Trees provided most of the world’s energy until the rise of the coal and the industrial revolution in the 19th century. Could they again become a significant energy source?
A South Carolina company called ArborGen is using genetic engineering to develop trees that grow faster, cleaner and more efficiently for use as lumber, pulp and biofuels. It’s a controversial idea–although the company says it is all about saving the planet. Today’s CNNMoney column looks at these so-called Super Trees.
Here’s how it begins:
In 1913, the New Jersey poet and critic Joyce Kilmer wrote “Trees,” a poem which concludes with this simple rhyme:
“Poems are made by fools like me
But only God can make a tree.”It may be that only God can make a tree. But only man, and modern biotechnology, can make super trees — trees that have been genetically engineered to grow faster, produce more wood on less land, thrive in unfamiliar climates and be processed more easily into wood or paper once they are cut down.
You can read the rest here.
Dear Marc Gunther: August 2, 2007
I am very disappointed in your article: “Super trees: The latest in genetic engineering.†As a respected journalist who writes about “the impact of business on society,†your article failed to show the ugly underbelly of the biotechnology and agribusiness industries and their connections to a variety of issues including global warming, biodiversity and the mistreatment and displacement of forest dependant and indigenous peoples. Instead you frame this technology from the standpoint of the timber and agrofuels industry—using their exact language to promote ArborGen’s research. And you didn’t even mention terminator technology that will be used in these trees—one of the latest GMO proponent’s rush to insanity.
Furthermore, your article discredits individuals and organizations that are in involved in the movements for social justice and environmental protection by addressing them as “tree-huggers.†I suggest that next time you write a piece about an urgent social and ecological issue such as genetically engineered trees, (or “purpose-grown trees†if you are using the manipulative language of the agrofuels industry), you not only interview both sides, you let the voice of both sides be heard.
As an individual who is concerned about the misrepresentation of genetically engineered trees in the media, I would like to see more articles that educate the public about the potential global disaster that is in the making. I was hoping that your article was going to provide accurate information that would allow the public to make take their own stance on genetically engineered trees and their use for the timber and agrofuels industry, but instead I am left wondering why you even bothered interviewing Anne Petermann from the Global Justice Ecology Project…
Sincerely,
Phiona Hamilton-Gordon
I´m from Chile, and here we have suffer the terribles consecuences of monoculture of threes. The native forest is almost gone, as the water. There is desertification where it rains 10 months in the year, and the ground beerly produce food. The towns in these areas are loosing population becose there is no work and no land, all belong to the companys that own this plantations. All this effects would be encreased with GE threes, would be a “super desaster” in place of “super forest”. And more negative effects would be added.
Hi Marc,
I read your article on genetically engineered trees and would like to share a few comments with you.
One is that I’m glad this issue is getting some press and recognition. It’s an interesting concept with very large potential benefits and drawbacks. I can’t help but feel however, that most of your article was dedicated to describing those benefits with the quotes against genetically engineered trees thrown in as an afterthought and in such a way that the anti-tree folks seemed like doomsday nay-sayers. There are very, very serious issues at stake which deserve serious discussion – the cross pollination into native forests would be difficult if not impossible to stop once the process is let loose and we can’t even begin to think about what that would mean for our ecology. I’ve also lived in underdeveloped countries where the locals had abandoned growing their native food crops in order to grow cash crops for first world countries and while you would think that the locals would benefit, it most often has the opposite effect. Native peoples lose the ability to feed themselves. The soil suffers from growing single crops year after year which deplete the soil. These people become dependent on corporations for their survival. Often, very little of the profits trickle down into the local economies.
I would have like to have seen the only real sustainable solution to our coming energy crisis get some mention in your article. That Americans need to change their way of life – a lifestyle that was developed and depends on unlimited fossil fuels. This lifestyle is NOT sustainable for the long haul!
Thanks for listening. I hope you continue to evaluate alternative sustainable energy sources and to provide balanced commentary on their efficacy.
Best regards,
Kim Nucifora
Thanks for your comments. I do take the issue of GE trees (and food) seriously. In fact, I recently wrote a long story for our magazine about GE rice and its unintended affects (”Attack of the Mutant Rice”, there’s a link on the FORTUNE stories page on this site.) This was an 800-word column designed mostly to introduce the idea of GE trees, and so there wasn’t space to get into the debate in much detail. Hopefully another times…
Also–I do not consider the term “treehugger” a perjorative and simply couldn’t resist using it in this context. The “Treehugger” website was just sold to Discovery Channel for $10 million because it gets lots of traffic, presumably from people who care about the environment.
I agree with this statement: Genetically engineered trees pose unpredictable and unnecessary threats to the environment, biodiversity and human health.
…and with this one: “Tree plantations, whether engineered or not, usually displace agricultural land, native forests or grasslands, all of which are better for the earth and for local communities.”
Also: Bio diversity & family farms are being destroyed at an alarming rate! We needs to put the brakes on “super trees”!
Marc, as a regular reader and admirer of the journalism published on this site, I hope you will take a closer look at this issues and in the future more fairly present the viewpoint of the advocates for caution. The stakes are very high in this debate and the forces seeking to introduce GE Trees commercially are powerful and inherently biased in their viewpoint. Anne Petermann others at the Global Justice Ecology Project are working tirelessly, selflessly and patiently to present rational arguments that deserve to be heard. Their position is supported and echoed by almost every respected conservation organization. The introduction of GE trees, just as with GE food presents very serious societal consequences, and thank goodness journalists such as yourself are starting to get the debate into the public forum, and out of the backrooms of power. Please, in the future, be conscientious of the use of marginalizing labels and choice of quotes, as the above article seems to trivialize their view. I hope you will report on this issue again in more depth.
The article ends, “genetically engineered – that is, new and improved – trees.” Felonious irony carries with it the risk of a major sentence, y’know. Even a paragraph.
Marc-
I must admit, I was disgusted to hear you heaping praise on GE trees, calling them “new and improved.” Based on your comments, you apparently have written about the dangers of GE food- the dangers of GE trees would be no less. You are, no doubt, familiar with the “superweeds” that were created when “Round-up ready” Corn and Soybeans cross-pollinated in the wild and created weeds that contained the same GE genes. This will undoubtably occur with trees as well, contaminating our pristine resources and making it nearly impossible to return to our native trees.
Thanks for writing an article about this, and letting people know that their natural resources are in danger; I just wish you considered the dangers a bit more carefully.