Hello Bioengineer Blog! To kick things off, I want to say how interesting and informative I found your research on genetically modified trees. I have looked at this concept before, but only on a surface scale, so the information you provided was extremely helpful in expanding my perspective and opinion on the issue. One of the greater problems I have with the premise behind GE trees is I think it is counterintuitive to what we should be doing to remedy the environmental challenges behind climate change. I believe that the approaches we take to curb climate change should be in the direction of conservation and not through actions that require us to manipulate intrinsic systems in nature. By allowing GM trees on the market, we are only allowing people to continue business-as-usual practices because, like the principle behind offsets, buyers believe that since more trees are being erected than their carbon emissions are being neutralized. This is not only false, but it is also exasperating the negative impacts that GM trees produce as you all discussed in your blog; its requirement for copious amounts of water; the potential to dislocate people off their lands for the sake of GM tree plantations; and the economic vulnerability of depleting forest diversity and undermining the forestry market. The bottom line is, there are too many negative consequences from bioengineered trees and furthermore it does not perpetuate the behavioral changes that we need to create real beneficial change in our climate crisis.
By Ana Cristina Paiz on April 30, 2010 at 7:20 pm
GMs are a clear example of the increasing awareness regarding the need to stop Climate Change. The blog, as many others, highlighted the need to find global immediate solutions to Climate Change. GMs have an advantage over any other presented solution so far: "they actually remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere while most existing strategies work to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases being produced without addressing the already high levels that currently exist." There are however many economical, social and environmental risks addressed in the blog such as loss or modification of diversity.
Those risks open the door to a bigger debate. Can we really understand "nature"? And if so, how can we measure it? Questions that we are urged to answer when facing possible standardizations and global harmonization of environmental standards. GMs can be compared to genetically modified food and the risks of its mass production on human health and the environment, previously addressed in the class. Moreover, the power relationships surrounding GMs leave a lot of room to critique. Climate Change has been said to be global issue affecting every country, ironically, the consequences of GMs are not globally the same and the economic North and South remain under the same exploited-exploiter relationship in the GM scenario, some authors have even dared to call in carbon colonialism in past readings.
Climate Change is pressing us to find quick solutions that might result, in the long term, more harmful. GMs show the need for an interdisciplinary where not just economical but social, political and biological forces come together. I really liked the blog but I would've liked to get more information on Arbogen and its links to the government.
By Jaime Calero on April 30, 2010 at 7:54 pm
I really enjoyed this blog. I like the fact that you looked at the Environmental, Economic, and Social effects of GM trees. I agree with your conclusions and decison to not dimiss the possible use of GM trees. From all the tabs I feel that the planting and growing of GM trees has to be monitered very closely and experimented with in several different environmets to find where we can benefit the most from these trees with no negative impacts. This may be unrealisitc or even impossible but certainly worht a try. GOvernemnts should also consider giving more tax breaks to be able to research these trees further and possibly solve the negative outcomes they currently present.
By Mary Brickle on May 1, 2010 at 12:40 am
This blog was impressive. I am relatively new to the idea of genetically modified trees. This blog presented a very clear and informative point of view. I really found the video selections posted on this blog useful, as they presented direct counter arguments for the majority of the arguments in favor of genetically modified trees. The first point of interest that really jumped out at me was the quote saying we "are receiving a free subsidy from nature" in the form of carbon absorbing trees. While I certainly agree that trees are playing an important role in the removal of carbon from the atmosphere, I believe that looking at this process as "free" is really detrimental to the concept of placing value on our environmental processes as outlined in the Worldwatch chapter about "Banking on Biodiversity". That being said, I find this could be another flaw to highlight in your arguments for breaking down the "vision" of having trees fighting global warming. I do, however, want to mention that I believe there are many possible uses for genetically modified organisms. Obviously, creating giant monocrop "frankentree" forests isn't the right path for us to start on, but I can certainly imagine a sustainable and environmentally healthy future with a place for genetic modification technology.
4 Comments on Click Here for Comments
By an4zj on April 29, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Hello Bioengineer Blog! To kick things off, I want to say how interesting and informative I found your research on genetically modified trees. I have looked at this concept before, but only on a surface scale, so the information you provided was extremely helpful in expanding my perspective and opinion on the issue. One of the greater problems I have with the premise behind GE trees is I think it is counterintuitive to what we should be doing to remedy the environmental challenges behind climate change. I believe that the approaches we take to curb climate change should be in the direction of conservation and not through actions that require us to manipulate intrinsic systems in nature. By allowing GM trees on the market, we are only allowing people to continue business-as-usual practices because, like the principle behind offsets, buyers believe that since more trees are being erected than their carbon emissions are being neutralized. This is not only false, but it is also exasperating the negative impacts that GM trees produce as you all discussed in your blog; its requirement for copious amounts of water; the potential to dislocate people off their lands for the sake of GM tree plantations; and the economic vulnerability of depleting forest diversity and undermining the forestry market. The bottom line is, there are too many negative consequences from bioengineered trees and furthermore it does not perpetuate the behavioral changes that we need to create real beneficial change in our climate crisis.
By Ana Cristina Paiz on April 30, 2010 at 7:20 pm
GMs are a clear example of the increasing awareness regarding the need to stop Climate Change. The blog, as many others, highlighted the need to find global immediate solutions to Climate Change. GMs have an advantage over any other presented solution so far: "they actually remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere while most existing strategies work to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases being produced without addressing the already high levels that currently exist." There are however many economical, social and environmental risks addressed in the blog such as loss or modification of diversity.
Those risks open the door to a bigger debate. Can we really understand "nature"? And if so, how can we measure it? Questions that we are urged to answer when facing possible standardizations and global harmonization of environmental standards. GMs can be compared to genetically modified food and the risks of its mass production on human health and the environment, previously addressed in the class. Moreover, the power relationships surrounding GMs leave a lot of room to critique. Climate Change has been said to be global issue affecting every country, ironically, the consequences of GMs are not globally the same and the economic North and South remain under the same exploited-exploiter relationship in the GM scenario, some authors have even dared to call in carbon colonialism in past readings.
Climate Change is pressing us to find quick solutions that might result, in the long term, more harmful. GMs show the need for an interdisciplinary where not just economical but social, political and biological forces come together. I really liked the blog but I would've liked to get more information on Arbogen and its links to the government.
By Jaime Calero on April 30, 2010 at 7:54 pm
I really enjoyed this blog. I like the fact that you looked at the Environmental, Economic, and Social effects of GM trees. I agree with your conclusions and decison to not dimiss the possible use of GM trees. From all the tabs I feel that the planting and growing of GM trees has to be monitered very closely and experimented with in several different environmets to find where we can benefit the most from these trees with no negative impacts. This may be unrealisitc or even impossible but certainly worht a try. GOvernemnts should also consider giving more tax breaks to be able to research these trees further and possibly solve the negative outcomes they currently present.
By Mary Brickle on May 1, 2010 at 12:40 am
This blog was impressive. I am relatively new to the idea of genetically modified trees. This blog presented a very clear and informative point of view. I really found the video selections posted on this blog useful, as they presented direct counter arguments for the majority of the arguments in favor of genetically modified trees. The first point of interest that really jumped out at me was the quote saying we "are receiving a free subsidy from nature" in the form of carbon absorbing trees. While I certainly agree that trees are playing an important role in the removal of carbon from the atmosphere, I believe that looking at this process as "free" is really detrimental to the concept of placing value on our environmental processes as outlined in the Worldwatch chapter about "Banking on Biodiversity". That being said, I find this could be another flaw to highlight in your arguments for breaking down the "vision" of having trees fighting global warming. I do, however, want to mention that I believe there are many possible uses for genetically modified organisms. Obviously, creating giant monocrop "frankentree" forests isn't the right path for us to start on, but I can certainly imagine a sustainable and environmentally healthy future with a place for genetic modification technology.
Write a Comment on Click Here for Comments
Comments on Click Here for Comments are now closed.