…even though “environmentalists” would say otherwise.
A report out from Time magazine this week cautioned cereal eaters that they may need to stock up. According to Oxfam – an international organization focused on poverty and climate change – the price of cereal is about to increase drastically due to climate change.
The study predicted that by 2030, the prices of commodities, such as corn and rice, will likely double due to shortages in supply caused by weather changes. That would translate into a 15% increase in the price of cereal over the next 15 years. In the United States, Frosted Flakes could go up by 20% and Corn Flakes could be 30% higher. In the United Kingdom, the price of cereal could be even higher.
We can save the climate change “discussion” for another day. Because I’m more baffled by so-called environmentalists and their steadfast decision to be against technology in agriculture, especially for biotechnology.
While the discussions rage on about banning and labeling GMOs, we’re missing a crucial piece of the puzzle — GMOs can (inadvertently) slow down or prevent climate change while also continuing to grow enough food to feed the world’s growing population.
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) is a non-profit organization that keeps track of GMO statistics. According to ISAAA’s 2011 numbers:
It says [farmers] saved the equivalent of 473m kilograms of pesticides in 2011 (because GM makes crops resistant to pests); saved 109m hectares of new land being ploughed up (GM crops are usually higher-yielding so less land is required for the same output) and reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by 23 billion kg of carbon dioxide equivalent.
GM crops in general need fewer field operations, such as tillage. Reducing tillage allows more residue to remain in the ground, sequestering more CO2 in the soil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fewer field operations also means lower fuel consumption and less CO2.
And let’s not forget that biotechnology has the potential to make plants that can survive on less water, use nutrients more efficiently, and increase yields without increasing acres farmed. All things that may increase yields and supply, even in the face of changing weather patterns.
That means that biotechnology not only allows us to prepare for climate change, it also allows us to fight against it.
So, why are the “environmentalists” against it?
Why do they create fake studies showing it’s bad? Why do they rip out and destroy crops? Why do the scare people into wanting labels? Why do they try to ban it? It really doesn’t make a lick of sense. The only logical conclusion is that greenies should be GMOs best friend.
I can’t pretend to have an answer to that question. No matter how many studies are published showing GMOs are safe they remain steadfast against it. Even when statistics show that biotechnology can help causes that they’re fond of, including climate change and poverty, they stand against it.
Instead, they’ve turned to organic farming — which is less sustainable, less productive, and less efficient. They have literally decided to support a system that would result in starvation for countless poor people all over the world even in the best weather conditions.
I wouldn’t hold my breath and think that Oxfam and the rest of them are going to change their minds on this issue, no matter how many times we show them the facts. The truth is, when their ideas win, poor people lose. Picking an organic system over biotechnology fuels this problem.
It really is a shame that so many “environmentalists” (we all know farmers are the real environmental stewards) have nixed the idea of biotechnology as something bad or dangerous, because they’re missing a huge opportunity to do something good for our planet and the billions of humans living on it.
I hope they change their minds before it’s too late.