Ronald Bailey | September 8, 2006
Biotech researchers are developing genetically modified crops that will produce more ethanol. Of course, ethanol is seen by many energy Greens as a way to combat global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. On the other hand, organic Greens abhor anything to do with genes (OK, OK, they just hate genes that weren't in specific plants before the protesters were born).
Look for the Feds to mandate by the year 2020 that service stations must offer drivers a choice between organic and GM ethanol.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
I suppose I could illuminate Bailey on how his straw man
misrepresents the arguments of those who are concerned about GMOs,
but why bother?
He'd just feign ignorance the next time he writes a post on the
subject. As usual.
geez, joe, do you suck on only organic lemons or are bioengineered lemons ok too?
Ron:
I haven't been commenting lately because of vacation and the fact I
have been agreeing with your recent columns, specifically those on
GM crops.
But what is it with Europeans that they can't wait to clone a
perfect replacement generation that they don't have to produce but
break out the manure and sickle to harvest that olde tyme barley
and corn?
Art
Corn fuel is pure bunk. The corn belt is already heading for a
water crisis as the Ogalalla Aquifer continues to be depleted. The
push for corn fuel will only speed up this disaster. But of course,
the feel-good environmentalist morons continue to avoid reality as
they bask in the glow of their Gaia complex:
"After all, the journal Nature Biotechnology said in a recent
editorial, it's difficult to oppose a technology that's helping to
save the planet."
Horst,
There's more to the drying out of the midwest than Ethanol, it's
the Industrial-Agribusiness Complex at it's whole, of which ethanol
is only one part.
High Fructose Corn Syrup is just as bad as Ethanol and it only rots
your teeth.
I suppose I could illuminate Bailey on how his straw man
misrepresents the arguments of those who are concerned about GMOs,
but why bother?
He'd just feign ignorance the next time he writes a post on the
subject. As usual.
There's no question that Bailey's portrayal of the anti-GMO
arguments is a bit of a straw man. That does not, however, imply
that the anti-GMO arguments, such as they are, have any merit
whatsoever. Even though this post is little more than thumbing the
nose at anti-GMO "environmentalists" (I use the scare quotes
because any well-informed person with concerns for the environment
should actually be in favor of GMOs, broadly speaking), it actually
is pretty mild compared to the rhetorical excesses of anti-GMO
activists, as I'm sure you are well aware.
I have to wonder what happens if you put Frankengasoline made from Frankencrops into a Ford SUV. Would it then be considered a GM SUV? Would it escape into the environment where it can't be recalled?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245