Last but not least…

Enough has been said about the inherent harmful effects of Nuclear power and Greenpeace and other similar organizations have made their point, but with time running out, are non-nuclear options the only ones? The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations won a Noble prize on their work with global climate change and their conclusions on how nuclear energy was not the answer. However, only a couple of years ago in 2007 the IPCC came out with a bold statement that nuclear power was an essential tool in combating climate change. Now, who do we trust?

Fossil fuel energy produces a global cumulative amount of 9.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions (“Greenpeace is wrong — we must consider nuclear power”). Nuclear energy on the other hand produces none. There are currently 442 nuclear reactors worldwide that supply 16 percent of our electricity; [a] 1000 [more] reactors would produce 36 percent” of our electricity (“Greenpeace is wrong — we must consider nuclear power”). Sure, it may not seem like a lot of work but as mentioned before, constructing, operating and maintaining a nuclear plant is an expensive and time consuming ordeal.

So if a UN committee dismisses what Greenpeace has been vouching for all this time, are we missing something? Someone needs to come out and assess all the possible ways out of this climate dilemma before its too late, even if it means nuclear energy.

What would you engineer… Gene or Green?

When did Genetic Engineering begin?

For as long as man has been cultivating crops and raising animals, there have been modifications of the genomes of these plants and animals. It has become a common technique in laboratories conducting such research and has made possible precise changes in varieties of plants by modifying the genome very precisely, one gene at a time.

GM crops have been available since 1995, and the adoption of these has been most dramatic in north and south America. With the commencement of commercial plantings in the mid-1990s, the global area under GM cultivation has grown to 58.7 million hectares by 2002

 

What does the process involve?

The process of genetic engineering involves the insertion of a segment of DNA containing one or more genes from one organism into a chromosome of another organism. This process, when successful, allows the expression of the added gene in the host organism. The process involves using either a virus or bacterium nucleic acid as a vector of insertion, or else doing the job with a micropipette or by bio-ballistic DNA delivery with a “gene gun”.

 

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Genetically Engineered Foods

The claimed advantages of genetic engineered foods include pest resistance, herbicide resistance, draught tolerance and improved nutrition. However, the evolution of “superweeds” capable of resisting herbicides is highly unlikely because there are more than 12 distinct groups of herbicides displaying different sites and modes of action. The popular herbicide, Roundup, is only one member of one of these herbicide groups. Therefore, the likelihood of a weed becoming resistant to all known herbicides is almost impossible.

 

Genetic Engineering of Crops in Australia 

The biggest  product covering around 200000 hectares in Australia in 2007  was Cotton.  In 2008 the first trials of Round Ready canola varieties were permitted under strict conditions and on small isolated areas. Because of the drought conditions only two of the eight trials in Victoria and NSW were harvested.

The following products from genetically modified crops are also used in foods on sale in Australia:

• cotton seed oil (including oil produced from Australian Bt cotton), used in edible oils and margarines;
• soybeans, used in soy-based products and ingredients in processed foods such as bread, pastries, snack foods and edible oil products;
• canola oil, in edible oils, fried foods and snack foods;
• corn, in corn oil, flour and sugar and in snack foods, fried foods and confectionery;
• potatoes, in processed products such as snack foods; and
• sugar beet, used as sugar in some processed foods.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) recently published a second assessment report on the potential use of a herbicide-tolerant soybean line in food products, giving its preferred option of approval.

 

What is the future of genetically engineered foods in Australia?

The future of genetically modified foods is still uncertain. Though a large percentage of the Australian population feels that the risks outweigh the benefits, the final outcome is still not known.

 

 If you personally disapprove of genetically engineered foods in Australia, join the network at Greenpeace to keep Australia GE-free

Wine, Wine, Wine – Mlb

“URGUNDY, France — Climate change would drive anyone to drink, but it seems that the drink won’t be a nice French Pinot Noir. France, famous for its unique wine varieties, stands to lose an important part of its cultural heritage as rising temperatures impact vineyards. And unless world leaders can ensure an ambitious deal on climate change at the upcoming UN summit in Denmark – French wines face a grim future.

French wines are an important component of the world’s cultural heritage. But today, they are in danger. French viniculture is a climatically-sensitive process and it is already feeling the impacts of global warming – summer heat waves, recent hail storms in the Bordelais and the emergence of new diseases. These impacts will soon get even worse. The experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) state categorically that if we do not limit temperature rise to 2°C (above pre-industrial levels), it will lead to uncontrollable consequences for our ecosystems.” – Story overview from the Greenpeace website

The fundamentals of this story are very sad – If these vineyards are destroyed and the French winemakers livelihood is taken from them, the economy of France will most likely decrease, and many winemakers scattered throughout France will be left unemployed.

However, perhaps this is ‘Gods’ attempt at a divine  intervention plan to try and stop the mass consumption and abuse/binge-drinking of alcohol.

Though wine is not normally a bingeing alcohol, people usually begin with wine to get them in the mood for the “heavier stuff“, which then leads to the problems associated with drinking.

Whatever the case is, its so obvious that Climate Change is affecting more than just our Polar Caps and Rain-forests

Perhaps this new devastation will finally prompt world leaders to make some changes… I doubt they could go without their nice glass of French wine each night, all day .. at every meeting, every dinner party, every outing … I think you get the picture, politicians, especially the european ones, LOVE THEIR WINE.

Nuclear Energy: Friend or Foe?

Look at what we have done…

Fossil fuels, fossil fuels, fossil fuels…. we just can’t get enough of them; millions of years of decomposition and only a few hundred to use almost of it. What were we thinking? What ARE we thinking? A hole in the ozone, rise in global temperature and toxic waste spewing into our homes are only a mere few amongst a plethora of problems all caused by none other than us. Sure, we have alternatives to the conventional source of fuel and energy, but do we have the time?

Nuclear power: Are you sure?

Putting Chernobyl aside for a minute, nuclear plants are theoretically sound alternatives to fossil fuels as they produce mere steam. However, there is more to the story than just that. The cost of producing and maintaining a nuclear plant poses no incentive for governments throughout the world (Brief). There is no correlation between the cost of a nuclear plant and the power it produces: the financial burden brought upon by the installation of a nuclear plant far surpasses the actual output of power, in other words, all that money for not much (Brief). To further complicate matters, the high radioactive toxic waste that is produced has to be stored in remote locations and take hundreds of thousands of years to decompose. So is all that effort really worth it?

*All the sources referenced (Brief) are from a document given to me by Greenpeace.*

Greenpeace aims to secure a nuclear-free future by urging governments to halt any new plans for nuclear plants and to stop the renovations of old ones. They are not promoting anything that could hurt us…in fact it would be a more favorable option for our future.

Do we keep nuclear energy or forget that it ever existed?

Planting the GM seed of thought

An abundance of information is available on the internet about why genetically modified food is good and an equal amount of information or more is available on why agricultural genetic modification is bad for you. How is it, that after numerous pages filled with “facts” and figures, I still feel like I don’t know enough??!

Let me put some of the contradicting views across to you…

For: GM crops are insect resistant and have the ability to produce bigger yields which can help to eradicate famine in underdeveloped countries.

Against: GM seeds have the identical genetic structure, therefore any fungus, pests or viruses that attack one crop can lead to a widespread crop failure.

For: GM crops can cause pollution through excessive use of herbicides, as farmers who know that their crops are tolerant to herbicides, will use it more liberally.

Against: GM crops have been designed to reduce the use of herbicides, and use of GM seeds can result in substantial reduction of pollution.

For: GM crops use a gene that is resistant to antibiotics, which can infect us, and lead to severe health problems.

Against: GM can help structure the genetic composition of a seed to produce yield that has better nutritional value.

Amidst the uncertainty, Greenpeace continues to urge the Government in Australia to review the food labelling laws, as they believe that Australians are “eating in the dark”. They assert on the right of the consumer to know what they are consuming.

The arguments for and against are endless, however, I can’t help but ignore that the shortage of food might be a major concern in the coming years. It is estimated that with the global population growth, by 2020 we would need to produce 50% more food than we are producing today. Faced with this challenge, should we take a risk and give biotechnology a chance or should we take precautions instead of having to deal with the cure?

Counting Down The Days – Mlb

“There are [less than 100] days remaining until the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen, where urgent action is needed by world leaders in order to save our climate.” – Story overview from the Greenpeace website.

Beginning on the 7th of December, 2009, 68 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor (dropping the bomb of a discussion that is climate change – I think so!), the  UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen will commence, at which point the worlds leaders will be together to talk about how their respective nations can help defeat the ‘Climate Change Monster‘.

If these negotiations fail, the worlds peoples will be undoubtably disappointed, and most probably very worried about the future of the planet. Sadly, the fact is, the worlds leaders that are meeting at the summit have no obligation to make direct, positive changes to their nations environmental, climate situation – there are no laws and there are no rules which can help persuade the leaders into making a positive decision and ratification in regards to the current state of the worlds climate issue.

Fortunately however, these leaders are under an enormous amount of pressure from the worlds people, and organizations such as Greenpeace, tcktcktck and 350 to change the worlds negative Climate position.

Hopefully, by the time the summit begins, the leaders that attend will be more concerned about the future of THE WORLD, rather than the power and money that they are pathetically reveling in.

Where to start – Uranium? I don’t think so…

Our next issue discusses Australia’s role in the nuclear scene. Australia houses one of the world’s largest uranium reserves, almost 23 percent of the total available. This is where the problem starts: the more uranium Australia provides the more it gets distributed and the higher the risk of it getting into the wrong hands. Sure, it has its use within nuclear reactors but it is as useful if not more in a nuclear warhead that can compromise the security of the world.

Within Australia itself, standards of the mining, distribution and storage of uranium can be questioned: “…radioactive leaks and spills, unresolved long-lived radioactive waste problems, disproportionate impacts on Traditional Owners and health and safety risks for workers”. If Australia cannot tackle such issues of their own, it will surely fall short in the global scene to stop the use of nuclear technology and warfare.

Greenpeace and other organizations are working towards securing a nuclear-free future but as long as Australia remains ahead in the race of Uranium mining, the risk of destruction caused by nuclear technology and warfare can potentially increase. In my opinion, the aim of these organizations is one that should be supported as no one can predict the future, and it’s surely better to be safe than sorry. Uranium? Not the best option.

While GM crop science gets politicised… only one emerges a winner!

While we watch the Greens fighting the Government for GM-free protection for farmers in Australia, companies like Monsanto and Bayer are laughing all the way to the bank!

Greens have been urging the government to ensure the protection of those farmers who do not want to participate in the GM trials Australia. New South Wales MP, Ian Cohen has declared that the Greens would intervene if the Government fails to secure the farmers from contamination caused by genetically modified crops. Terry Redman, the Minister for Agriculture in WA recently returned from a trip to North America to get first hand information from farmers in the US who have been using GM Canola for over 12 years. He claimed that this technology has not affected the environment or health in any negative way, and asserts that Australia should not be left behind in taking advantage of this scientific development.

On 19 August, a huge crowd gathered around the Grain West Expo at Perth to learn of the scientific evidence for genetically modified crops. Amongst the crown were environmental activists who were campaigning for a GM-free Australia. Agrifood Awareness Australia executive director Paula Fitzgerald during the conference stated the many possible benefits of embracing GM crops in Australia. Her statement: ”Those campaigning against GM crops with stunts and costumes conveniently ignore the science. To raise doubts about the safety of approved GM crops, and implicitly question the safety of Australia’s food supply, is simply irresponsible.”

The question is, would acceptance of GM crops benefit the farmers? Would it benefit the consumers? Would it benefit the country? Or would it benefit just the agri-tech companies…??

Treehugger claims that biotech companies have been patenting their seeds, and in addition, they manufacture the chemicals that are meant to be used on these crops. This increases the farmer’s dependency on these companies, and also gives them the leverage to charge exorbidant prices for the products at a later stage.

Redman might argue that there is no evident harm to health and the environment from GM crops, but has there been any evident gain? Just one obvious one!!

There has been increasing concentration of corporate ownership by these biotech companies who have gradually elevated control over all aspects of food production, from seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers, to the grain elevators, processing facilities, and grocery stores.

Over 3 million acres in the US use GM seeds, and Monsanto has over the last decade grown to own 70% of the total GM seed market. The annual profits  from a herbicide manufactured by Monsanto alone was expected to generate nearly a $2 billion profit for the company.

Need there be more evidence of the targeted benefits of GM?

Pollution is Spreading Like Wildfire – Mlb

“RIAU, Indonesia — Greenpeace demanded President Yudhoyono take urgent action to tackle the latest spate of forest fires. Forest fires are raging across Indonesia, with Riau Province in Sumatra, West and Central Kalimantan and parts of Sulawesi being hardest hit – most fires are lit deliberately to clear land for palm oil and paper plantations. Indonesia destroys its forests faster than any other country, making it the world’s third highest climate polluter.” – Story overview from the Greenpeace website

Well, well, well … according to Greenpeace, Indonesia is the world’s third highest climate polluter .. according to the age and to nine msn news, we Australians are the world’s third highest climate polluter – who do we believe? Im not sure .. but the obvious outcome from this information discrepancy is that we should all just realize that there is too much polluting in the world .. and so much so, that we can’t even agree on who is polluting it the most. Sad!

But anyways .. in regards to Riau’s ‘polluting problem’ – It’s understandable that they are doing ‘burn-offs’, is some areas to clear the land, since here in Australia we do the same, and have done  so before colonization, as it was carried out by the Aboriginals for centuries. The distinct difference is, however, that here the burn-offs are controlled and are carried out so that ‘large scale fires’ can be avoided, and are only carried out when weather condition suit, e.g low wind levels, low temperatures and higher humidity. Unfortunately, Riau’s government has allowed the fires to spread and engulf vast amounts of forrest area, without really attempting to control the outbreak, or help in the prevention of the problem – stating that the fires had started in “locally owned land, and that it wasn’t their problem to deal with”.

The weather conditions in Riau are constantly increasing, making it near impossible to control a fire; with El Nino increasing temps and decreasing humidity levels, fires are burning out of control, and are, in many instances, beginning naturally.

The Riau administration claims to be powerless to stop these fires due to the lack of budget. The Riau forestry agency said that the local administration had allocated only Rp 500 million (US$50,000) of budget to deal with forest fires, far lower than the proposed Rp 3 billion – which is still such a ridiculously low amount of money to tackle such a widespread problem!

If money can really make such a difference, and help shift Indonesia’s ‘polluting of the world’ problem, then nations should just lend a hand, decrease Indonesia’s pollution output  and get serious about climate change, instead of, in Australia’s case, spend millions of dollars ($19m) to cull Kangaroos in the outback!

A future without Nuclear weapons – Is it close?

We’ve seen the different uses nuclear energy can provide and we’ve also seen the havoc it can create, so what next? Greenpeace isn’t the only organization out there that foresees a dangerous future; more and more people are seeing the risk of just storing nuclear weapons and are fighting to abolish the use of them altogether. There are new organizations that have firmly established their strong views against the use and distribution of nuclear weapons: one such organization is the International Campaign to abolish Nuclear Weapons or ICAN.

ICAN aims to abolish the use of nuclear weapons in its entirety, as they believe that with the increase in terrorism, people or organizations will want to use force and what better way to show it than with nuclear weapons. It is believed that there are 27,000 weapons in circulation within 9 countries and if war broke out, it would surely be World War III. Greenpeace too supports the abolition of nuclear weapons, however their take is more on the abolition of nuclear research, which will essentially lead to the elimination of nuclear weaponry.

All in all, people of such organizations aim to secure a future without nuclear weaponry or technology and they all believe that the closest way they can achieve such a goal is if they literally have everybody oppose the use of them. Can we do it?