In an effort to stave-off global warming due to the excessive carbon dioxide by-product of coal-fired power plants, is carbon dioxide capture and sequestration really a sensible environmental solution?
By: Ringo Bones
The relative abundance and cheapness of coal means we’ll be using this fossil fuel for a few centuries more given our current use for electric power generation. But they do have one serious drawback: excessive carbon dioxide output. Given that carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas generated by our industrial processes – namely electricity production. Science has recently devised a scheme to allow us to generate cheap electricity from burning coal while “supposedly” avoiding the harmful consequences of the global warming effects of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide via carbon dioxide capture and sequestration.
The concept is by no means an ideal solution even though most coal-fired power plants built after the year 2000 are already doing it, but is carbon dioxide capture and sequestration – usually shortened in the mainstream press as “carbon capture and sequestration”. Especially when injecting the gas underground or deep into the ocean floor for long-term storage (hopefully forever) really good for our environment?
Though global warming is primarily caused by excessive carbon dioxide being dumped into our atmosphere as a by-product of our current industrial activity. The gas can only do harm when it is in our atmosphere. Devise a method to capture it from the flue gases of the coal-fired power plant’s chimney and store it somewhere away from our atmosphere is one brilliant solution to minimize our contribution to global warming. Power loss aside, is carbon dioxide capture and sequestration absolutely safe for our environment?
A reminder of what can possibly go wrong in carbon capture and sequestration schemes is the Lake Nyos tragedy that occurred in Cameroon back in August 21, 1986. A Limnic eruption of the crater-lake of Lake Nyos resulted in the sudden release of a large cloud of carbon dioxide gas. The incident caused the suffocation of 1,700 people inhabiting on several nearby villages’ downhill from the lake and also resulted in the death of 3,500 head of cattle and other livestock. Though not completely unprecedented, it was the first known large-scale asphyxiation caused by a natural event.
Even though the capture of the carbon dioxide gas by-product from the coal-fired power plant’s flue gases via amine-based separation solvent is a proven technology. Regenerating the solvent for the next cycle after extracting the carbon dioxide gas and its transport and storage into a supposedly safe long-term storage area requires energy. The solvent separation and regeneration part usually from the coal-fired power plant itself, so it is an energy intensive process resulting in the generation of extra amounts of carbon dioxide gas.
Then there’s the problem of where to store the sequestered carbon dioxide. The site selected for long-term storage should be geologically stable or there will be a repeat of the Lake Nyos incident to those people living downwind and downhill from the storage facility – given that carbon dioxide is 1.5 times denser than air. Plus detectors that trigger alarm bells when carbon dioxide gas levels in the atmosphere rises to lethal levels are not exactly cheap – nor are they commonly available.
Given our future energy demands are likely to increase, using carbon capture and sequestration to offset the carbon dioxide being thrown into our atmosphere by the new coal-fired power plants is an exercise in futility. Geologically stable sites for long-term carbon dioxide storage are not exactly dime a dozen and the increasing output of carbon dioxide by coal-fired power plants are only going to increase in the future if the coal lobbyists get their way.
For our long-term future, carbon dioxide capture and sequestration from coal-fired power plants should only be seen as a stop gap measure. Before we can develop energy sources and electricity generation schemes that doesn’t generate excessive amounts of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that will surely exacerbate the effects of global warming.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Sunday, December 14, 2008
2008: The Year of the Embattled Frog?
Long thought of as the canary in the mine – or the indicator species - of the outside world, are all of the world’s species of frogs in danger of extinction?
By: Vanessa Uy
According to the Chinese Zodiac, 2008 is the Year of the Rat. But given the sorry state of our natural environment, 2008 might be remembered in retrospect as the year of the embattled frog since many of them are dying as a sign that our natural environment is in peril. As an indicator species, frogs dying in record numbers could be one of our most reliable indicators that our wasteful lifestyle is inevitably destroying our planet.
Frogs of temperate regions like in Northern Europe are now at risk of the cytrid fungus, which has managed to spread to previously colder climes due to global warming. Even though some scientists still blame the spread of the cytrid fungus in the industrialized West to the importation of the African clawed frog from 1935 to 1950 for use as a pregnancy test. European Frogs are unusually susceptible to the cytrid fungus since the fungus is an invasive species and European Frogs have not yet developed immunity to the cytrid fungus.
A native of Continental Africa, the cytrid fungus only exists in very limited numbers in its pristine and undisturbed environment, but widespread environmental destruction throughout Africa. Like illegal logging and slash-and-burn farming methods had upset the balance of biodiversity that existed for millions of years. This not only endangered Africa’s native frog species, but it also sent the cytrid fungus into a population explosion plus with the help of global warming allowed the fungi to gain a foothold in the European continent via globalization-oriented trading and shipping practices.
If the current environmental destruction continues, zoos and aquariums of private collectors might be the only places in the near future where we can see a live frog. These zoos and aquariums are even now already doing their part via captive breeding program of frog species that are seriously endangered. But there is one minor snag, given that heavily industrialized European countries that can afford such programs have a naturally dry climate. Certainly an ill suited home for frogs that are designed by Mother Nature to live in the Amazon Rain Forest. Though professional breeders had managed to breed rare frogs in captivity by increasing the relative humidity of their frog enclosures and also managed to control the cytrid fungus via over the counter aquarium fungicides.
By: Vanessa Uy
According to the Chinese Zodiac, 2008 is the Year of the Rat. But given the sorry state of our natural environment, 2008 might be remembered in retrospect as the year of the embattled frog since many of them are dying as a sign that our natural environment is in peril. As an indicator species, frogs dying in record numbers could be one of our most reliable indicators that our wasteful lifestyle is inevitably destroying our planet.
Frogs of temperate regions like in Northern Europe are now at risk of the cytrid fungus, which has managed to spread to previously colder climes due to global warming. Even though some scientists still blame the spread of the cytrid fungus in the industrialized West to the importation of the African clawed frog from 1935 to 1950 for use as a pregnancy test. European Frogs are unusually susceptible to the cytrid fungus since the fungus is an invasive species and European Frogs have not yet developed immunity to the cytrid fungus.
A native of Continental Africa, the cytrid fungus only exists in very limited numbers in its pristine and undisturbed environment, but widespread environmental destruction throughout Africa. Like illegal logging and slash-and-burn farming methods had upset the balance of biodiversity that existed for millions of years. This not only endangered Africa’s native frog species, but it also sent the cytrid fungus into a population explosion plus with the help of global warming allowed the fungi to gain a foothold in the European continent via globalization-oriented trading and shipping practices.
If the current environmental destruction continues, zoos and aquariums of private collectors might be the only places in the near future where we can see a live frog. These zoos and aquariums are even now already doing their part via captive breeding program of frog species that are seriously endangered. But there is one minor snag, given that heavily industrialized European countries that can afford such programs have a naturally dry climate. Certainly an ill suited home for frogs that are designed by Mother Nature to live in the Amazon Rain Forest. Though professional breeders had managed to breed rare frogs in captivity by increasing the relative humidity of their frog enclosures and also managed to control the cytrid fungus via over the counter aquarium fungicides.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Is a Meat-Free Diet Good for the Planet?
Given that our current food production methods had a very large carbon footprint and extensive fresh water usage – especially meat production. Will vegetarianism and / or going vegan be good for our planet?
By: Ringo Bones
Current studies suggest that if Americans reduce their annual meat consumption by 10%, enough grain would be saved / freed that can provide nourishment to 60 million people. Imagine being able to help humanitarian organizations like the UN’s World Food Programme just by reducing your annual meat consumption. Plus livestock, like cattle, are significant contributors of greenhouse gasses like methane being discharged into the atmosphere. Given that methane has 20% more heat trapping capability than carbon dioxide, this does spell good news for our planet. What is good for our planet is also indeed good for our health – i.e. a reduced meat diet.
Despite the late 20th Century clarification of nomenclature, vegetarianism had been supplanted by the word vegan to mean someone who consumes only plant-derived food products. Looks like eating your vegetables with eggs, milk, and fish doesn’t make you a vegetarian anymore. Semantics aside does consuming chiefly vegetables be doing a lot of good for our planet’s environment? The legalese and rigmarole surrounding the issue could surprise you.
The good news is that it does, but given our current methods of agriculture – especially when it comes to growing food crops like grain and vegetables on an industrial scale – does not exactly pass muster as being truly Earth-friendly, especially when it comes to land and water usage. On a land area basis, it takes 8.9 square meters of arable farmland to grow 1 kilogram of corn grain. While the land area required in raising one kilogram of meat is equal to 20.9 square meters. This is due to the fact that livestock, on average, usually consume close to 10 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of meat.
Since drinkable water / freshwater has over the years slowly became a very precious indispensable natural resource due to our systemic mismanagement of it. It would be noteworthy to also mention that it takes on average 1,000 liters of water to produce a kilogram of wheat. While to produce 1 kilogram of meat consumes 10,000 liters of water. Basing on these figures alone - by consuming less meat while our assembly-line agricultural system maintains its water-wasteful practices, we can still do a lot of good to our environment by just cutting out the amount of meat that we consume. Every little bit counts.
By: Ringo Bones
Current studies suggest that if Americans reduce their annual meat consumption by 10%, enough grain would be saved / freed that can provide nourishment to 60 million people. Imagine being able to help humanitarian organizations like the UN’s World Food Programme just by reducing your annual meat consumption. Plus livestock, like cattle, are significant contributors of greenhouse gasses like methane being discharged into the atmosphere. Given that methane has 20% more heat trapping capability than carbon dioxide, this does spell good news for our planet. What is good for our planet is also indeed good for our health – i.e. a reduced meat diet.
Despite the late 20th Century clarification of nomenclature, vegetarianism had been supplanted by the word vegan to mean someone who consumes only plant-derived food products. Looks like eating your vegetables with eggs, milk, and fish doesn’t make you a vegetarian anymore. Semantics aside does consuming chiefly vegetables be doing a lot of good for our planet’s environment? The legalese and rigmarole surrounding the issue could surprise you.
The good news is that it does, but given our current methods of agriculture – especially when it comes to growing food crops like grain and vegetables on an industrial scale – does not exactly pass muster as being truly Earth-friendly, especially when it comes to land and water usage. On a land area basis, it takes 8.9 square meters of arable farmland to grow 1 kilogram of corn grain. While the land area required in raising one kilogram of meat is equal to 20.9 square meters. This is due to the fact that livestock, on average, usually consume close to 10 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of meat.
Since drinkable water / freshwater has over the years slowly became a very precious indispensable natural resource due to our systemic mismanagement of it. It would be noteworthy to also mention that it takes on average 1,000 liters of water to produce a kilogram of wheat. While to produce 1 kilogram of meat consumes 10,000 liters of water. Basing on these figures alone - by consuming less meat while our assembly-line agricultural system maintains its water-wasteful practices, we can still do a lot of good to our environment by just cutting out the amount of meat that we consume. Every little bit counts.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Is Organic Agriculture Still Profitable?
Even though the organic farming / agriculture industry is now worth several billion US dollars worldwide, there are many who question it’s profitability when compared to mass produced low retail cost rivals. Is it just mere marketing ploy?
By: Ringo Bones
More that just a “If we build it, they will come” kind of industry, organic farming or organic agriculture is more than just a profit-driven business. It started out due to increasing ethical concerns over the negative side effects of conventional intensive chemical pesticide and chemical fertilizer dependent agricultural methods born out of post World War II Green Revolution. Even though the first Green Revolution kept our less fortunate brethren from starving for most of the 20th Century, many now question if our current industrialized food production systems is slowly but inexorably doing irreparable harm to our environment.
When European settlers first came to the New World, their then environmentally compatible method of agriculture made them wealthy plus the bonus of a safe and secure supply of food. Years later when these small settlements grew into big cities, most of the money was still made in the countryside farms rather than the banks and the brokerage firms within walking distance from the ports. So “armchair economists” at the time with a disdain for the old fashioned Protestant Work Ethic tested out their rigmarole-driven money making schemes which sadly became the groundwork for futures trading and commodities trading. Their “new economic model” was the major factor that caused farmers to adopt high-volume high-profit farming methods with inherently questionable environmental sustainability. Given that Mother Nature seriously abhors such ecologically perverted practices thus making the large-scale use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers a necessity, rather than as a corrective measure.
The folly of this system manifested itself during the early part of 2008 when the move from futures trading to commodities trading of agrarian produce caused the skyrocketing food prices. Causing food riots in various parts of the world. But is there a way out of this somewhat conundrum?
Currently, the organic farming / organic agriculture industry only provides a quarter of the food that’s currently available on the market. In my opinion, the money being spend on agricultural research and development should be spent on improving or increasing the yield capacity of organic farming methods, rather than on genetically modified organisms with questionable effects on our environment and ecosystem. Given that the corporate entities that manufacture these genetically modified crops and their support chemicals had been devoid of any semblance of corporate social responsibility for the past 40 years or so (remember the Agent Orange fiasco) only gives credence to everyone clamoring for agricultural industry reforms.
By: Ringo Bones
More that just a “If we build it, they will come” kind of industry, organic farming or organic agriculture is more than just a profit-driven business. It started out due to increasing ethical concerns over the negative side effects of conventional intensive chemical pesticide and chemical fertilizer dependent agricultural methods born out of post World War II Green Revolution. Even though the first Green Revolution kept our less fortunate brethren from starving for most of the 20th Century, many now question if our current industrialized food production systems is slowly but inexorably doing irreparable harm to our environment.
When European settlers first came to the New World, their then environmentally compatible method of agriculture made them wealthy plus the bonus of a safe and secure supply of food. Years later when these small settlements grew into big cities, most of the money was still made in the countryside farms rather than the banks and the brokerage firms within walking distance from the ports. So “armchair economists” at the time with a disdain for the old fashioned Protestant Work Ethic tested out their rigmarole-driven money making schemes which sadly became the groundwork for futures trading and commodities trading. Their “new economic model” was the major factor that caused farmers to adopt high-volume high-profit farming methods with inherently questionable environmental sustainability. Given that Mother Nature seriously abhors such ecologically perverted practices thus making the large-scale use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers a necessity, rather than as a corrective measure.
The folly of this system manifested itself during the early part of 2008 when the move from futures trading to commodities trading of agrarian produce caused the skyrocketing food prices. Causing food riots in various parts of the world. But is there a way out of this somewhat conundrum?
Currently, the organic farming / organic agriculture industry only provides a quarter of the food that’s currently available on the market. In my opinion, the money being spend on agricultural research and development should be spent on improving or increasing the yield capacity of organic farming methods, rather than on genetically modified organisms with questionable effects on our environment and ecosystem. Given that the corporate entities that manufacture these genetically modified crops and their support chemicals had been devoid of any semblance of corporate social responsibility for the past 40 years or so (remember the Agent Orange fiasco) only gives credence to everyone clamoring for agricultural industry reforms.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
EU ’s Environmental Commitment: A Breath of Fresh Air?
Despite the daunting global financial crisis, the European Union pledges to stick with their plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions to combat global warming. Will they make it?
By: Ringo Bones
Maybe it was during 2007 when German Chancellor Angela Merkel proverbially sticking to her guns by proposing stricter emission and fuel economy quotas on cars manufactured in the European Union despite of the extremely limited legislative powers posed by such laws. Luckily, not only being green became “unexpectedly fashionable” throughout the EU for the rest of 2007. But the world’s most famous environmentalist Al “An Inconvenient Truth” Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, further reinforcing the link between global climate stability with global political stability.
When the Credit Crunch finally reared it’s ugly head throughout Europe after slowly devastating the US economy since it’s start near the end of July 2007. Many nations around the world similarly affected by the credit crunch began to wonder if they could keep to their commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Especially since renewable energy systems are currently still very expensive due to the low volume of production. But during their meeting on how to tackle the global economic crisis brought about by the US credit crunch, EU leaders surprisingly reached a consensus to stick with their previous commitments on gradually reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by introducing the wide scale use of renewable energy systems. By not conceding to abandon their pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the EU is indeed sending a message throughout the world of their leadership role in tackling climate change.
Though the environmental movement for a cleaner industry started in the United States, even the spin-off of the Sierra Club called Blue Green Alliance has been promoting environmentally friendly industries that provide jobs for blue collar workers. Like the United Steelworkers – the largest industrial union in North America - back in June 2006. The Blue Green Alliance managed to thrive despite of the Bush Administration’s anti-environment Neo-Conservatives running the government and fiercely lobbying at Capitol Hill only for their own interests.
To me, this is quite a “breath of fresh air” both figuratively and literally. Given that the Bush Administration was unabashedly pro crude oil when it comes to their energy policy. Even their energy independence plans are still crude oil lobbyist driven. For the European Union to pursue the more Earth-friendly path of renewable energy – despite of the high initial cost – is really commendable. Looks like the moral ability to lead has now moved on to the EU. Will the next US administration prove better when it comes to legislating laws that would protect the world’s environment?
By: Ringo Bones
Maybe it was during 2007 when German Chancellor Angela Merkel proverbially sticking to her guns by proposing stricter emission and fuel economy quotas on cars manufactured in the European Union despite of the extremely limited legislative powers posed by such laws. Luckily, not only being green became “unexpectedly fashionable” throughout the EU for the rest of 2007. But the world’s most famous environmentalist Al “An Inconvenient Truth” Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, further reinforcing the link between global climate stability with global political stability.
When the Credit Crunch finally reared it’s ugly head throughout Europe after slowly devastating the US economy since it’s start near the end of July 2007. Many nations around the world similarly affected by the credit crunch began to wonder if they could keep to their commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Especially since renewable energy systems are currently still very expensive due to the low volume of production. But during their meeting on how to tackle the global economic crisis brought about by the US credit crunch, EU leaders surprisingly reached a consensus to stick with their previous commitments on gradually reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by introducing the wide scale use of renewable energy systems. By not conceding to abandon their pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the EU is indeed sending a message throughout the world of their leadership role in tackling climate change.
Though the environmental movement for a cleaner industry started in the United States, even the spin-off of the Sierra Club called Blue Green Alliance has been promoting environmentally friendly industries that provide jobs for blue collar workers. Like the United Steelworkers – the largest industrial union in North America - back in June 2006. The Blue Green Alliance managed to thrive despite of the Bush Administration’s anti-environment Neo-Conservatives running the government and fiercely lobbying at Capitol Hill only for their own interests.
To me, this is quite a “breath of fresh air” both figuratively and literally. Given that the Bush Administration was unabashedly pro crude oil when it comes to their energy policy. Even their energy independence plans are still crude oil lobbyist driven. For the European Union to pursue the more Earth-friendly path of renewable energy – despite of the high initial cost – is really commendable. Looks like the moral ability to lead has now moved on to the EU. Will the next US administration prove better when it comes to legislating laws that would protect the world’s environment?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Green Revolution Version 2.0
Despite growing concerns over high food prices due to current agricultural practices unable to meet demand, can we ever redesign our global agricultural industry to be more Earth-friendly while increasing yields to meet future demands?
By: Ringo Bones
The first quarter of 2008 will probably forever be remembered for incidents of food riots that occurred in various parts of the world due to escalating food prices. A number of factors are to blame like the NYSE ‘s shift from futures trading of food crops to commodities trading which made food prices open to speculative trading “abuse”. Then there’s the recently increased food demand from China and India due to a growing middle class that’s recently blessed with increased purchasing power ready to outbid their poorer brethren. The largely ill conceived biofuels industry backed up by the vested interest of political lobbyist has also been diverting food crops from the world’s poor to the rich man’s car. Unfair and price distorting trade practices like agricultural subsidies are also to blame. But most of all, the root cause of our agricultural industry unable to meet growing demand and keeping food prices reasonable is the lack of farming investments since 1998. Agricultural science has since languished due to lack of investment funds, not to mention the funds just needed to upgrade the agricultural technology that we already have just to maintain global food security.
Farming and agricultural science has always been perceived as “unsexy”, that’s why scientists that had great contributions to the science of food production had been denied the fame they rightfully deserved despite getting accolades like Nobel Prizes and such. This is the reason why George Washington Carver (pioneering research made America one of the world’s largest potato producer) and Norman Borlaug (father of the post-WWII Green Revolution) are about as well known as Nikola Tesla (invented AC mains electricity) and Alfred Wegener (first to theorize about continental drift). Especially in most American public schools. But can we make our existing food production practices more Earth-friendly by making it less mechanized and dependent on agricultural chemicals while increasing yields? And the thorniest question of all, should we abandon genetically modified crops because they’re use is too risky for the environment despite their manufacturer’s claim of safety?
Maybe its high time for agricultural science to develop agricultural technologies that require little or no use of farm chemicals that have an adverse effect on the environment. Nutrient-bloom inducing fertilizers that contaminate rivers and groundwater tables are a case in point. Not to mention pesticides and weed killers that are lethal to both pests and symbiotic organisms. Though genetically engineered food crops might seem a sensible choice, it’s the company that’s presently has a monopoly on them – namely the Monsanto Company – that might prevent GM crops from ever becoming commonplace. The reason behind the overwhelming majority of people resisting GM crops is mostly due to Monsanto’s “sins committed during the Vietnam War” by producing the defoliant Agent Orange whose unforeseen side-effects on both people and the environment still linger till this day. Thus making Monsanto currently one of the most hated companies on the face of the planet.
Despite of the daunting obstacles, we can always be optimistic because science had always rescued us from impending doom, even ones that are of our own making. If we haven’t developed ways to extract heating oil from crude oil, whales would have been hunted virtually to extinction long ago. But now, the race is on to end our addiction to crude oil from ruining our delicate climate.
Without the first “Green Revolution” which was spearheaded by Norman Borlaug, billions of people would have died unnecessarily during the 20th Century. And yet the race to technologically develop the next Green Revolution that’s kinder and gentler to our environment while keeping the whole or humanity reasonably fed has just reluctantly been started. Like in the various organic agriculture / organic farming schemes throughout the world.
By: Ringo Bones
The first quarter of 2008 will probably forever be remembered for incidents of food riots that occurred in various parts of the world due to escalating food prices. A number of factors are to blame like the NYSE ‘s shift from futures trading of food crops to commodities trading which made food prices open to speculative trading “abuse”. Then there’s the recently increased food demand from China and India due to a growing middle class that’s recently blessed with increased purchasing power ready to outbid their poorer brethren. The largely ill conceived biofuels industry backed up by the vested interest of political lobbyist has also been diverting food crops from the world’s poor to the rich man’s car. Unfair and price distorting trade practices like agricultural subsidies are also to blame. But most of all, the root cause of our agricultural industry unable to meet growing demand and keeping food prices reasonable is the lack of farming investments since 1998. Agricultural science has since languished due to lack of investment funds, not to mention the funds just needed to upgrade the agricultural technology that we already have just to maintain global food security.
Farming and agricultural science has always been perceived as “unsexy”, that’s why scientists that had great contributions to the science of food production had been denied the fame they rightfully deserved despite getting accolades like Nobel Prizes and such. This is the reason why George Washington Carver (pioneering research made America one of the world’s largest potato producer) and Norman Borlaug (father of the post-WWII Green Revolution) are about as well known as Nikola Tesla (invented AC mains electricity) and Alfred Wegener (first to theorize about continental drift). Especially in most American public schools. But can we make our existing food production practices more Earth-friendly by making it less mechanized and dependent on agricultural chemicals while increasing yields? And the thorniest question of all, should we abandon genetically modified crops because they’re use is too risky for the environment despite their manufacturer’s claim of safety?
Maybe its high time for agricultural science to develop agricultural technologies that require little or no use of farm chemicals that have an adverse effect on the environment. Nutrient-bloom inducing fertilizers that contaminate rivers and groundwater tables are a case in point. Not to mention pesticides and weed killers that are lethal to both pests and symbiotic organisms. Though genetically engineered food crops might seem a sensible choice, it’s the company that’s presently has a monopoly on them – namely the Monsanto Company – that might prevent GM crops from ever becoming commonplace. The reason behind the overwhelming majority of people resisting GM crops is mostly due to Monsanto’s “sins committed during the Vietnam War” by producing the defoliant Agent Orange whose unforeseen side-effects on both people and the environment still linger till this day. Thus making Monsanto currently one of the most hated companies on the face of the planet.
Despite of the daunting obstacles, we can always be optimistic because science had always rescued us from impending doom, even ones that are of our own making. If we haven’t developed ways to extract heating oil from crude oil, whales would have been hunted virtually to extinction long ago. But now, the race is on to end our addiction to crude oil from ruining our delicate climate.
Without the first “Green Revolution” which was spearheaded by Norman Borlaug, billions of people would have died unnecessarily during the 20th Century. And yet the race to technologically develop the next Green Revolution that’s kinder and gentler to our environment while keeping the whole or humanity reasonably fed has just reluctantly been started. Like in the various organic agriculture / organic farming schemes throughout the world.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Genetically Modified Food Crops: Too Good To Be True?
After experiencing several “food riots” from the poor regions of the globe over the skyrocketing prices of staple foods during the start of 2008, is the global community deliberately resisting genetically modified foods at their own peril?
By: Ringo Bones
Often referred to as “Frankenstein Foods”, foodstuffs derived from genetically modified or GM crops never fully gained widespread acceptance outside of the United States. Especially in Europe, where their resistance of anything with a semblance of genetic tinkering being passed of as fit for human consumption, unexpectedly made the organic food industry – which started supposedly as a fad in the middle of the 1990’s - into a multi-billion dollar leviathan that it is today. Despite of selling food that’s too expensive for those people living on less than 2 US dollars a day.
The issue surrounding the debate between GM crops versus their organically (grown without the aid of pesticides and factory-produced chemical fertilizers) produced counterparts have become the de facto herald of every pro-environment / anti-globalization / anti-capitalist movement in search of “Imperial Ambitions” in legislating their various agendas as legally-binding laws. An ambition that’s ruled mostly by political demagoguery – rather than scientific rationality – for citing the rationale of these various “pressure groups” in resisting the large-scale production of GM crops. Unfortunately, political demagoguery can work in anyone’s favor when it comes to publicly admonishing large corporations – especially ones with very terrible sins in the past like Monsanto.
Monsanto’s sordid avarice for profit over corporate social responsibility had bequeathed to the world products and services that not caused only unprecedented negative social upheaval during the 20th Century. But also, those said products and services’ negative repercussion, are still continued to be felt till this day. Take for instance polychlorinated biphenyls or PCB s. Developed near the end of the 1920’s, PCB s are sold to other manufacturing concerns, like the electrical manufacturing company GE, without thorough understanding of the human health and environmental impact of that particular product. Given that PCB production and use in the United States was banned around 1977, its hormone-mimicry effects still wreak havoc of the endocrine systems of humans and animals around the world. On Monsanto’s “patriotic duty” of bolstering the US Military-Industrial Complex battle against the spread of Marxist-Leninist Socialism in South East Asia, it provided defoliants to be used in Operation Ranch Hand during the 1961 to 1971 period of the Vietnam War. This resulted not only causing undesirable health defects to Vietnamese civilians near the defoliant-sprayed sites but also unusual forms of cancer to US servicemen who happened to be exposed. Monsanto later divulged that the Agent Orange defoliant batches used in Operation Ranch Hand contained high levels of dioxin – a very aggressive carcinogen – due to the hasty manufacture. Given Monsanto’s lack of corporate social responsibility, why should we – the consumers – trust this somewhat untrustworthy company to provide us with our daily bread? Does this lead to a compromised global food security? Especially to those people living on less than 2 US dollars a day.
When Monsanto became the sole monopoly of genetically modified crops, the company was hailed by the technocorporate elite for its pioneering efforts of spearheading a new economic venture – namely the marketing of crops that are genetically designed to be better than Mother Nature’s. Throughout the 1990’s, Monsanto was poised to rival – by fair means or foul – the market dominance of the world’s leading computer software company Microsoft. But the general public’s concerns over the “terminator gene” aspect of Monsanto’s GM crops has denied the company’s dreams of market dominance. Given the company’s “spotty” track record, no amount of scientific study backing the safety of their GM crops to both human health and the environment can calm the general public’s furor over “Frankenstein Foods”.
But it seems that Monsanto never learned lessons from its past sins. Many environmental pressure groups are vehemently criticizing Monsanto’s Mafiosi-style business practices. Like small family farmers being sued by Monsanto for using their “patented” GM technology without permission just because these small farmers live downwind from Monsanto-owned fields and their crops are “accidentally” cross-pollinated with Monsanto’s Roundup-ready crops. Even His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales have recently joined in the resistance movement against Monsanto’s GM crops citing the product’s yet unproven possible negative side-effects on biodiversity. Given that Prince Charles is also busy campaigning for the protection of the albatross in the Southern Ocean, this high-level support of resistance against GM crops has further bolstered the movement against widespread cultivation.
Maybe it’s just bad luck that Monsanto’s GM crops safety concerns manages to coincide with the yet unproven safeguards against BSE / mad cow disease contaminated beef could be the products undoing. After all, testing for prion misfolded proteins via protein misfolding cyclic amplification or PMCA test for prion proteins in only just a few years old. Yet, we don’t yet have reliable test studies that prove GM crops are 100% harmless against human health or our ecological biodiversity.
By: Ringo Bones
Often referred to as “Frankenstein Foods”, foodstuffs derived from genetically modified or GM crops never fully gained widespread acceptance outside of the United States. Especially in Europe, where their resistance of anything with a semblance of genetic tinkering being passed of as fit for human consumption, unexpectedly made the organic food industry – which started supposedly as a fad in the middle of the 1990’s - into a multi-billion dollar leviathan that it is today. Despite of selling food that’s too expensive for those people living on less than 2 US dollars a day.
The issue surrounding the debate between GM crops versus their organically (grown without the aid of pesticides and factory-produced chemical fertilizers) produced counterparts have become the de facto herald of every pro-environment / anti-globalization / anti-capitalist movement in search of “Imperial Ambitions” in legislating their various agendas as legally-binding laws. An ambition that’s ruled mostly by political demagoguery – rather than scientific rationality – for citing the rationale of these various “pressure groups” in resisting the large-scale production of GM crops. Unfortunately, political demagoguery can work in anyone’s favor when it comes to publicly admonishing large corporations – especially ones with very terrible sins in the past like Monsanto.
Monsanto’s sordid avarice for profit over corporate social responsibility had bequeathed to the world products and services that not caused only unprecedented negative social upheaval during the 20th Century. But also, those said products and services’ negative repercussion, are still continued to be felt till this day. Take for instance polychlorinated biphenyls or PCB s. Developed near the end of the 1920’s, PCB s are sold to other manufacturing concerns, like the electrical manufacturing company GE, without thorough understanding of the human health and environmental impact of that particular product. Given that PCB production and use in the United States was banned around 1977, its hormone-mimicry effects still wreak havoc of the endocrine systems of humans and animals around the world. On Monsanto’s “patriotic duty” of bolstering the US Military-Industrial Complex battle against the spread of Marxist-Leninist Socialism in South East Asia, it provided defoliants to be used in Operation Ranch Hand during the 1961 to 1971 period of the Vietnam War. This resulted not only causing undesirable health defects to Vietnamese civilians near the defoliant-sprayed sites but also unusual forms of cancer to US servicemen who happened to be exposed. Monsanto later divulged that the Agent Orange defoliant batches used in Operation Ranch Hand contained high levels of dioxin – a very aggressive carcinogen – due to the hasty manufacture. Given Monsanto’s lack of corporate social responsibility, why should we – the consumers – trust this somewhat untrustworthy company to provide us with our daily bread? Does this lead to a compromised global food security? Especially to those people living on less than 2 US dollars a day.
When Monsanto became the sole monopoly of genetically modified crops, the company was hailed by the technocorporate elite for its pioneering efforts of spearheading a new economic venture – namely the marketing of crops that are genetically designed to be better than Mother Nature’s. Throughout the 1990’s, Monsanto was poised to rival – by fair means or foul – the market dominance of the world’s leading computer software company Microsoft. But the general public’s concerns over the “terminator gene” aspect of Monsanto’s GM crops has denied the company’s dreams of market dominance. Given the company’s “spotty” track record, no amount of scientific study backing the safety of their GM crops to both human health and the environment can calm the general public’s furor over “Frankenstein Foods”.
But it seems that Monsanto never learned lessons from its past sins. Many environmental pressure groups are vehemently criticizing Monsanto’s Mafiosi-style business practices. Like small family farmers being sued by Monsanto for using their “patented” GM technology without permission just because these small farmers live downwind from Monsanto-owned fields and their crops are “accidentally” cross-pollinated with Monsanto’s Roundup-ready crops. Even His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales have recently joined in the resistance movement against Monsanto’s GM crops citing the product’s yet unproven possible negative side-effects on biodiversity. Given that Prince Charles is also busy campaigning for the protection of the albatross in the Southern Ocean, this high-level support of resistance against GM crops has further bolstered the movement against widespread cultivation.
Maybe it’s just bad luck that Monsanto’s GM crops safety concerns manages to coincide with the yet unproven safeguards against BSE / mad cow disease contaminated beef could be the products undoing. After all, testing for prion misfolded proteins via protein misfolding cyclic amplification or PMCA test for prion proteins in only just a few years old. Yet, we don’t yet have reliable test studies that prove GM crops are 100% harmless against human health or our ecological biodiversity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
