[OK to post this]

Tom,

I certainly agree with the statement that tree plantations on private lands are already a big problem. The extension of these plantations by means of varieties genetically engineered for faster growth, low seed production, low lignin and so forth will make things worse in a few foreseeable ways, and perhaps in other ways which we can't yet foresee. For one, if they're used for biofuels they'll be taking over more acreage (more hundreds of square miles) including so-called "marginal lands." If they ever make good economic sense, they'll also take over from real forests. For two, they'll be exported around the world and market economics dictates that food acreage in poor countries will be diverted to biofuels production to feed the internal combustion engines of rich folks. (Yes, this too is already happening with biodiesel from palm plantations.) This is not only immoral but will raise food prices worldwide. Third, genetically engineered traits will spread by seed and pollen and will bring unwanted changes to national parks and other protected areas to a far greater extent. Fast growing trees, for instance, may turn into bioinvasive weeds. Fourth, the traits can be a danger. A low lignin tree, for instance, has less structural strength but may not appear to be different from a non-engineered tree. It will be more likely to blow over onto a car or a home. Fifth, faster growing means it sucks up resources faster, whether water or important trace minerals. At industrial scale this means depletion of the soil is accelerated and consequently more industrial fertilizers will be applied with all their problems.

The biofuels industry will always say that their goal is more production on fewer acres, but the facts are that if any new product makes more profit per acre, the acres will increase. I think there are many reasons to be concerned. Using trees for energy is something humans have been doing for perhaps a million years, but it's caused problems and we already know how to do better. We can get far more energy per acre from PV and wind, for instance. That's where research and incentive dollars should be going. We also need to preserve true forests and other wilderness.

Well, I think we agree. Sorry I've sounded too argumentative in presenting these arguments.

Jim

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 7:05 PM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Jim,

I appreciated your statement on genetically engineered pines and posted it to the Club Iowa Topics list. Do you want to reply to this comment? I will post your reply to Iowa Topics, if you so wish.--Tom

==============================================================================

Pine trees have already been a plantation crop in many states especially in the southeast where lumber companies own vast amounts tracts of pine forests. Most of America's lumber comes from private land where there are no regulations.
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Mathews <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:48:29 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Fwd: USDA grant for GE trees

This is from the national Sierra Club Biotech Forum.

In a message dated 1/17/2011 7:37:33 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

There is a pine tree in Sierra Club's logo, so the following news item is
very troubling to me:
The University of California, Davis, has been awarded a $14.8 million grant
through NIFA, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture program (this
is part of the US Dept. of Ag) to map the DNA sequence of pines. "Using
fast-growing trees such as loblolly pine for fuels also can contribute to
carbon sequestration and may help mitigate the effects of climate change,"
USDA said. According to Roger Beachy, the project, "will generate and use
genomics information to provide an understanding of genes and genetics in
conifers to help in developing new bioenergy sources." (Roger Beachy is
currently president of the NIFA, developed the first GE tomato and served
as
president of the Danford Plant Science Center in Saint Louis, which
received
a founding gift of 40 acres and $50 million from Monsanto.)
This means that pine trees may become a plantation crop. Tree plantations
will, wherever planted, replace biodiversity and replace real forests.
This
will be done with pretence that biofuel is carbon neutral. I don't want to
take time to argue that point at the moment - probably most of us realize
that true forests sequester far more carbon. Right now I just want to say
that destruction of forests and the great biodiversity they represent will
greatly impoverish all of us who love and connect to the natural world.
Nature of course will still exist, but in a diminished form. And the
armies
of genetically altered pines which may occupy the place of old forests will
spread via seeds and pollen, not respecting the boundaries of national
forests and parks.
posted by Jim Diamond, M.D.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp