistance in some quarters against GM isn’t just about the science (real or fudged) but it’s also to do with democracy, culture and self-determination. (This is not just an NGO fabrication). GM technology and biotech profits are largely a 1st world domain and 3rd world nations are tired of being on the sharp end of 1st world conceived solutions to their problems.”
Well yes of course its a lot more than science and of course its about democracy, but nobody ever claims that some sector of a democracy don’t have idiotic ideas, and just because its democratic doesnt mean that its true or good policy per se. We are able to have the Stark Raving Loony Party in a Democracy, and they get votes. Thats OK too.
Second point: “biotech profits are largely a 1st world domain” is factually wrong. $15billion of the $28 billion increased profit stream from GM goes to the third world, and most farmers using GM crop are now in the third word. This sector is growing most rapidly,and we can predict will be a majority of the sown area this year or the next.
The countries include China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina. See ISAAA , PG Economics reports webpages.
Nexus, Yes I agree there’s much to inmproving Ps that sticking in a few genes. That what my ” its also an area where more the phenotype is complex. You need to be a Yuhudi Menuhin of crop breeding like many of the CSIRO mob are to make progress,” was code for. And thanks for the refs. Still havnt had time to the paper one on rice I’m intending to post.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/D/200003092.html
This is the GM Rice Story I was refering too
To achieve such thumping gains, Ku inserted maize genes which ramp up photosynthesis, the process by which plants harvest the energy of sunlight to produce sugars from water and CO2. The new genes enable the plant to absorb more CO2. They also stop oxygen from blocking sugar production and, Ku believes, might even help the plant to survive hardships such as drought and heat.
Ku and his colleagues sought to transfer maize genes because maize, sorghum and other related “C4 plants” are more “advanced” than plants like rice. C4 plants absorb CO2 and store large quantities of it instantly as four-carbon acids such as oxaloacetate, malate and aspartate.
Unfortunately for farmers, most major food crops, including rice, potatoes, wheat and other cereals, haven’t evolved the enzymes to perform this trick. These “C3” plants rely on an inferior photosynthetic kit, which creates three-carbon compounds first, such as phosphoglycerate. This less efficient process means that C3 plants exhale much of the CO2 they breathe in.
Working with Mitsue Miyao of the National Institute of Agrobiological Resources in Tsukuba, Japan, and Makato Matsuoka at Nagoya University, Ku inserted one of three maize genes into rice plants. The first makes phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase, the enzyme which initiates photosynthesis in maize (Nature Biotechnology, vol 17, p 76). In field trials last year, plants containing this gene yielded up to 12 per cent more rice than controls.
But the researchers saw yields soar by 35 per cent when they inserted the gene for pyruvate orthophosphate dikinase, another enzyme vital for C4 plants. Tests are under way for plants containing the third crucial gene, which codes for nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate-dependent malic enzyme.
Plants containing either of the first two genes sucked 30 per cent more CO2 from the atmosphere in greenhouse tests. “If we enhance crop productivity by taking out more CO2, it would reduce rising CO2 in the atmosphere which would otherwise cause global warming,” says Ku.
I’m posting this link to be quick and havnt reread up the papers in this area. Im just making the point that GM is relevant
the reason I was getting at democracy detribe, and I know you get it, but many talk of organics or recommending some organic techniques alongside industrialised techniques as if it’s a regressive socialist plot but they don’t acknowledge it as one of several legitimate approaches that should be available.
“$15billion of the $28 billion increased profit stream from GM goes to the third world” – I see you were rushed, can you clarify ‘goes to the 3rd world’? Company or a division operates there, does R&D there, or is actually owned by 3rd world investors? (Further note: thanks for the response, appreciated as I made that statement above in the anticipation it would stir up an answer as I’ve wondered about it many times and suspected increased GM activity in developing countries.)
Pinksi Winksi
Check the details yourself income streams
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/GM_global_study.htm
Biotech Crops Reduce Pesticide Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Planting of these crops generates additional US$27.5 billion in global farm income
LONDON (Oct. 12, 2005) — After just nine years of commercialisation, biotech crops have made a significant, positive impact on the global economy and environment, decreasing pesticide spraying and reducing the environmental footprint associated with pesticide use by 14 percent, according to a study released today.
“Since 1996, adoption of biotech crops has contributed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and decreased pesticide spraying,” said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics, and one of the authors who conducted the study. “While greatly enhancing the way farmers in 18 countries produce food, feed and fiber, biotech crops have reduced the environmental footprint associated with agricultural practices. This study offers the first quantifiable global look at the impact of biotech crop production.”
The study, “GM crops: the global socio-economic and environmental impact — the first nine years 1996–2004,” reported that biotech crops contributed to significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This reduction results from decreased fuel use, about 1.8 billion litres in the past nine years, and additional soil carbon sequestration because of reduced ploughing or improved conservation tillage associated with biotech crops. In 2004, this reduction was equivalent to eliminating more than 10 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or removing 5 million cars — one-fifth of the cars registered in the United Kingdom — from the road for one year…
The $15 billion (might even be $15.8 billion, Im relying on my memory, the exact figure’s on GMO Pundit somewhere) to the 3rd world is a pers com from Graham Brookes to me, when he was in Oz last, and he mewntion it in his talks, he said, and it comes from a suggestion to him from Clive James at ISAAA.
So it seems if you read the PG Economics report we are talking about income stream increases in the farm.
I don’t think the enthusism for organic farming is a socialist plot at all. A lot of it is the excact opposite – increasing profits prices and margins by clever “marketing” to con money out of rich people who can spend more to feel morally good”. Its great marketing and clever capitalism.
PS Pinks
And yes especially in Africa where synthetic fertiliser is too expensive and not easily available certain ecological type approaches are pretty useful it seems. I think (like my collegue Rick Roush) that the very conservation tillage we are discussing as a means of building up soil carbon is a hybrid beteen so-called industrial farming and so called organic farming that makes a lot of sense, based on pragmatic and emprical use of herbicides and other methods that help achieve tillage reduction.
But which “organic” method?: not the one that throws rational science out the window and completely and arbitrarily bans all synthetic pesticides, but tolerates dangerous natural ones and bad ones like Copper only because they were invented by the chemical industry before 1900.
Didn’t think about the CO2 emission reduction from reduced pesticide spraying. Good point.
Any techniques for gaining market acceptance are legit tools for agri biz or any other depending on who you want to believe. It comes down to values based on preferences or biases in the end.
GM foods suffer from bad associations in the minds of many like other new products on the market. Best example of that at this moment in our country is the prospect of recycled tap water. Some of us are going to do everything we can to avoid it.
Familiarity with either the science or the practice can work both ways for individuals. Over exposure is often a negative. Most of us go off chocolate in the factory. Some hate seafood before they taste it. Mummy made me eat it was the living end.
Sorry Detribe, you can’t shove GM.
“But can we be 100% confident that sustainable yields from GM will outperform organics over the longterm in most or all situations? Certainly not sustainable if subsistence farmers can’t afford them! ”
There are fundamental logically and symantic fallacies imbedded in this statement. Pinxi , you are (unconsciously?) making several unproven assumtions. Or creating a nice strawman for me. Are you sure Pinks, your not just my long lost pink sock puppet?
GM is only and merely a tool, it is not an agronomic or ecological objective. It can and is being applied to achieve ecologically improved outcomes. Conservation tillage is one which city folks and organic farmers have largely ignored while millions of heactares are planted
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/no-till-revolution-gains-ground.html
GM use should be outcome based and evaluated on these outcomes, such as conservation tillage.
Also same with profits for farmers, if it doesnt have the ECONOMIC OUTCOME of increases in farmer’s NET income flow why should they use it: they are NOT forced to buy the seeds, but year after year come back for more. http://www.isaaa.org/
What does that tell us? The net income stream and welfare effect was better?
Organic is not necessarily outcome based though, in fact often is process based – eg Rules like don’t use synthetic chemicals rather than asking what combination of techniques leads to best outcomes.
Example of GM leading to ecologically desirable outcomes are better water efficiency (eg Bt cotton), reduced soil compaction, reduced diesel use, and better build of of soil carbon and less land wastage (sparing land for forest).
Finally Puinks, why do you assume the the current GM crops should be imposeed on alll farmers and are useful for all conditions?. Maybe because some organics want their rules, de facto, to be imposed on all others? We should be encouraging a diversity of approuch and allowing them to find their special niches. Its a free market for ideas you know, in a democracy. It even allows free thinking dissent, just like dissent of Puritans, bless em, from the rulings of an infallible Pope.
To finish: in another world tillage would be banned. The plough (plow0 is ecologically disruptive, reduces biodiversity, lowers soil carbon, increases greenhouse gases, its an even synthetic chemical called steel. But there you are, it has a place, and is immune from criticism because of the contingencies of history. It’s traditional farming.
Bloody hell, Jen, and Pinks, two URLs and your out. Im reposting this with one neutered and be damned with Jens software.
RE Pinxi Winksi:
“But can we be 100% confident that sustainable yields from GM will outperform organics over the longterm in most or all situations? Certainly not sustainable if subsistence farmers can’t afford them! ”
There are fundamental logically and symantic fallacies imbedded in this statement. Pinxi , you are (unconsciously?) making several unproven assumtions. Or creating a nice strawman for me. Are you sure Pinks, your not just my long lost pink sock puppet?
GM is only and merely a tool, it is not an agronomic or ecological objective. It can and is being applied to achieve ecologically improved outcomes. Conservation tillage is one which city folks and organic farmers have largely ignored while millions of heactares are planted
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/no-till-revolution-gains-ground.html
GM use should be outcome based and evaluated on these outcomes, such as conservation tillage.
Also same with profits for farmers, if it doesnt have the ECONOMIC OUTCOME of increases in farmer’s NET income flow why should they use it: they are NOT forced to buy the seeds, but year after year come back for more. http://www.isaaa.org
What does that tell us? The net income stream and welfare effect was better?
Organic is not necessarily outcome based though, in fact often is process based – eg Rules like don’t use synthetic chemicals rather than asking what combination of techniques leads to best outcomes.
Example of GM leading to ecologically desirable outcomes are better water efficiency (eg Bt cotton), reduced soil compaction, reduced diesel use, and better build of of soil carbon and less land wastage (sparing land for forest).
Finally Puinks, why do you assume the the current GM crops should be imposeed on alll farmers and are useful for all conditions?. Maybe because some organics want their rules, de facto, to be imposed on all others? We should be encouraging a diversity of approuch and allowing them to find their special niches. Its a free market for ideas you know, in a democracy. It even allows free thinking dissent, just like dissent of Puritans, bless em, from the rulings of an infallible Pope.
To finish: in another world tillage would be banned. The plough (plow0 is ecologically disruptive, reduces biodiversity, lowers soil carbon, increases greenhouse gases, its an even synthetic chemical called steel. But there you are, it has a place, and is immune from criticism because of the contingencies of history. It’s traditional farming.
“GM foods suffer from bad associations in the minds of many like other new products on the market. Best example of that at this moment in our country is the prospect of recycled tap water. Some of us are going to do everything we can to avoid it.
…
Sorry Detribe, you can’t shove GM.”
That right Gaven you can’t shove. You should be allowed to offer it though if its safe.
And yes, in a democracy with limited water resources people do strange things like rejecting recycled water because a local rich politician in Towoomba funds adverts to discredit a rough and roucous female mayor whose sponsering the recycing project because it seems, he hates her guts, or she swears too much or whatever. Thats life for you.
Will people who continue to deny the benefits of GM be the equivelant of AGW deniers? I know people who refuse to even consider the benefits …..and yet drink Soya milk which is already tainted with GM whether they like it or not. People have been eating and drinking GM for years with no side effects. Whilst nothing is risk free and I fully agree people should have choice, surely GM offers tremendous potential for good. By all means be sceptical, then look at the costs/benefits and try to be open minded in your conclusions.
FOR Posted by: Nexus 6 at November 1, 2006 11:09 AM
Superchargeed rice, a staple cereal will suck atomospheric carbon to superbly sequester it into the soil some day, scientists speculatively say.
Consortium Aims to Supercharge Rice Photosynthesis
Dennis Normile
A consortium of agricultural scientists is setting out to re-engineer photosynthesis in rice in the hope of boosting yields by 50%. It’s an ambitious goal, but rice researchers say it’s necessary; they seem to have hit a ceiling on rice yields, and something needs to be done to ensure a sufficient supply of the basic staple for Asia’s growing population. The challenge “is very daunting, and I would say there is no certainty,” says botanist Peter Mitchell of the University of Sheffield, U.K. But he adds that advances in molecular biology and genetic engineering make it a possibility.
The still-forming consortium grew out of a conference* held last week on the campus of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, the Philippines, that drew together a small band of leading agricultural researchers from around the world…
“The Green Revolution was about producing a new body for the rice plant,” Sheehy says, explaining that dramatic increases in yields resulted from the introduction of semidwarf varieties that could absorb more fertilizer and take th e increased weight of the grains without keeling over, a problem that plagued standard varieties. But the only answer for another dramatic increase in yields is to go under the hood of the rice plant and “supercharge” the photosynthesis engine, he says.
C4 plants, such as maize, have an additional enzyme called PEP carboxylase that initially produces a four-carbon compound that is subsequently pumped at high concentrations into cells, where it is refixed by RuBisCO. This additional step elevates the concentration of carbon dioxide around RuBisCO, crowding oxygen out and suppressing photorespiration. Consequently, C4 plants are 50% more efficient at turning solar radiation into biomass. Sheehy says theoretical predictions and some experiments at IRRI indicate that a C4 rice plant could boost potential rice yields by 50% while using less water and fertilizer.
Sheehy says participants at the meeting were “very optimistic” and hope that the 10 research groups in the nascent consortium will be able to demonstrate that creating C4 rice is a real possibility by 2010. If they are convinced they can make it work, they will then turn to international donors for development funding, a process that could take 12 years and cost $50 million. If C4 rice doesn’t work, Asia may be heading for catastrophe. “There is no other way that has been proposed that can increase rice yields by 50%,” Sheehy says.
Science 28 July 2006:
Vol. 313. no. 5786, p. 423
* “Supercharging the Rice Engine,” 17-21 July 2006, IRRI, Los Baños, the Philippines.
Good on ’em if they can do it. It does appear that if it is possible, Rice is the plant to do it in, as it’s already adapted to hot environments. Still, having some experience in these things, I’d put it in the high-risk basket, but for a 50% yield increase it’s worth pursuing.
The Stern report, and most discussion about global warming and climate change, suffers from the same fundamental problem.
That is, there are two definitions of the terms.
The first is the definition of the IPCC, in which climate change is considered to consist of two components, a natural component, and a man made, or anthropogenic component (AGW, or anthropogenic global warming).
The second is the definition of the United Nations, and most environmentalists, in which climate change consists only of the anthropogenic effect. That is, all climate change is man made.
Because of these two definitions, data released by the IPCC on climate change, which includes the natural component, is attributed by the environmental lobby to AGW. This is the fodder that fuels the alarmist predictions.
We know from scientific measurement and observation that the natural component is large, and can be very rapid. For example, during the last ice age, the temperature in Greenland changed by 10 degrees in ten years.
It is not possible for man to reverse the natural changes in climate, or temperature change.
Let us be clear what it is we are trying to change.
PP
It’s clear to you PP? Perhaps you could enlighten us on how large the AGW component is (using peer-reviewed science, of course)?
Did it really change by 10 degrees in 10 years PP? You are right of course climate change appears to have 2 components, the evidence does appear to have shifted however to AGW being a significant component of it.
For Gavin
Why silence is not an option
Nature Biotechnology October 2006 Vol 24 p1177
Organic baby spinach: could anything be more wholesome? According to the website of Earthbound Farm, the largest US grower of organic produce, “delicious organic salads, fruits and vegetables are grown with a concern for the things you value most—your family’s health, the air you breathe, the water you drink and your children’s future.” Of course, “organic produce is never genetically engineered or modified …” and “…encourages an abundance of species living in balanced, harmonious
ecosystems.”
One of the species it encourages appears to be the food pathogen Escherichia coli O157:H7. As Nature Biotechnology went to press E. coli O157:H7 from fresh-picked spinach had caused 150 people in 23 US states to get sick, around 75 hospitalizations, including over 20 cases hemolytic uremic syndrome, one confirmed death (a 77-year-old woman) and two deaths that were suspected of being connected with ‘fresh’ spinach. In mid-September, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised
consumers not to eat bagged fresh spinach and urged anyone who had and who felt ill to contact their physician.
A month earlier, the FDA and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) held a joint press conference to announce that they had been notified by Bayer CropScience that trace amounts of an herbicide-resistant genetically engineered rice, LL Rice 601, had been detected in commercial long-grain rice. Before the resultant media furor died down,
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth followed up with the news that they had found the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin gene in rice products imported into Europe from China.
In the meantime, both US agencies concluded that there were no human health, food safety or environmental concerns associated with LL Rice 601. And somewhat later, the Genetically Modified Organisms Panel of the European Food Safety Agency also concurred that genetically modified (GM) rice was not a human health risk. Nothing to see. Nothing happened. Move right along with your life.
Predictably, these events generated a good deal of media buzz. Food scares are always good copy, especially killer salads. But interestingly, for the organic product, none of the press stories suggested that all spinach was bad for consumers, that organic fresh produce per se was hazardous, that combinations of ‘organic’ and ‘spinach’ were simply a time-bomb waiting to go off, that greedy growers were seeking to hoodwink the public about the so-called ‘health benefits’ of organic salad or that the spinach
varieties bearing the contamination had been bred by exposure to high levels of mutagenic radiation.
Detribe says:
I suggest that if an envent like this occurs with organic lettuce, parsley or spinach in Australia that some people may start to say: Dont shove faeces in my food thanks very much.
Oy veh. Denial, shemial already Mrs Cohen. All I get is denial.
In democracy, we tolerate MMR vaccine deniers, AGW deniers, GM deniers, Fluoride deniers, water recycling deniers, Abortion Choice deniers, Inconvenient Truth deniers, Al Gore is an ecological scholar deniers, God deniers, synthetic chemical deniers, stem cell deniers, IVF deniers, convential medicine deniers, food crisis deniers,oil crisis deniers, biofuel deniers, windmill for electricity deniers, computer simulation of the real world deniers, Catholic Church infallibility deniers (who are protestant), Islam deniers (who are Catholic), Jesus deniers ( who are Jewish), Jewish deniers who are Jewish, Aussie deniers who are Islamic,Gaia deniers, chiroropractic and iridology deniers, Rupert Murdoch deniers, socialism deniers, free-market choice deniers, electric pylon magnetic radiation deniers (who still use mobile phones to complain about the pylons), DDT stops malaria deniers, DDT causes cancer deniers, DDT causes endocrine disruption deniers, natural lavender extracts cause endocrine disruption deniers, natural plant contain cancer causing chemical denier, microwave deniers, industrial agriculture and fertiliser to save the forrest and the atmosphere deniers, conservation tillage deniers, what you read in the newspapers is all true deniers, Fairfax press deniers, Andrew Bolt knows something about global warning deniers, and their all ok, except AGW deniers who are evil and immoral according to David Susuki.
Thank Goodness we are wealthly and can live with denial. But I know its hard sometimes, trust me on this.
Very well put Detribe!
It seems David caught a rash reading about that organic spinach in the USA, but I fail to se what it has to do with us.
Hey; wash your lettuce in case some one in the truck or at the back of the shop was scratching.
In the real world only the tough survive.
The interesting thing about so of the spinach-lettuce E coli O157 science is that some reports mention that the E coli gets INSIDE the lettuce cells, or at least inside the leaves, so that WASHING doesnt get rid of the pathogen or prevent sickness transmission.
Latest news on the spinach disaster I heard suggests that wild pigs (haaawgs in Merican) broke through open gates in paddocks where there was cowsh, and then went rolling and defecating in an an irrigation channel leading to a spinach farm, happy as a hawg in shite.
One cannot deny that pigs are unclean animals.
Been watching Family Footsteps on ABC tv, a program about a Melbourne boy returning to his roots briefly in Ghana.
After being told I look like derelict from Nimbin by the smart one I should resist another post. The cat gets me up at 5 am however I must mention how the program featured low cost, low impact farming by the Ashanti people. Their city was something else. Detribe would be bothered by their sewer.
In Melbourne I had a mate who put me up for lunch one day at the paper mill beside the abattoirs. Just bring some buttered slices of bread he said so I did. I found out Muzza’s idea was to take a knife and scrape the walls. In between factories we often worked down the trunk sewers so I was not overly shocked. Having lunch on the job was quite exciting.
Detribe would be amused to know I accidentally discovered the human body is tolerant of very high doses of chlorine where as most water born organisms are not. As I said only the tough survive in this world.
from the last couple of posts, this risks turning into a monty python skit
dtribe has actually highlighted a new religious development in the West. Previously the call was “repent sinners, or you will be doomed!” Those who had seen the Light carried their “the end of the world is nigh” placard and made assorted attempts to convert agnostics and atheists. There was the Church and to deviate from its doctrinal purity was to sin. The New Church is closer to fundamentalist Islam than the old Church. The call is “repent sinners, or we will all be doomed!” Hence, there can be no place for agnostics or atheists for any such dissent from orthodoxy is causing the doom that the “saved” so fervently wish to avoid by their purity. If only there were no agnostics and atheists, the cool Promised Land would be realised here on earth. While science teaches its followers to be skeptical, the New Church teaches its followers the opposite. But while in the West the New Church can marshall comfortable devotees to march for the Cause, will they find many followers in the more hard nosed East?