Re: [geo] Re: GM biogeoengineering risks

OK, not bad. Here's another line of argument, tell us how you would reply to this! Genetic engineers have better tools than climate scientists; to put it bluntly, they know what they're doing. Unlike climate scientists, genetic engineers have direct physical access to the subjects of their experi

Re: [geo] Re: GM biogeoengineering risks

I would agree that modeling for long-term climate impacts should be a logical first step in designing/approving GMOs. Regretably, that simply has not been done in the past. The first GMO to be released was an engineered (non-ina or ice nucleation-active) form of * Pseudomonas syringae

Re: [geo] Re: GM biogeoengineering risks

The concern here is nothing to do with industrial approaches. It's to do with what happens to plants whether humans are in control or not. If we create super plants, and these go wild, they'll be drawing down carbon from the atmosphere regardless of whether they're in an industrial planet or not.

Re: [geo] Re: GM biogeoengineering risks

Most GMO to date has been changes to minor details such as pesticide resistance, shelf life, nutrition or flavour. These are akin to minor engine tuning, and have little or no effect in the wild. Root nodules and switching the photosynthetic mechanism are, by contrast, like putting a V8 in a golf

Re: [geo] Re: GM biogeoengineering risks

Andrew, Michael and list: The following based on a few hours today doing Google searches - and many hours over the last five plus years trying to better understand the GMO controversy. Oddly, I voted just yesterday (against, based on what I thought expert guidance) on added GMO food labeling

[geo] Re: GM biogeoengineering risks

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 no