You are correct to be concerned about GM in this area and I, for one, have been concerned for some time that the natural biotic methods of climate engineering will be set aside in lieu of non-natural means simply for the* novelty* of those means and or methods. Genetic modification is such a novelty means/method.
There is no fundamental need for the use of GM for us to use the already profoundly robust carbon capture, utilization and sequestration abilities at this level of biology as nature has already highly perfected the appropriate methods for us. We can, *at this time and with today's technology*, create vast industrial level operations which uses the natural C4 respiration path to accomplish not just CO2 reduction but also provide us with vast supplies of critical commodities including the bio-fuel we need to end the FF era. What we may be facing on the GM side of this issue is simply the desire by some to obtain proprietary control over such vast operations through control over a set of GM-ed species. Again, *there is no fundamental need, beyond greed, for the use of GM to obtain climate engineering goals and provide global scale critical commodities outputs. The natural biotic method(s) are completely capable of meeting our climate engineering and critical commodity needs with the only immediate limitation factor being the need for large scale demonstration (i.e. Just Frigging Do It!!).* One primary defense against GM, in this area of concern, is to robustly show that there is no fundamental scientific nor societal need for cross species GM actions. This exposes the primary motive of cross species GM in this area of concern as being no more than that of the desire for the financial enrichment of a few bio-hacks. Also, as a relevant side note, crop GM actors are currently finding the legal/financial liability of cross field GM contamination is becoming highly problematic as the contaminated commodities are being rejected by major markets (*Woops!!!*). Due to multiple advancements in gene splicing technologies, we are on the verge of seeing wide scale bio-hacking coming onto the scene and thus the issues of GM ethics, scientific need(s), equitable distribution of risks/benefits etc, should be a high level concern within the climate engineering community. The marine microbial loop is the most powerful biological force on this planet and it is in our fundamental and collective interest, *as a species*, to protect it from wrongful GM, at all levels. Thus, it is not just the issues surrounding the technology but we must also work on the overall governance issue if we are to prevent irreversible damage to the primary production which supports life on this planet. The Intergovernmental Bio-Energy and Carbon Sequestration (*IMBECS* <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/edit>) Protocol provides multiple means for maintaining biological and international governance control over a vast scale cultivation effort and thus drastically reduces the potential for rouge GM from being introduced and which will provide ample proof of the efficacy of the natural biotic process. The use of submerged marine bio-reactor tank farms can provide for the physical means of biological control and the tracking of all cultivars within the bio-reactor tank farm operations would be open access. Thus, the technology will be controlled through transparent governance means and methods. When I first started contemplating the marine biotic climate engineering option I realized the importance of maintaining a non-GM stance as, with proper scale, there simply is no need for the GM path. So, why even go there? One reason for the non-biotic climate engineering crowd to support a robust non-GM biotic climate engineering approach is that *the non-GM biotic approach **is the best way to show the lack of need of GM based climate engineering* and thus full support from all climate engineering sectors can help us prevent the potential globally devastating wildcards of GM from vastly complicating the overall climate engineering needs. Best, Michael On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:32:46 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: > > I'm very concerned about two GM technologies, which don't seem to have > attracted the concentrated attention of geoengineers and earth scientists. > > Firstly, the creation of root nodules to host N2-fixing bacteria on > non-leguminous plants. This can fundamentally alter the nitrogen cycle, and > indirectly the carbon cycle. > > Secondly, the switching of C3/C4 photosynthetic apparatus. This can > fundamentally alter the carbon cycle. > > Both of these have the capability to create new plant types with > fundamentally higher primary productivity. Because these may outcompete > wild species, they may be uncontrollable once released. > > I'm generally unconcerned about GM, but these technologies are potentially > severely dangerous. > > In my opinion, they clearly fall into the realm of (potential) > geoengineering, and I'd be pleased if people on this list could devote a > little time to discussing these risks. > > If you're looking for a more direct link, the biofuels / biochar / BECCS > angle provides an obvious entry point to the debate. > > A > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
