Climate change and environmentalists – it’s time they gave the green light to GE science

PM  Jacinda  Ardern  has been  making waves  in  the  Swiss Alps,  we   are informed   by  Amanda  Larsson  of Greenpeace  NZ, writing  in the  Dominion-Post.  It’s  a feat   to command  worldwide attention.

Moreover, Larsson  believes  Ardern  quickly  emerged as a “star of the show”  at the World  Economic Forum and a  leader on climate change.

“We  should be proud that, with the eyes of the world on us, we’re returning  to our rightful  place  on an issue of  great  moral fortitude”.

But, wait for it,

“ … before  we  bask too much, we  must  also turn our eyes closer to  home  and make sure   that  what  we’re doing to tackle  climate change matches our  bold global  stance”.

Larsson  calls for  a  2019 budget  brimming  with  bold  (there’s that  word again)  commitments   to  develop  the clean energy needed to  replace  outdated   fuels.  Not only that, but NZ needs fewer cows. Agriculture, she says, is the worst offender, creating  49% of all emissions.

“The  world is in desperate need of courageous climate action and Ardern has shown that NZ is —once again—ready to  carry the torch on the biggest  moral issue of our time.  Now we just need  to get to work back home”.

So  will other world  leaders become so enamoured with Ardern  they will  follow  her  “leadership”?

Here, at  Point of  Order, we are  somewhat  dubious. Yet it is the  really big global  emitters  who  need to  act.

NZ, even if it  cut  its emissions  to  zero in line with government policy objectives, won’t  make a  blind bit of difference to global warming   unless  India, China, the US and Russia are in the forefront.  And there  is  little  sign  they are  ready  to make the  sacrifices  being demanded by  Greenpeace of New Zealanders.

And there’s this to  consider:  the  science of  climate  change  has been established.  So  too  has  that of  genetic  engineering.

But  within  the  Green movement   there is  no consensus  that  genetic engineering  can  provide solutions  to  some of  the issues  raised  by  global  warming.

New  kinds of   genetically  engineered  grasses   might be  the solution to  increasing  agricultural  production.  Rather than  cutting  the  number of  cows, isn’t the  answer   in new forms of agritech?

NZ  should be  following the  example of  Israel: agritech  firms in that  country attracted  $171m in equity investment  in 2017, considerably more than in bigger farming  countries such as  Australia and Brazil.

Companies in Israel are exploiting technological advances  in areas  such as  plant  biology and  artificial  intelligence.  One company is developing edible coatings that extend the shelf life of fruits and vegetables; another is working  on new therapies to  treat sick  cows.

 The Economist, in its  January  19 issue,  carries  a  report  that a genetically  modified  house-plant  can purify  the atmosphere in  buildings.

Back  in  NZ,  the  schism  within  Green  lobby groups  over  the science   of  climate change  and  the potential  offered by the science of   genetic engineering  goes   deep.

It can also be  seen  in   the recent   stoush   over the use of  1080 between the  SPCA  (against  it)   and  Forest & Bird  (for it).

The  raucous  cries   of  Greenpeace  seeking to  push  NZ  into  sacrificing  its agricultural  and fossil fuel industries   do  little  to  assist intelligent  politicians  like  Greens’ co-leader James Shaw to push  ahead with sensible   climate change  measures.

While in Europe   Green  Parties   are  moving into the  space of  collapsing  social democratic parties, there  might be little chance of  the Green Party in  NZ   doing  something similar,  if it  were to  follow  the  calls of  extremists  within  the  wider  Green  movement.