The authors stress that genetic engineering should not be viewed as a cure-all, but rather part of a larger breeding effort. Further, Jansson says, "One problem is that the different aspects we mention—increasing photosynthesis, improving bioenergy crop yield, and putting more carbon into the root systems—are highly interlinked, and thus not necessarily additive." It could be, for example, that a modifying a plant to grow more roots takes away aboveground biomass production. Again, research in this area is too preliminary to tell.
Allison Thomson, who studies climate change and land use at the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md., also expressed the need for caution when interpreting the study's projections. They are valuable in principle, she says, but also based on many assumptions regarding future economic conditions, land availability, and the size of bioenergy's role in a larger future energy strategy. For example, she says, "you can't really say how much bioenergy we are going use if you're not also considering other available energy sources and how much they emit." Furthermore, she points out, whether or not there is a price for carbon, which is hard to account for at this point, will figure heavily into future energy scenarios.
Also important to consider are potential land-use issues related to increasing demand for food. "When we do modeling, that's the one demand you can't ignore," Thomson says. "People want to eat before they want bioenergy."
Besides all the unknowns, there is also existing regulatory policy regarding genetically modified organisms, which imposes high costs of compliance, thereby making it difficult to assess whether the ideas discussed in the paper are all doable, Long says: "The bottleneck and damper on all this is really, 'How do you get transgenics out there, and meet all the regulatory requirements and costs?'"
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentGenetic engineering at the present state of the art/science can be compared to providing 2 year olds with matches. Let's not forget Klebsiella planticola the bacteria universally found at the roots of all terrestrial vegetation. Geneticists added an additional alcohol gene and were preparing to use it to turn field stubble into alcohol instead of burning it. Fortunately, A team of independent scientists decided to do their own tests and found that the GE modified organism, if loosed in the environment would kill all the vegetation on Earth. Scary enough for you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight. Because, of course, we all know that when you increase a food supply (CO2) into an ecosystem, there is absolutely no responding increase in population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis, folks, is what passes for science today.
I am amazed how "science" jumps at genetic modification of our natural world for a singular fix, in this case global carbon-sequestration, without taking into account the impact of what would alter an entire biodiverse ecosystem. With all due respect, science does not know enough about the intricacies of the balance and crucial inter-relations of the natural world's web of life to begin messing with a singular aspect which could well produce more problems than it solves. Tuning in to nature's needs to restore and bring balance back to Her would be a better use of our great scientific minds instead of finding excuses not stop doing what we have created...in this case, producing more carbon into the atmosphere!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther to my earlier comment, I respectfully refer you to the opening statements of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) happening in Japan this week.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUN: Loss Of Biodiversity Could Mean End Of Human Race - CBD executive secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf said in his opening statements. "We need a new approach, we need to reconnect with nature and live in harmony with nature into the future."Business as usual is not an option http://ht.ly/2Wj4X Full Report: (UNEP) -- http://ht.ly/2Wjd7
Combine this with vertical urban farming and you've got CO2 sinkage where an awful lot of the stuff is produced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut it would be even better to see plants (or any organisms for that matter) successfully optimized to sequester methane or chlorofluorocarbons.
Anyway, the good thing is that renewable fuels will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted, while organic gas traps will increase the amount sequestered. Double whammy.
I concur with all your remarks and wonder when we will recognizance and and pay for the true cost of carbon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been suggesting a carbon tax that would replace all existing taxes, this would then concentrate all minds from beginning to end of the life cycle of all goods and services as to the true value of carbon and its effects on the planet.
I had the same idea a couple of years ago. The fact is that once captured you must get rid of it if we want to lower CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. So as for CO2 sequestration (pumping compressed CO2 underground) grown plants must be pulverized and than pumped beneath the soil adding water. Using the grown plants as biomass to produce energy will surely not lower carbon concentration in the atmosphere hence global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenetically modifying crops could have unexpected long-term side-effects, like making species targets for previously harmless predators. We need more time to guage the overall effects of genetic tinkering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat post. One can grow Agave in waste lands to increase global carbon sequestration. It is a care-free growth plant. Biofuel can be extracted from this plant. Since it has cellulose,it can be used as input in paper making. In Brazil it is done. Also Hecogenin a steroid is extracted from this plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com