Wanna see environmentalists and treehuggers oppose a way to prevent 9 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of 4 million less cars on the roads, from being discharged in the atmosphere? Tell them it can be done with genetically modified crops.
it’s all about the environment
February 6th, 2007 · 6 Comments
Tags: environment
6 responses so far ↓
1 Dave On Fire // Feb 6, 2007 at 11:54 am
This claim comes from a group who, according to the article you link to, are “funded largely by the GM industry.” Obviously they are going to say nice things about GM; whether these things will stand up to independent review from neutral academics is another matter.
The idea certainly has merit, though, so why are you so defensive? Perhaps to pre-empt “tree-hugger” claims that intensive, industrial, chemical-happy agribusiness is unsustainable and harmful in its own right? The debate over GM foods has little if anything to do with environmentalism, whereas the excessive use of pesticides has everything to do with it.
2 solonbro // Feb 6, 2007 at 5:02 pm
DAVE: indeed, it still stands to be reviewed by other scientists. but I’d think that claims for an easy way to, in practice, take 4 million cars off the roads would be received with enthusiasm, rather than skepticism and harsh words.
as for being defensive, I don’t really have anything to be defensive about. I was just pointing out what, to me, seemed like a somewhat hypocritical stand from mr. Azeez.
3 Dave On Fire // Feb 6, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Solonbro:
Skepticism is the only way to differentiate between the real solutions and those that simply try to paint “business as usual” greener than it actually is. If we greet every nice-sounding idea with enthusiasm without first checking out whether it would work or not, we’d be very quickly sold down the river.
And we have to be especially skeptical when, as in this case, the group making the announcement stands to make a big profit from it. That’s the point Mr. Azeez is trying to make; call it cynical, if you like, but it’s not really hypocritical.
Also, both your post and the original article seem to imply that any criticism of this scheme from environmentalists is simply an unfounded ideological reaction to Genetic Modification. The beef here has little to do with GM per se, and everything to do with the intensive use of herbicide.
4 solonbro // Feb 6, 2007 at 6:36 pm
DAVE: you’re just being paranoid. to me, what both the article and my post really seem to imply is that it’s somewhat silly for those who defend organic farms and environmentalists in general to jump for joy at any far-fetched idea to slow down carbon emissions, except when it goes against their ideals.
in fact, you can be both enthusiastic and skeptical about this sort of thing. but the same way it’s ridiculous for conservatives to discard researches showing that gun control works without discussing their merits, just because they were sponsored by anti-gun advocates, it’s ridiculous for a representative of organic farmers to discard such a claim just because it was made by an institution sponsored by the GM industry (after all, who else would be interested in performing such researches).
anyone with even the most remote concern for the environment, and for sustainable farming practices, should receive this piece of news with enthusiasm and as much skepticism as they’d like. unless it’s someone who’s had access to the research, and can back his criticism with something more convincing than silly ad-hominem arguments.
5 Dave On Fire // Feb 6, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Who, exactly, is “jumping for at any far-fetched idea”? There’s a lot of greenwash out there, of which people are rightly skeptical.
And also, not the difference between (fallacious) ad-hominem argument and (reasonable) ad-hominem suspicion. Of course the motives of the group behind a claim do not disprove it, but they do highlight a need to investigate it further.
Or did you, as a child, take sweets from strangers?
6 solonbro // Feb 6, 2007 at 7:54 pm
DAVE: ethanol, hybrid cars, waste recycling, and the list goes on. all of them ideas with very debatable results, but which are usually greeted with enthusiasm.
as for the need for further investigation, go back and read my first comment. I agree it is necessary, regardless of who sponsored it. but it is still is a claim that should be greeted with equal enthusiasm.
Leave a Comment