One expects commodities to rise and fall in price based on supply and demand, but something wicked this way comes: A political agenda based on science that shows harm to future humans is messing with profits.
What have those future humans done for us?! The Wall Street Journal explains:
“Western coal producers once saw exports to Asia as their future. For many, that dream is fading. A global glut has flooded overseas markets that were once expected to buy coal produced along a belt stretching from Utah to Montana that includes the Powder River Basin. The industry is also losing long-sought shipping outlets on the West Coast, where local communities have blocked construction of coal terminals amid concerns about climate change and pollution.”
Is there nothing sacred?
According to the Lexington Herald Leader, nope: “Eastern Kentucky faces population loss and other challenges that complicate efforts to diversify its coal-dependent economy as the industry continues to bleed jobs.”
In a Huffington Post story (Amazon Just Beat Oil Giant Exxon Mobil In A Major Way) we learn that big oil is in decline and big tech is the future. Just have to hope that’s good for the environment. HuffPo writes:
The internet giant’s stock price rose by just over 1 percent, bringing its value up to about $366 billion. Hobbled by plummeting oil prices, shares of the world’s biggest oil company fell by more than 2 percent, dragging their total value down to about $356 billion.
The change marks two simultaneous shifts in the global economy, as internet companies gain more dominance and dirty energy stocks continue their long-term slide as the world inches closer to weaning itself off environmentally disastrous fossil fuels.
Environmental impact of pesticides
corporatisation of seed
Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture
The benefits of reduced insecticide use in Bt corn in the U.S. are largely offset by insecticide seed treatments—so the actual environmental impact of insecticide use may not have decreased at all, although health benefits may remain. And the increase in uncontrolled insect species on Bt cotton in China is leading to insecticide application levels approaching pre-Bt days.However, it's debatable how significant these benefits are, and how much credit Monsanto really deserves. In the case of no-till, most of the observed increase in the U.S. came before the introduction of Monsanto's GE crops, and it's unclear how much of the increase since then is a result of their adoption. This shows that no-till can generally be accomplished without GE crops.
Hybrids have higher yields, can’t be reused and are costlier.
Bt cotton
Bollgard II, introduced in 2006, is slowly becoming vulnerable to bollworms, experts say, and, as any technology, has a limited shelf life.
Centre plans alternative to Bt cotton - The Hindu
www.thehindu.com/news/national/centre-plans...to-bt-cotton/article8701803.ece
Bt Toxin
GM Bt toxins are engineered into plants with promoters designed to keep the Bt toxin protein expressing in every cell of the plant. The Bt is ingested by animals and people who consume crop plants like Bt maize.The natural Bt used in agricultural sprays, by contrast, degrades rapidly in daylight and does not end up being eaten by people, so it is unlikely to ever end up in consumers' bodies.While the GM lobbying website, GMO Safety, claims, "the Bt protein is harmless to mammals and humans", in fact, studies show that natural Bt toxin has ill effects on laboratory animals, producing a potent immune response and enhancing the immune response to other substances:
New Study Proves Bt Toxins in GMOs Toxic to Mammalian Blood
www.greenmedinfo.com/.../new-study-proves-bt-toxins-gmos-toxic-mammalian-bloo...
*Vázquez-Padrón RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, de la Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Life Sci. 1999;64(21):1897-1912.
*Vázquez-Padrón RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, Martinez-Gil AF, de-la-Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. Feb 2000;33(2):147-155.
As for the Bt toxin found in GM plants, even Monsanto's own studies show that it's not safe.
A re-analysis of Monsanto's own data on its GM Bt maize MON863 (approved for use in Europe since 2005) by Prof G-E Seralini found liver and kidney toxicity in rats fed with the maize. Seralini concluded, "with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product".
Scientists from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, have detected the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women.
They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation. The research paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology. The study covered 30 pregnant women and 39 women who had come for tubectomy at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS) in Quebec.
None of them had worked or lived with a spouse working in contact with pesticides.
TABLE I. Estimated economic costs of human pesticide poisonings and other pesticide-related illnesses in the United States each year. Human health effects from pesticides Total costs ($) Cost of hospitalized poisonings 50001 · 3 days at $2000 per day 30 000 000 Cost of outpatient-treated poisonings 30 0002 · $10003 30 000 000 Lost work due to poisonings 50001 workers · 5 days · $80 2 000 000 Pesticide cancers 10 0002 · $100 000/case 1 000 000 000 Cost of fatalities 45 accidental fatalities1 · $3.7 million 166 500 000 TOTAL 1 228 500 000
TABLE VI. Total estimated environmental and social costs from pesticide in the United States.
Costs
Millions of $ per year
Public health impacts
1140
Domestic animals deaths and contaminations
30
Loss of natural enemies
520
Cost of pesticide resistance
1500
Honeybee and pollination losses
334
Crop losses
1391
Fishery losses
100
Bird losses
2160
Groundwater contamination
2000
Government regulations to prevent damage
470
Total
9645
================================================Biotechnological Approaches for the Control of Insect Pests in Crop Plants
1. Introduction
Each year billions of dollars are spent worldwide on insect control in agriculture [1]. Despite this expenditure, up to 40% of a crop can be lost to insect damage, particularly in developing countries [2].
Some of the most damaging insect species belong to the Lepidoptera, the
second largest insect order comprised of moths and butterflies. The
larval stage of moths cause major damage to an array of economically
valuable crops including cotton, tobacco, tomato, corn, sorghum,
lucerne, sunflower, pulses, and wheat [3].
Until recently, broad spectrum chemical insecticides have been the
primary control agent for agricultural pests, with about 40% targeted to
the control of lepidopteran insects [4].
Over the years the widespread use of pesticides has led to pesticide
resistant insects, a reduction in beneficial insect populations and
harmful effects to humans and the environment [5-8].
These problems have led researchers to develop different insect control
strategies using both synthetic and natural molecules that are more
environmentally friendly.......................................................
comment:-
monsanto which makes billions may not support natural ways of killing insects through
comment:-
monsanto which makes billions may not support natural ways of killing insects through
No comments:
Post a Comment