Conclusion
In the past, genetic modification was distinctly used to produce paper in a more efficient and quick way. Today, genetic modification has shifted to focus on other solutions, such as combating climate change, through the production of genetically engineered trees. GE trees, however have produced environmental, economic and social impacts in society.
Environmental
The alterations in the genetic makeup of trees for the sequestering of carbon presents a myriad of ecological concerns. The overall trends in the modifications to trees promote a monoculture approach in which tree plantations replace the rehabilitation of natural forests. Although it is true that these GE trees grow faster and can withstand ‘protections’ such as excessive treatments of herbicide, the potential side effects of decomposition disruption through bt leeching, forest fire pattern disruptions and exposure of weakened trees to extreme weather do not weigh in the industry’s favor.
Economic
GM trees could reduce forestry's production costs and increase availability to consumers of wood products. Reduced costs would result from increased productivity, if the reduction in operating costs is passed to the final consumers it would lead to more competitive prices. The benefits of GM trees could be, among other things, a 20% yield increase over 20 years. Also possible would be improved lumber strength, reduction of herbicide and weeding costs, increased value of wood by the reduction of juvenile wood, and reduced lignin levels leading to reduced production costs for the pulp and paper industry. But there are also economic disadvantages, such as the environmental uncertainty going along with GM trees. The management of uncertain environmental risks and the increased dependency of the forestry sector on the biotech sector as a result of the increased costs due to patents are the main concerns of the forestry industry. Long term tree breeding could lead to the possible reversal of GM induced characteristics, resulting in the loss of the associated economic benefits.
Social
Evidently, GE trees have not produced the best results in society. Unfortunately, there are more cons than pros. Genetically engineered trees have particularly threatened the abundance of natural forests. With unnatural genes, trees are manipulated to the point in which they are able to grow in rapid speed, not reproduce, defend themselves from insects and pests and be completely disease and herbicide resistant. As a result, these unnatural trees have affected the way other plant and animal life interact in the world’s ecosystem. All animal species lack the proper natural habitat and are forced to live in dangerous and abnormal settings, causing a huge decrease in biodiversity. More so, the demolition of natural habitats and forests simply to plant GE trees have caused a stir-up in populations worldwide. In particular, with the creation of plantations, small villages as well as indigenous landscapes are cleared, forcefully eliciting the displacements of populations. GE trees have definitely affected local agriculture due to the decrease availability of high quality soils and water. Finally, GE trees have released unwanted toxins into the air, bringing health hazards to all spheres: plants, animals and human.
Final Notes
Although overall GE trees do not offer a viable solution to global warming due to the various negative side affects of modifications and the economic uncertainties inherent in these issues, we do not necessarily think that these trees have no place in the environmental market. It is clear that more studies need to be done on the potential risk involved with genetic modification, but there are studies that provide promising alternate applications: one such endeavor is the creation of trees that would help to clean up mercury contaminated sites through the conversion of mercury by the trees into a less harmful state (Rosner). This application, however, is distinct from the efforts to mitigate global warming, in that it does not suggest that these trees can provide the services a native forest can. Instead, it offers a temporary service with a particular and temporary goal. We believe that efforts to use trees as carbon capture mechanisms should be focused on the regeneration and protection of native forests, which contain years of carbon sequestration and are more effective at providing this service than any type of tree plantation. That being said, it is also possible that the use of GE trees as a primary source of industrial use wood could protect against logging in native forests, and transition the global economy off of large scale old growth deforestation.