The green lobby has been knee-jerkingly opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). So what will its reaction be to genetically modified forests?
If it’s anything like the anti-GMO crowd’s response to genetically modified food, expect the usual tales full of hysteria, shrill rhetoric and Franken-food.
Consider the irrational position of Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, who said the spread of GM foods is “a form of annihilation every bit as deadly as nuclear holocaust.”
Silly rhetoric aside, a GM-forest would actually be environmentally useful. The U.S. Energy Department, which sponsored the project that decoded the genome of the black cottonwood, says that GM trees would be effective for “sequestering carbon from the atmosphere,” which means less of that devilish carbon dioxide that environmentalists believe is warming the Earth (a debatable claim).
GM trees could also have “phytoremediation traits that can be used to clean up hazardous waste sites.”
So what’s not to like about GM trees?
For environmentalists, the commercial prospects are likely to face resistance. That’s because the goal of GM forests is to grow more timber at a faster pace — but not create pristine forests — and to grow pulp that is more useful for the paper industry. Achieving the latter would mean fewer chemicals used and less energy spent to make paper. Is that enough to appease eco-activists?
Not likely. They’ll fuss and fume about introducing genetic freaks into ecosystems where they interact with natural species.
In short, the environmental benefits of GM trees will mean nothing to the green lobby simply because it won’t be able to see beyond the profit potential and commercial success — the real targets of many eco-activists — which the trees will offer. In a sense, they won’t be able to see the forests for the genetically modified trees.