> Paul Hetrick:
> >There is an article at
> >http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991225/drtruth.html
> >that started me thinking.
Gene GeRue:
> Thanks for the url, Paul. Patrick Moore seems to be an environmental >ship of reason
>in a sea of rancor.
Perhaps. But some of the things he says in the interview cause me to
wonder. For instance: We don't need to cut down forests to grow hemp
and other fiber crops, as he says. Farmers are looking for new crops,
and lots of agricultural land is standing idle or is underutilized.
Plenty of dairy farmers in my own part of the world wouldn't mind
growing something that paid for a change.
Many environmentalists aren't worried about GM crops for human health
reasons, as he seems to think. Their concern is how these things will
affect the environment once they're let loose. Look at the discussion
of Bt corn and its affects on non-target Lepidopterans, some of which
are endangered, for example. Also, the development of resistance to Bt
is now likely, ruining a perfectly good tool for organic farmers and
gardeners. Genes jumping between various organisms is also a big
concern. I find genetic engineering endlessly fascinating. But to
thoughtlessly introduce new organisms into the environment?---we're
playing around with stuff we know too little about.
He might be correct that clearcut forests will recover to what they
were. All we have to do is wait a thousand years. Of course, some types
of forests may never recover because the set of conditions that allowed
them to develop in the first place cannot be re-duplicated, except
perhaps on a geological time scale. To make these blanket statements
about forests recovering after clearcutting is simplistic and
irresponsible.
Finally, plenty of environmentalists are also good scientists. E. O.
Wilson, for example.
You really have to wonder if this guy is being paid by Georgia-Pacific
or Monsanto. Who really benefits from GM crops and clearcutting? Their
PR people could hardly say it better.
Doug
