As a grape grower and as a scientist who has spent years studying grape diseases,  I was saddened to read that an experimental planting of biotech grapes was ripped out of the ground yesterday by anti-GMO activists.  It was a government-funded site in the quaint town of Colmar, in far Eastern France  (I’ve been to Colmar, it’s a beautiful little town).

What is ironic is that these vines represented about the least scary GMO crop imaginable.  They were engineered to be resistant to a disease called Fan Leaf Virus that is spread by nematodes that live in the soil.  Back before people understood this disease it was unintentionally spread to many grape-growing areas.  Once a given vineyard is contaminated with the nematodes and virus, grapes will only survive for a few years on that site before declining and dying.  Some of the best wine production areas around the world are seriously compromised this way, and there has been no lasting cure.

Roots

What was being tested in Colmar was a “rootstock.”  All grapes are cuttings of the desired variety (Gewurtztraminer, Cabernet, Chardonnay…) grafted on to a root that is resistant to various pests.  The Colmar roots would have also been resistant to the virus.  The top of the vine (all that is above ground) would be exactly like all the neighboring vineyards.  In theory the grapes wouldn’t die in a few years (that is what the researchers were hoping to demonstrate).

A Rational View

In a rational world, this technology could be a welcome way to restore productivity in some of the finest wine growing sites in the world, but we don’t seem to be living in a rational world.  No one has described a realistic scenario through which these vines could ever present a hazard to people or the environment.  In this system there would have been no GM pollen, and no GM seeds.  The program had nothing to do with the big GM companies.  When you read what various anti-GMO groups claimed about these grapes, it is clear that they never took the time to understand the biology of this system.

This Is Bigger Than Wine

In the grand scheme of things, less good wine isn’t a disaster, but this same irrationality is hindering efforts to provide things like virus resistant Cassava to poor farmers in Africa or virus resistant Papayas to people in Thailand.   The Internet is rife with misinformation and myths about GMOs, and these views are widely held by an audience which filters out any contrary information.

Fear is easier to spread than knowledge.  It’s a sad day.

You are welcome to comment here or to write me at feedback.sdsavage@gmail.com

Last week the NRDC (National Resource Defense Council) and PAN (Pesticide Action Network) sued the EPA demanding that it ban a particular insecticide called Chlorpyrifos.  I have written to some of my NRDC contacts to ask: “why chlorpyrifos?”

Is Chlorpyrifos As Scary As They Say?

Although you would never know it from reading the uncritical news accounts of this suit, Chlorpyrifos is not quite the scary chemical that it is portrayed to be.  It is the most widely used of an old class of pesticides called “Organophosphates,” but unlike some of those materials, this chemical is not all that toxic to mammals.  It is almost exactly as toxic, gram-for-gram, as ibuprofen – the active ingredient if the popular, over-the-counter pain reliever, Advil®.  It is many times less toxic than familiar natural chemicals like caffeine or capsaicin (e.g. in hot peppers).  It is ~50% less toxic than certain copper-based fungicides that are approved for Organic production, and it is also used at lower rates than those materials.   This is hardly a profile of a super high-risk chemical.

A Very Important Use of Chlorpyrifos

The bigger reason to question the wisdom of a ban comes from looking at how chlorpyrifos is actually used.  At least for the area of major use, California, this is all publicly available information (see the CALPIP database).

It turns out that fully 38% of the total California use of chlorpyrifos is on tree nuts (Almonds, Walnuts, Pecans).  In those crops it is used for the control of a caterpillar pest called the Navel Orange Worm.  That particular pest not only causes damage on developing nuts, it carries with it a fungus called Aspergillus flavus which has the nasty habit of making an extremely toxic substance called Aflatoxin – one of the most potent toxins and carcinogens known.  In the developing world this fungus and toxin are responsible for millions of liver cancer deaths every year through grain contamination.  Our domestic nut industry does a fantastic job of protecting we consumers from this terrible toxin.  Chlorpyrifos is an important tool to provide that protection.  I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a little Advil-level toxin on the outside of a nut shell than aflatoxin inside it!

Other Low Exposure Uses

Another 26% of CA chlorpyrifos use is on forage crops (mainly alfalfa) or fiber crops (cotton) that are not for human food.  Another 14% of the chlorpyrifos is used on crops with low consumer exposure.  This includes crops that are extensively washed during packing and peeled before eating (e.g. citrus); crops that develop underground away from the spray (onions, sugarbeets…); or crops which go through a fermentation step like wine grapes.

The remaining 22% of chlorpyrifos use is spread rather thinly across a wide variety of crops.  In many cases, it is used in an occasional “rescue mode” to deal with occasional pest outbreaks.  This allows even softer alternatives to be used for most of the season.

Does the NRDC/PAN Demand Make Sense?

There really does not seem to be any strong reason for EPA to consider an across-the-board ban on this product.  Chlorpyrifos use is already down 60% from its peak in the ’90s, and most of the OPs have already been withdrawn or are only sparingly used.  The linkage to ADHD that many news sources report is not at all confirmed at this point, and certainly not specific to chlorpyrifos (as many careless reporters have written).

A Parting Question

We have seen some big gaps in regulatory oversight recently (Financial markets, Oil extraction…), but frankly, the EPA has been doing its job quite well with regard to regulating this and related chemicals.  I’d be interested in how NRDC and PAN suggest that nut growers maintain an aflatoxin-free crop if their lawsuit is successful?  Perhaps they could sue the worms?

(Full disclosure: I have worked in the agricultural technology sector for over 30 years including chemicals.  None of my clients happen to be manufacturers of chlorpyrifos, and no one is paying me to write about this or any other topic)

Navel Orange Worm image from UCANR.Org

CO2 emission estimates based on coal and fossil fuel production are pessimistic at best, says new research out of the University of Texas at Austin.

A new study by Tad Patzek, chair of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at The University of Texas at Austin, has shown that CO2 emission estimates used for government policy decisions assume unlimited coal and fossil fuel production for the next 100 years.

While entirely accurate, Patzek doesn’t go out of his way to make friends in the press release put out by the University of Texas.

The facts are all there in black and white:

Patzek found that 36 of the 40 different U.S. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios predicted carbon production and CO2 emissions at today’s rate of coal production.

By contrast, credible forecasts of coal production assume a 50% reduction over the next 50 years. Patzek’s physical model of historical and future production of coal worldwide shows that, despite the large deposits of coal, increasing inaccessibility and decreasing coal seam thickness will deteriorate coal production.

However his attitude regarding his findings seems more in the keeping with a 13 year old boy who has just realized he’s taller than his mother. Patzek doesn’t just feel it’s enough to present the facts and let the truth win out. He takes the opportunity to take some shots at the IPCC along the way.

Presumably he hasn’t been allowed out to play with the big kids before.

“Most of the IPCC scenario writers accepted the common myth of 200-400 years of coal supply, and now their ‘eternal’ (100 years plus) growth of carbon dioxide emissions in turn is a part of the commonly accepted social myth,” says Patzek. “It seems, therefore, that the present attempt to inject some geophysics into the debate will be an uphill battle.”

“The current global hysteria around carbon capture and sequestration is leading to desperately poor government policies,” adds Patzek. “For instance, large-scale subsurface sequestration of CO2 will decrease power plant efficiency by up to 50 percent. The same resources could be spent more wisely on increasing U.S. coal-fired power plant efficiency by 50 percent from the current 32 percent.”

Patzek’s suggestion is handy, but could easily be implemented alongside subsurface sequestration projects.

It seems that Patzek holds to the idea that CO2 won’t harm anyone and that we should just be more efficient in our production of coal. Presumably that would mean a combination of speedier coal production and less coal wasted as pesky emissions dumped into the atmosphere.

So here’s a compromise. We’ll fund a 25% increase in U.S. coal-fired planet efficiency, subsurface sequestration projects which will only decrease efficiency by 25%, and the rest of the money can go towards putting some solar panels on Patzek’s roof and a wind turbine out the back.

Maybe I should have titled this article ‘Flawed Coal and CO2 Prediction Creates Bitchy Scientist and Bitchy Author’.

Source: University of Texas

Image Source: ReneS

The founder of climate activist group 350.org, McKibben is one of the leading voices in the fight to change the way people do business in order to turn around the world’s CO2 output.

He spoke to the Atlantic magazine about what kind of new economy the world needs in order to make that happen, and how we can go about making real changes in the face of political inertia and backpedaling.

You must meet with considerable opposition from policymakers, academics, and press who are invested in economic growth.

Sure. It’s very hard for any of us to take on the notion that the thing that’s been central though the course of our whole lives, the political idea that whatever kind of ideology we’ve tended to embrace may no longer be serving us. It’s especially hard to take on because it’s an idea that, at some point, did serve us well. So yes, there’s lots of resistance—an inability, almost, to hear or to understand the basic idea.

[social_buttons]It’s not really all that new, you know. When Limits to Growth was published in 1972 it got a really powerful hearing; millions of people bought the book and thought about the idea, and millions of them were convinced. But in the end I think the crucial moment was the election of Ronald Reagan; that was really a kind of debate about whether we were going to entertain the idea of limits. We decided not to, and we’ve never looked back.

Now we’re reaching the point, I’m afraid, where it’s no longer going to be an optional exercise. When the Arctic melts, that’s a bad sign….

With 350.org you have done a lot of lobbying and advocacy in Washington. Do you feel there’s a growing understanding of these issues in Congress?

No, I don’t. I feel that we are losing on the most important issues in Congress, and I think the reason is that we haven’t built a big enough, powerful enough movement to demand change. We’re seeing next to no coherent action on climate change. If any kind of bill emerges, it’s going to be a very watered-down and tepid one.

At a certain level you can blame all the senators and representatives for it, but I think it’s also fair to blame those of us who care about this issue—because we haven’t built the kind of political power that we should. We assumed that because scientists had said the world was coming to an end that that would be enough to motivate our political system to act.

As it turns out, that’s not how politics works. You need to meet power with power. We’re never going to compete in terms of money; the fossil fuel industry is the most profitable enterprise humans have ever undertaken. So we’re going to have to compete with bodies and with spirit and with creativity.

Read the whole thing at The Atlantic.

Most statistics concerning the emission of greenhouse gas from the use of oil refers to emissions taking place within the United States. But what is not included are the emissions from the US military operations set on protecting oil imported from the Middle East.

“Our conservative estimate of emissions from military security alone raises the greenhouse gas intensity of gasoline derived from imported Middle Eastern oil by 8 to 18 percent,” said UNL researcher Adam Liska. “In order to have a balanced assessment of the climate change impacts of substituting biofuels for gasoline, a comparison of all direct and indirect emissions from both types of fuel is required.”

[social_buttons]Liska, UNL assistant professor of biological systems engineering, and coordinator of the Energy Sciences minor, along with Richard Perrin, professor of agricultural economics at UNL, estimate that emissions of greenhouse gasses from military protection of supertankers in the Persian Gulf amount to 34.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year.

On top of that, the war in Iraq – which whether you doubt the original instigation, is partly taking place to ensure America’s future oil security – releases another 43.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.

The authors believe that these statistics should be included in the comparisons of gasoline and biofuels such as ethanol. According to the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, biofuels have to meet specific reductions of greenhouse gas emissions – from 20 to 60 percent – under gasoline to qualify for substitution. Without including the Middle East emissions, these statistics will be off.

“Military activity to protect international oil trade is a direct production component for importing foreign oil – as necessary for imports as are pipelines and supertankers,” Liska and Perrin, professor of agricultural economics at UNL, wrote in a recently published article. “Therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions from that military activity are relevant to U.S. fuel policies related to climate change.”

“We hope that environment regulators will assess these military emissions associated with gasoline in greater detail,” Liska said. “Such analysis should also be meaningful now when federal energy policy is being designed.”

Source: University of Nebraska-Lincoln

A group of coast scientists – experts who teach at universities from Maine to Hawaii – have drafted a letter to Incident Commander Thad Allen, calling on him to cancel the sand berms and other “massive re-engineering” projects.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had championed the sand berms as a way of keeping oil off his state’s shores. But the experts have said from the beginning that the berms wouldn’t work, and produced photos last week showing them already washing away.

Highlights of the letter (full text at the end):

• These projects will do little, if any, good.
• They have a great potential to change the nature of the Gulf Coast in ways that… are likely to be more harmful than helpful
• Environmental damage resulting from ill-conceived, poorly reviewed coastal engineering may become an additional, and unnecessary, byproduct of the spill
• The sand berms will not last… and it is too far offshore to provide significant obstruction to oil

(Read the whole thing at FailDrill.com)

Arctic ice has been receding at a rapid and alarming rate over the past decade. We’ve seen the Northwest Passage open for the first time in recorded and memorable history, ice receding to its lowest point in centuries, and talk of using the once impassable Arctic Ocean as a means to cut shipping times.

And the first thing that people think of is not banning shipping, but rather how to best chart the waters to increase shipping.[social_buttons]

Here are some of the comments coming from those involved or linked to the proposed expedition by the NOAA to chart the Arctic waters;

“We have seen a substantial increase in activity in the region and ships are operating with woefully outdated charts,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. “I have introduced legislation that authorizes a significant increase in funding for mapping the Arctic, and I am pleased to see NOAA beginning the process. While this is a good start, we still need more resources to adequately map this region.”

“Commercial shippers aren’t the only ones needing assurances of safety in new trade routes,” notes Captain John Lowell, director of NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey. “The additional potential for passenger cruises, commercial fishing and other economic activities add to pressures for adequate response to navigational risks.”

The only person to even mention climate change, Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, only wants to stabilize the area for “oil and gas development and marine transportation” so that they are “done safely and responsibly.”

Granted, any comment that is easily accessible at the moment has been sourced by the NOAA itself and is therefore going to be complimentary to the aims of the mission. I hope that I am not the only one who believes that pushing for ease of access into the Arctic waters is a bad idea.

Not only will intrusion into already susceptible and fragile waters harm the environs and potentially cause or accelerate damage already done to the region, but there are untold numbers of ecosystems and life forms that have never had to deal with human made vessels trudging through their home.

The impact could be devastating beyond belief, and the seeming lack of concern is worrying, though not atypical. Given the opportunity to increase ones revenue stream, all manner of environmental concerns will be flung out the nearest window, water and baby and bath and all.

The authors of the study interviewed 70 Americans and had the respondents read a public health framed essay on climate change. Their results found that, on the whole, those involved in the interview process responded positively to the information provided.

“Re-defining climate change in public health terms should help people make connection to already familiar problems such as asthma, allergies and infectious diseases, while shifting the visualization of the issue away from remote Arctic regions and distant peoples and animals,” said Edward Maibach, director of the George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication (4C). “The public health perspective offers a vision of a better, healthier future—not just a vision of an environmental disaster averted.”

The study interviewed approximately one dozen people in each of the Six Americas, a term originally put forth by an earlier GMU study that categorized people’s beliefs, behaviours, and policy preferences about global warming into six distinct segments of Americans. The six segments (seen below) are Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive.

Not surprisingly, members of the first two categories (Alarmed and Concerned) had strong positive reactions to the short essay. Surprisingly, though, was the reaction of those who were less sure if climate change is happening who found that the information provided was valuable.

Nearly half (44%) of the comments made by the Disengaged segment of respondents indicated that the essay “reflected their personal point of view, was informative or thought-provoking, or offered valuable prescriptive information on how to take action relative to the climate problem,” while “39% of the comments made by respondents in the Doubtful segment reflected one of these three themes.”

“Many leading experts have suggested that a positive vision for the future, rather than a dire one, is precisely what has been missing from the public dialogue on climate change thus far,” says Maibach. “We believe this survey is one step in shaping a way to talk about climate change that will reach all segments of the public—not just those who already are making behavioral changes.”

This study is invaluable in shedding light on what people actually care about, but sadly it is probably more likely to end up being referenced by psychological professionals rather than climate professionals, as proof that humanity really doesn’t care about one another, but rather only care about issues when they are directly affected.

With any luck, a study that looks at peoples care factor when asked to focus on their children and future generations will appear in the next few months.

Source: George Mason University

Image Source: kevindooley via Flickr

He ordered BP to provide an updated action plan in the event the cap has to be released at short notice. “While we are pleased that no oil is currently being released into the Gulf of Mexico,” he said in a statement, “and want to take all appropriate action to keep it that way, it is important that all decisions are driven by the science. Ultimately, we must ensure no irreversible damage is done which could cause uncontrolled leakage from numerous points on the sea floor.”

Everyone’s worst nightmare would be having oil burst through the sub-surface portion of the well, causing leaks into the ocean that would be impossible to control.

An unnamed government official told the AP they weren’t yet sure what was seeping, but there were signs of methane.

The official said BP is not complying with the government’s demand for more monitoring. BP spokesman Mark Salt declined to comment on the allegation, but said “we continue to work very closely with all government scientists on this.”

Read the whole article at our sister blog, FailDrill.com

[social_media]

“As we continue to see success in the temporary halt of oil from the leak, the US government and BP have agreed to allow the well integrity test to continue another 24 hours,” said National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen in a statement.

“We’re watching every piece of data,” BP Vice President Kent Wells told reporters in a conference call earlier today. “We feel more comfortable that we have integrity.”

We’ve staunched the bleeding… now it’s time to get on with the long, hard work of healing the Gulf.

Read the whole article at our sister-blog, FailDrill.com

[social_buttons]