The concern here is nothing to do with industrial approaches. It's to do with what happens to plants whether humans are in control or not.
If we create super plants, and these go wild, they'll be drawing down carbon from the atmosphere regardless of whether they're in an industrial planet or not. Look at the global cooling and drying that the rise of grasses caused, as an example of what can happen. This may take thousands of years to happen, but once it's underway any changes may be unstoppable. I just think earth scientists should model it before crop scientists make a potentially catastrophic decision. A On 24 Oct 2014 02:36, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > Andrew cc List > > See inserts below. > > > On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Most GMO to date has been changes to minor details such as pesticide > resistance, shelf life, nutrition or flavour. These are akin to minor > engine tuning, and have little or no effect in the wild. > > *[RWL1: OK - agreed. But there are plenty of concerns being expressed > about any GMO.* > > Root nodules and switching the photosynthetic mechanism are, by contrast, > like putting a V8 in a golf cart. They are both huge advantages to the > plants concerned, which could lead to them outcompeting wild relatives. > > *[RWL2: This assumes they will be fertile. Many GMO approaches build in > infertility. But of course fertility may somehow “escape”.* > > The fact that nobody is linking these to biochar is simply because they > don't yet exist. It will be beneficial to make everything from these super > plants, biochar just being one example. > > *[RWL3: Agreed. All biomass users will go for the cheapest resource. > But I’ll bet there are plenty of researchers working on both of your > topics.* > > That's not my central point however. My concern is that these plants > could pull down so much carbon that they result in long term cooling, well > after global warming has been cleaned up, geoengineered or adapted to. > > *[RWL4: A little hard to grasp, given the standard assumptions on limited > land availability and some low potential biochar projection, but I am > willing to accept this might happen at some point. I have one (non-list) > friend who is pushing for biochar at an annual amount such that there need > be no reduction in fossil fuel use; one could still reduce atmospheric > CO2 at a rate similar to today’s annual increase. One point therefore is > that your scenario should be welcomed by the fossil fuel industry. > Another “fix” would be to massively increase beef production, with the > attendant enteric methane release. And there are presumably numerous gases > available to counter too little atmospheric carbon. And presumably those > able to produce such super plants could similarly produce > competing “super-poor”plants, that somehow can similarly out-compete.* > * I agree that, with any product able to grow exponentially, there is a > dangerous end game. And because biochar has lasting outyear CDR > capabilities (unlike say BECCS) that can have non-linear growth > characteristics, there is reason to be concerned about the end game. And > this is independent of your scenario, which only makes the prospect more > serious. But the production and placement of biochar in soil could be > outlawed or at least limited to land in serious non-productive shape. > Methane due to rotting could be encouraged over simple return of plant > matter to CO2. Also char has a long life, but it is not infinite.* > * Another way to look at a “too green” concern is to ask what caused > past “snowball” earths; what are the positive feedbacks in that negative > direction. Some were orbital Milankovitch extremes. I think (I am no > expert) there would a negative feedback here - with decreased biomass > production due to cold (that might similarly be enhanced with GMO). * > > I can’t say for sure what the level of risk is, but if nobody else can > either, this is likely to be a major problem. > > *[RWL: I am way out of my area of expertise here, but I believe most > biochar proponents would welcome the idea that improved biomass > productivity can be dangerously excessive.* > > I’d welcome further comments and discussion. > > *[RWL: Me too.* > > > *Ron* > > A > On 22 Oct 2014 21:31, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> Andrew, Michael and list: >> >> The following based on a few hours today doing Google searches - and many >> hours over the last five plus years trying to better understand the GMO >> controversy. Oddly, I voted just yesterday (against, based on what I >> thought expert guidance) on added GMO food labeling; this bill not >> considered well written, but friends voted the other way. >> >> 1. I know of plenty of individuals and companies working in either GMO >> or biochar - but I have found none doing both. >> >> 2. I know of several documents from biochar groups saying biochar should >> be decoupled from GMO. This concurring with Michael that biochar >> proponents are apt to see little benefit of supporting GMOs. >> >> 3. I have read plenty of material both condemning and favoring GMO - but >> none that tie GMO to biochar. >> >> 4. There are a few groups who decry both biochar and GMO - but I can’t >> find any statement from these groups saying the two topics are inherently >> coupled. >> >> 5. Most persons/groups interested in reducing costs of biochar >> application would probably find little wrong with pyrolyzing GMO materials >> - either waste or main product. In fact, biochar production has been >> proposed as a prime method of removing invasive species. >> >> 6. I have been unsuccessful in learning more about the two GMO specifics >> noted (below) by Andrew (nitrogen-fixing root nodules and C3/C4 >> switching). But, I don’t see anything specific related to biochar for >> these two - nor why these two are different from other GMO activities. >> >> 7. I wrote this to this list on the 6th re a fantastic increase in >> annual growth - that seemed at first could be GMO: *I was concerned >> there might be a GMO aspect to polyploidy - but apparently not so. The >> opposite was claimed at this site:* >> *http://www.polygenomx.com/science/faqs* >> <http://www.polygenomx.com/science/faqs> >> >> >> I’d appreciate anything citable on any of these seven observations, >> responding to Andrew. >> >> Ron >> >> >> On Oct 21, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> You are correct to be concerned about GM in this area and I, for one, >> have been concerned for some time that the natural biotic methods of >> climate engineering will be set aside in lieu of non-natural means simply >> for the* novelty* of those means and or methods. Genetic modification is >> such a novelty means/method. >> >> There is no fundamental need for the use of GM for us to use the already >> profoundly robust carbon capture, utilization and sequestration abilities >> at this level of biology as nature has already highly perfected the >> appropriate methods for us. We can, *at this time and with today's >> technology*, create vast industrial level operations which uses the >> natural C4 respiration path to accomplish not just CO2 reduction but also >> provide us with vast supplies of critical commodities including the >> bio-fuel we need to end the FF era. >> >> What we may be facing on the GM side of this issue is simply the desire >> by some to obtain proprietary control over such vast operations through >> control over a set of GM-ed species. Again, *there is no fundamental >> need, beyond greed, for the use of GM to obtain climate engineering goals >> and provide global scale critical commodities outputs. The natural biotic >> method(s) are completely capable of meeting our climate engineering and >> critical commodity needs with the only immediate limitation factor being >> the need for large scale demonstration (i.e. Just Frigging Do It!!).* >> >> One primary defense against GM, in this area of concern, is to robustly >> show that there is no fundamental scientific nor societal need for cross >> species GM actions. This exposes the primary motive of cross species GM in >> this area of concern as being no more than that of the desire for the >> financial enrichment of a few bio-hacks. Also, as a relevant side note, >> crop GM actors are currently finding the legal/financial liability of cross >> field GM contamination is becoming highly problematic as the contaminated >> commodities are being rejected by major markets (*Woops!!!*). >> >> Due to multiple advancements in gene splicing technologies, we are on the >> verge of seeing wide scale bio-hacking coming onto the scene and thus the >> issues of GM ethics, scientific need(s), equitable distribution of >> risks/benefits etc, should be a high level concern within the climate >> engineering community. The marine microbial loop is the most powerful >> biological force on this planet and it is in our fundamental and collective >> interest, *as a species*, to protect it from wrongful GM, at all levels. >> Thus, it is not just the issues surrounding the technology but we must also >> work on the overall governance issue if we are to prevent irreversible >> damage to the primary production which supports life on this planet. >> >> The Intergovernmental Bio-Energy and Carbon Sequestration (*IMBECS* >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/edit>) >> Protocol provides multiple means for maintaining biological and >> international governance control over a vast scale cultivation effort and >> thus drastically reduces the potential for rouge GM from being introduced >> and which will provide ample proof of the efficacy of the natural biotic >> process. The use of submerged marine bio-reactor tank farms can provide for >> the physical means of biological control and the tracking of all cultivars >> within the bio-reactor tank farm operations would be open access. Thus, the >> technology will be controlled through transparent governance means and >> methods. >> >> When I first started contemplating the marine biotic climate engineering >> option I realized the importance of maintaining a non-GM stance as, with >> proper scale, there simply is no need for the GM path. So, why even go >> there? >> >> One reason for the non-biotic climate engineering crowd to support a >> robust non-GM biotic climate engineering approach is that *the non-GM >> biotic approach **is the best way to show the lack of need of GM based >> climate engineering* and thus full support from all climate engineering >> sectors can help us prevent the potential globally devastating wildcards of >> GM from vastly complicating the overall climate engineering needs. >> >> Best, >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:32:46 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: >>> >>> I'm very concerned about two GM technologies, which don't seem to have >>> attracted the concentrated attention of geoengineers and earth scientists. >>> >>> Firstly, the creation of root nodules to host N2-fixing bacteria on >>> non-leguminous plants. This can fundamentally alter the nitrogen cycle, and >>> indirectly the carbon cycle. >>> >>> Secondly, the switching of C3/C4 photosynthetic apparatus. This can >>> fundamentally alter the carbon cycle. >>> >>> Both of these have the capability to create new plant types with >>> fundamentally higher primary productivity. Because these may outcompete >>> wild species, they may be uncontrollable once released. >>> >>> I'm generally unconcerned about GM, but these technologies are >>> potentially severely dangerous. >>> >>> In my opinion, they clearly fall into the realm of (potential) >>> geoengineering, and I'd be pleased if people on this list could devote a >>> little time to discussing these risks. >>> >>> If you're looking for a more direct link, the biofuels / biochar / BECCS >>> angle provides an obvious entry point to the debate. >>> >>> A >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
