Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
False & Destructive "Solutions" to Global Warming: Groups Condemn Large-Scale Biofuels
Nairobi, Kenya-The Gaia Foundation, Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, the STOP GE Trees Campaign and World Rainforest Movement held a press conference today during the 12th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
PRESS RELEASE **For Immediate Release** 16 November 2006
False & Destructive "Solutions" to Global Warming:
Groups Condemn Large-Scale Biofuels, Genetically Engineered Trees & Crops,
Monoculture Tree Plantations
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Nairobi, Kenya
UNFCCC: Nairobi, Kenya-The Gaia Foundation, Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, the STOP GE Trees Campaign and World Rainforest Movement held a press conference today during the 12th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The event addressed the socially and environmentally devastating impacts of large-scale biofuel production, genetically engineered trees and crops, and carbon sink plantations, and explained why these schemes will not solve climate change.
The promotion of large-scale biofuel production as an alternative to fossil fuels, and of tree plantations to store carbon is becoming very popular at this year's UNFCCC. Genetically engineered (GE) [also called transgenic or genetically modified] crops and trees have also been promoted as a way to implement these co-called "solutions" to climate change.
"Not only will large-scale use of biofuels and genetic engineering technology not help to alleviate climate change, they may in fact exacerbate the problems of global warming while also causing environmental degradation, social inequality and poverty, particularly in developing countries," stated Teresa Anderson of the London-based Gaia Foundation.
Using important agricultural land and water to grow biofuels instead of food for domestic consumption will have a detrimental effect on food security, especially in poor countries. In 2006, an increase in the use of grain worldwide for conversion to biofuels led to a 60% increase in global grain prices. "Soya plantations in Latin America and palm oil plantations in Indonesia, being developed for biofuels, are driving deforestation and pushing hundreds of thousands of farmers and indigenous peoples off of their lands," stated Miguel Lovera of Global Forest Coalition. "Once again the developing countries of the South are being asked to pay the price for the unsustainable lifestyle of the North."
In addition to their social and environmental impacts, the carbon-saving benefits of biofuel plantations are also being challenged. Biofuel studies, published in the U.S., found the fossil fuel energy required to produce and process biofuel crops like soya and maize is almost as much, or in some cases more than, the energy contained in the fuel produced.
Activists are also condemning tree plantations used to store carbon: "This Convention needs to move away from the complicated and fraudulent carbon trading schemes" stated Ana Filippini of Uruguay-based World Rainforest Movement "It should begin to address seriously the issues of how to phase out fossil fuels and how to stop deforestation".
While conventional monoculture tree plantations already have enormous documented social and ecological impacts, industry is now considering the use of genetically engineered trees in these plantations-which would greatly exacerbate these devastating impacts and also lead to new, unprecedented and unpredictable impacts.
Genetically engineered trees were approved for use in carbon sinks by the UNFCCC in 2003, despite a complete lack of research on the potential risks of these trees which may be engineered to kill insects, grow faster, be more easily pulped or be resistant to toxic herbicides.
"The release of GE trees in huge plantations to store carbon must be banned," stated Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology Project. "The escape of pollen or seeds from GE trees into native forests would cause severe and totally unpredictable ecological impacts that could impact the ability of forests to store carbon, worsening global warming". Andrew Boswell of the Large Scale Biofuels Action Group added " In the light of the precautionary decision on GE Trees made by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in March 2006, we urge the countries of the South to stay resolutely cautious about adopting these technologies that are not in their control, nor likely to be in their best interests."
In response to these ill-conceived schemes, organizations, indigenous peoples and others around the world have joined together to demand an end to false climate change "solutions" that include industrial tree plantations, genetically engineered crops or trees or large-scale and unsustainable production of biofuels.
_______________________________
Orin Langelle
Co-Director/Global Justice Ecology Project
Coordinator/STOP GE Trees Campaign
P.O. Box 412
Hinesburg, VT 05461 U.S.
False & Destructive "Solutions" to Global Warming:
Groups Condemn Large-Scale Biofuels, Genetically Engineered Trees & Crops,
Monoculture Tree Plantations
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Nairobi, Kenya
UNFCCC: Nairobi, Kenya-The Gaia Foundation, Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, the STOP GE Trees Campaign and World Rainforest Movement held a press conference today during the 12th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The event addressed the socially and environmentally devastating impacts of large-scale biofuel production, genetically engineered trees and crops, and carbon sink plantations, and explained why these schemes will not solve climate change.
The promotion of large-scale biofuel production as an alternative to fossil fuels, and of tree plantations to store carbon is becoming very popular at this year's UNFCCC. Genetically engineered (GE) [also called transgenic or genetically modified] crops and trees have also been promoted as a way to implement these co-called "solutions" to climate change.
"Not only will large-scale use of biofuels and genetic engineering technology not help to alleviate climate change, they may in fact exacerbate the problems of global warming while also causing environmental degradation, social inequality and poverty, particularly in developing countries," stated Teresa Anderson of the London-based Gaia Foundation.
Using important agricultural land and water to grow biofuels instead of food for domestic consumption will have a detrimental effect on food security, especially in poor countries. In 2006, an increase in the use of grain worldwide for conversion to biofuels led to a 60% increase in global grain prices. "Soya plantations in Latin America and palm oil plantations in Indonesia, being developed for biofuels, are driving deforestation and pushing hundreds of thousands of farmers and indigenous peoples off of their lands," stated Miguel Lovera of Global Forest Coalition. "Once again the developing countries of the South are being asked to pay the price for the unsustainable lifestyle of the North."
In addition to their social and environmental impacts, the carbon-saving benefits of biofuel plantations are also being challenged. Biofuel studies, published in the U.S., found the fossil fuel energy required to produce and process biofuel crops like soya and maize is almost as much, or in some cases more than, the energy contained in the fuel produced.
Activists are also condemning tree plantations used to store carbon: "This Convention needs to move away from the complicated and fraudulent carbon trading schemes" stated Ana Filippini of Uruguay-based World Rainforest Movement "It should begin to address seriously the issues of how to phase out fossil fuels and how to stop deforestation".
While conventional monoculture tree plantations already have enormous documented social and ecological impacts, industry is now considering the use of genetically engineered trees in these plantations-which would greatly exacerbate these devastating impacts and also lead to new, unprecedented and unpredictable impacts.
Genetically engineered trees were approved for use in carbon sinks by the UNFCCC in 2003, despite a complete lack of research on the potential risks of these trees which may be engineered to kill insects, grow faster, be more easily pulped or be resistant to toxic herbicides.
"The release of GE trees in huge plantations to store carbon must be banned," stated Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology Project. "The escape of pollen or seeds from GE trees into native forests would cause severe and totally unpredictable ecological impacts that could impact the ability of forests to store carbon, worsening global warming". Andrew Boswell of the Large Scale Biofuels Action Group added " In the light of the precautionary decision on GE Trees made by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in March 2006, we urge the countries of the South to stay resolutely cautious about adopting these technologies that are not in their control, nor likely to be in their best interests."
In response to these ill-conceived schemes, organizations, indigenous peoples and others around the world have joined together to demand an end to false climate change "solutions" that include industrial tree plantations, genetically engineered crops or trees or large-scale and unsustainable production of biofuels.
_______________________________
Orin Langelle
Co-Director/Global Justice Ecology Project
Coordinator/STOP GE Trees Campaign
P.O. Box 412
Hinesburg, VT 05461 U.S.
For more information:
http://www.stopgetrees.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
There has been a lot of talk about Nuclear Power Plants being the solution to global warming, but this would also be a mistake. Uranium ore has such a poor yield that it takes a literal mountain of ore just to process enough nuclear fuel to run a reactor for one cycle. The machines used to mine, haul and process the ore measure their fuel consumption in gallons a minute. The amount of CO2 generated by this process is so huge that it comes close to the CO2 produced by a small coal fired plant. The construction of the nuclear plant itself will produce additional CO2 from the heavy construction equipment and from the large amounts of cement that are needed for the containment building. At the end of the nuclear fuel's useful life it will have to be processed again to make it safe for storing in an underground facility. The underground storage facility will need to be continually expanding to handle the ever growing amount of spent fuel. This is another mining operation producing huge amounts of CO2. The fuel will have to be diluted and contained in some kind of medium (like glass blocks) to prevent any unwanted nuclear reactions from occurring. The facility built to process this fuel will also be generating CO2. The storage facilityand processing plants have yet to be built, despite all the spent fuel that has been accumulating for over 50 years. When the nuclear plant reaches the end of it's life it will have to be dismantled and also stored in some facility as well. When you consider the huge cost to build and maintain a nuclear reactor, it becomes clear that with out all the government subsidies they are a not very cost effective. Nuclear plants also have a lot of down time and some plants are off line more than half the time. The money spent on one nuclear reactor could be better spent on wind, solar, hydro, wave and tidal power. It also takes about a decade to build a nuclear plant and we need solutions now to fight Global Warming. On the surface nuclear power looks like a real clean source of energy until you look at the larger picture. When you factor in the risks from terrorists and the Three Mile Island / Chenobyl factor, it becomes very difficult to justify the construction of any new nuclear power plants. There are better solutions to be found to our energy needs, starting with conservation. If Americans used the same effort and ingenuity that we used during WWII and to go to the moon, we can solve this problem, we just have to overcome are own inertia and just do it.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$260.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network