Slashdot Mirror
Anti-GMO Activists Slow Scientists Breeding a CO2-Reducing Superplant (thebulletin.org)
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists calls it "a plant that could save civilization, if we let it." Slashdot reader meckdevil writes:
A "super chickpea plant" now in development could remove huge amounts of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide and fix it in the soil, greatly diminishing the impacts of climate change (not to mention producing large amounts of tasty hummus). But fear of anti-GMO activists has so far deterred her from using the CRISPR gene-editing tool to speed work on the plant.
The effort is led by Joanne Chory, director of the Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences -- who according to the article will make much slower progress without CRISPR. "Even with advanced breeding techniques, Chory estimates that developing a super plant in this fashion would take around 10 years..."
"She estimates that if 5 percent of the world's cropland, approximately the total area of Egypt, were devoted to such super plants, they could capture about 50 percent of current global carbon dioxide emissions."
The effort is led by Joanne Chory, director of the Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences -- who according to the article will make much slower progress without CRISPR. "Even with advanced breeding techniques, Chory estimates that developing a super plant in this fashion would take around 10 years..."
"She estimates that if 5 percent of the world's cropland, approximately the total area of Egypt, were devoted to such super plants, they could capture about 50 percent of current global carbon dioxide emissions."
Sorry, but activists like this don't give a fuck what method you're using. They just hate GMO full stop. The idea that activists are stopping you creating this magical solution to climate change because they're focused on use of CRISPR reeks of bullshit.
It's probably the worst excuse I've ever heard for over-promising, and under-delivering.
Biochar seems to be beneficial for agriculture, so extra carbon can't be bad.
Ezekiel 23:20
Next time read TFA:
All plants produce suberin, a waxy, water-repellent, carbon-rich compound, also known as cork, that protects roots and resists decay. Coastal grasses make a lot of it to keep water out of their roots. It is one of the most stable substances around, persisting in soil for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. One of Chory’s goals is to develop perennial plants that make more suberin than existing varieties.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Yes, I know the original poster was being foolish, but it is a little more complex than this also.
When plants die, some of their carbon can compost to soil, some of their carbon is released as methane, etc and some of it as CO2 if they get burnt.
So, the benefits are much more complex.
One interesting factor that is rarely talked about is the grasses actually absorb and compost large amounts of CO2, by some estimates more than common trees.
People get all 'green' about trees, and you ignore grass, most likely because trees are 'big' and 'nice' and grass is just too common?
Then they tend to want more treesplanted, however they also often plant nice pretty SLOW GROWING trees... which contribute very very little.
Could this 'super plant' contribute more? sure, DEPENDING ON HOW IT WAS USED. It is common to burn the straw left over from processing chickpeas..
That would reduce its contribution to very little.
The larger question is not about how it is created, how will suitable care be taken about evaluation if its actual environmental impact.
You may have missed the part of the "extremely unlikely changes" propagating geometrically. Any sort of breeding creates changes that are statistically not that far from natural selection processes in terms of probability. Typical GMO changes are statistically incredibly unlikely to happen during the dominant statistical processes we call "natural" and for which has the process of evolution adjusted. That makes the process more unpredictable, and justified in doing only in extreme situations.
Kind of like giving highly experimental drugs to very sick patients without prospect of recovery otherwise is justified, while giving Ritalin to overactive kids -- or, for a darker shade of dark, giving thalidomide to mothers experiencing typical labor pains -- isn't.
The status of ArmoredDragon financial or other potential gains from GMOs is also very important to judge the value of the information in his post, I think you will agree.