Mark Tercek: A New Diet for the Planet?

(Before It's News)

…Getting more from land already under cultivation is key. Nevertheless, some expansion of farming and grazing is inevitable. So another vital challenge is to channel that expansion to areas where it will do less harm. This process inevitably involves some trade-offs, but we have the science to identify where controlled expansion could take place with relatively fewer environmental impacts and costs.

We also should pay attention to regulatory frameworks. Without them, increased production leads to increased returns for farmers, and that draws more people into farming. The result is more expansion of farmland, not less. Both regulatory and voluntary frameworks should ensure this doesn’t happen. Initiatives like Cargill’s voluntary moratorium on the purchase of soy from newly deforested areas in the Amazon are of enormous importance.

Technology is also important. Precision agriculture, for example, could be a game-changer. By targeting inputs like water and fertilizer more accurately, farmers can improve environmental outcomes and produce more while using less.

Yet it’s still unclear how we can bring those technological changes to the people who could most benefit from them: smallholder farmers without access to the capital and knowhow available to richer farmers in richer countries. Making technology more accessible so that its benefits can be more widely shared is a major challenge.

Another agricultural technology we should consider carefully is genetic modification. The National Academy of Sciences has found no adverse health effects from GMOs, and also concluded that they can be environmentally beneficial in some ways. Yet having a thoughtful debate on the merits and risks of GM foods has become nearly impossible. The arguments are often based not in science but in ideology.

Like all new technologies, biotech products should be carefully assessed on a crop-by-crop basis and appropriately regulated. We would also be smart to put more focus on making GMO technology available to lower-income farmers, given the potential benefits that climate-resilient GMO crops could bring to the developing world. As the technology advances, I think we should be vigilant in assessing environmental and health risks, and also respecting the views of people who as a matter of personal choice seek to avoid GMOs. But we cannot have such careful analysis if each side in the debate paints the other as evil or ignorant. We need passion on our side, but not at the expense of sound science and open minds…

@ HuffPO Mark Tercek: A New Diet for the Planet?:

• NY Times Criticizes Itself For Touting Myth That It Is Too Late To Avoid Climate Catastrophe, Part 2
• To Texas: Want More Jobs & Fewer Blackouts? Go Solar
• Prime Energy Solutions and Benekov Problems
• Dirty Digital Footprints: An Exposé of “Green” Websites
• Farmer- And Family-owned Wind Rises In Iowa
• Big Oil Profits—and Tax Breaks—Remain High Despite Sequestration Cuts
• Chris Christie Uses Salty Language To Make The Climate Resiliency Argument
• Shell Oil Earns $8 Billion Profit After Failed Attempt To Drill In Arctic Ocean
• Tragi-comedy
• The not-so-independent “Independent Aviation Commission”