Yes, I know. Feeding ducks bread isn’t too good for them.
In fact, I probably shouldn’t do it at all. But when I stand in front of a pond full of ducks with a couple of slices of bread in hand, I am transformed from a mature adult to a child again.
I just love seeing them swim around with eager excitement at the prospect of getting a small piece of tasty bread!
This morning I awoke to news that Greenpeace activists had destroyed a Canberra GM wheat field trial site belonging to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). This is a despicable act that should be condemned by anyone who values science, the rule of law and democracy.
An unidentified Greenpeace vandal destroys an experimental GM wheat crop belonging to CSIRO, an Australian government agency.
As regular readers of the Grapevine would be aware, I work as a research scientist on the development of genetically-modified pasture grasses for the Australian dairy industry. I am proud of the work that I do and I believe that GM has much to offer Australian agriculture in terms of better nutritive value, increased productivity and reduced environmental impacts.
Having worked in Australian science for a number of years, I can assure you that no-one enters the scientific profession for the money. Rather it is a love of the scientific method, combined with a belief that one is contributing to a larger project and body of work that will ultimately bring benefits for all humankind. In my case, the decision to become a research scientist was also influenced by a passion for molecular biology and a love of and fascination with plants that goes back to my childhood.
Science is a vocation. In the public sector (which employs the greatest number of plant research scientists in Australia) many work long hours for relatively low pay. We do this because we believe in what we’re doing and because we love what we do. We invest more than our time in our work: we invest our soul.
Scientific research is very expensive. One project can cost millions of dollars, easily. Inserting genes into wheat (be it via Agrobaterium-mediation or microprojectile bombardment) is a tricky process at the best of times, as is typical for many monocotyledonous species. To get an experiment to an advanced stage where thousands of seedlings are subjected to field evaluation would have cost CSIRO staff many years of hard work and the taxpayer a lot of money.
Many people don’t realise what happens before GM plants are put into the field for evaluation. In extremely brief terms, suitable plant material needs to be produced before it is subjected to some form of transformation. Only a small number of plants will actually incorporate the transgene, so each seedling must have its DNA checked to see whether the new gene is present as well as being tested for other properties. Finally the plants are transferred to a glasshouse for bulking-up before the field trial commences. It doesn’t stop there, as the plants have to be measured for phenotypic traits (appearance) as well as the trait-of-interest during the trial. After all, there’s no value inserting a gene if it doesn’t work!
When all of that is completed, a classical breeding programme ensues followed by a massive regulatory process. From start to finish, this typically takes more than a decade and involves the contributions of dozens of senior scientists, research scientists, technical officers and PhD or Honours students.
And then in one fell swoop, cowardly Greenpeace vandals enter in the early morning and cut it all down. Just like that.
I don’t work for CSIRO, but I know exactly how the scientists and students whose work this is would feel. Devastated.
And for what?
How does destroying the work of a PhD student, or the achievements of a research scientist convince the Commonwealth Government that GM is “wrong” as Greenpeace ignorantly proclaims? How does wanton vandalism convince the broader Australian community that Greenpeace is a respectable organisation that has legitimate concerns about a scientific project or a new technology?
It doesn’t.
What it shows is that Greenpeace – contrary to their name – aren’t too peaceful at all.
Just because I don’t like something doesn’t give me the right to destroy it.
When I wrote my blog article about GM canola in 2007, I was subjected to all sorts of abuse, pseudoscience, myth and even a death threat. The noisiest opponents of GM are the very people who provide the greatest threat to free speech and democracy by using violence to try to get at those of us who have an opposing view.
Personally speaking, I recognise that GM is not a cure-all. I understand that world hunger is more of an economic and political problem than an agricultural problem and GM alone won’t fix it. I understand that some applications of GM can be risky or even unethical. But that is why we have government-funded scientific trials which evaluate the risks and if necessary, cancel the work. We evaluate, risk-assess, then assist government regulators make a calm, reasoned and intelligent decision about whether a product should be released or not.
Contrary to the propaganda of Greenpeace activists, scientific thought isn’t bought and sold. There isn’t a secret global conspiracy. We’re not all working for, or brainwashed by, Monsanto or any other demonised multinational company. In Australia’s case, most plant scientists work directly for government and earn public sector wages which are directly paid for with grants and recurrent funding.
I don’t believe that genetic modification technology poses any risk to the community whatsoever. But like all technologies, it has to be used appropriately. As Alfred Nobel eventually discovered with dynamite, his invention could be used for good or it could be used for evil. But dynamite itself wasn’t the problem. The same applies with the genetic modification of plants.
My final thought relates to the “dangerous” nature of the technology that Greenpeace condemns.
As we are required to do under the Gene Technology Act 2000 and associated regulations, we scientists take great care in containing and transporting our transgenic plants. They must be transported within double-sealed containers, documented records of movement must be kept and any rubbish destroyed by autoclaving. When the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator permits a trial, it comes with strict conditions to ensure no unintended contamination or spread.
Therefore, it probably goes without saying that violently shredding transgenic wheat plants in an open field with little regard for containment is a very odd approach to take. It would be akin to anti-nuclear protesters breaking into a reactor and spreading uranium everywhere. The logic is flawed.
I hope this episode goes to demonstrate to the broader community the true nature of Greenpeace as an organisation that rejects science and reason. This is a truth that Dr. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace realised when he eventually left the organisation in 1986.
Science is not infallible and has its faults, but it’s the best mechanism we have to improve our lives and evaluate the risks and benefits of technologies. Without science, we’d be thrown back into the dark ages.
_____________
These views are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer.
Yesterday the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, formally launched the government’s carbon tax policy to a packed media room and an anxious public. The environmental tax, which will take effect from 1 July 2012, aims to cut Australian carbon emissions by 5% from year 2000 levels by 2020.
Australia needs to take action to reduce CO2 emissions if climate change is to be limited to a 2°C rise in mean global temperatures by the end of the 21st century.
Of course, this requires the co-operation of the rest of the world and whilst no global consensus has yet been reached on what should be done, many countries have already established emissions trading schemes (ETS) or introduced carbon taxes. In Australia’s case, the carbon tax will morph into an ETS in 2015. Hopefully a global agreement will be reached before then.
I don’t wish to delve into the comings-and-goings of this political issue, which I feel had been one of the most poorly-conducted public debates (both within and outside the Parliament) that I can recall. The discussion has certainly been of the “every man for himself” calibre and I have seen very little forward thinking and community-mindedness on any side of politics. Nevertheless, I have long believed that an Emissions Trading Scheme is the best way for Australia (and the world) to make a real difference.
From an environmental perspective it’s difficult to gauge whether this scheme really goes far enough or not, but my feeling is that it probably does so but with a soft start. Let’s not forget that at the failed Climate Change conference in Bali in 2007, the Australian Government said it supported a 25-40% cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020. Now we are to make a 5% cut on 2000 levels by the same period, although the new long term goal is to cut emissions by 80% by 2050. That is long enough for industry to make necessary adjustments and hopefully enough to prevent catastrophe.
For all the talk, it seems to me that many people don’t understand the point of a carbon tax or ETS. The bleating voices of large sectors of industry demanding “compensation” are becoming tiring.
Make no mistake: I am not anti-business and I understand fully that workers will be the first to suffer in bad economic times. But polluting industries also need to understand that there has to be an incentive for them to change their behaviour. For there will be no business with a dead environment and whilst dirty energy remains cheap, nothing will change. Something has to be done and the absence of a credible alternative, this is the best plan for Australia’s future.
We also need to recognise that every government policy has an impact somewhere. Governmental paralysis would set in if government attempted to guarantee “not one job will be lost” or “no Mum and Dad taxpayers will lose out” et cetera (these are the words of an impoverished debate). The challenge with all policy is to ensure the greatest number of beneficiaries.
From what I can understand, I am reasonably happy with the carbon tax scheme which has been developed jointly by Labor, the Greens and the three independent MPs. It seems to strike the right balance between providing an incentive and not destroying Australian industry. Hopefully this will mark the start of Australia’s green energy transition as carbon tax revenue is used to develop sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and wave.
The challenge (and the true indicator of whether the scheme will survive the next election) will be to monitor the rise on the cost-of-living. According to the government, a cost increase of $9.90 per week can be expected, which includes a rise of $3.30 for electricity and $1.50 for gas. Whilst I consider this to be a modest increase, it comes on top of massive utility bill increases that have eroded the public’s enthusiasm for any more price rises. An average household will receive $10.10 in compensation which will come in the form of various tax cuts and concessions.
I have not been impressed with Julia Gillard since she became Prime Minister and I have been even more scathing of the Labor Party at the state level who forgot who they represented and selfishly increased the price of electricity for households well beyond inflation. That said, Tony Abbott’s confusing “Direct Action” plan worries me greatly, as does his threat to destroy the carbon tax and ETS. Imagine what that would do for business confidence!
I genuinely hope this new scheme works as intended. I believe it is now Julia Gillard’s job as Prime Minister to convincingly sell this plan to the many doubters within the Australian community. She also needs to demonstrate her leadership skills and lead Australia on a positive campaign for change. Finally, lower income earners and the poor need to see that they aren’t the ones paying.
The Lowy Institute has released a poll which shows that a record number of Australians are unwilling to tackle carbon emissions if it means that they’d have to pay additional electricity prices.
The poll showed that the number of Australians who agreed with the statement that “Global warming is a serious and pressing problem (and) we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs” has fallen from 68% in 2006 to 41% in 2011.
When asked “If it helped solve climate change how much extra would you be willing to pay each month on your electricity bill?“, the most popular response is nothing at all (39%), which is up from 21% in 2008.
Only 19% of Australians were prepared to pay even $10 more a month.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Electricity prices in Australia have been steadily rising.
According to research by the Institute of Public Affairs, electricity prices in parts of Australia have increased at nearly four times the rate of inflation over the last 5 years. Between 2005 and 2010, electricity prices rose by 61.3% in Sydney, 56.8% in Melbourne and 50.7% in Brisbane. Perth had the lowest capital city price rise of ‘just’ 35.8% over that period.
Electricity is an essential service and hence in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory the electricity market is government-owned (with varying degrees of private competion). In the Australian Capital Territory, electricity is semi-privately controlled and is fully privatised in Victoria and South Australia.
There has been much discussion lately about the introduction of a Carbon Tax, following Julia Gillard’s narrow win in the 2010 election. The government believes that in the absence of an Emissions Trading Scheme, a Carbon Tax is the most effective mechanism to provide a commercial incentive for industry to reduce carbon emissions and promote the development of a ‘green electricity’ sector.
Many people recognise that the introduction of a Carbon Tax will lead to energy price rises, including in electricity generation which in Australia is predominantly powered by burning coal. As I write, the details of the proposed Carbon Tax (and associated concessions) are being negotiated between the government, the Greens and the three independents. Nothing is certain.
Yet below the hysteria and the debate, electricity prices have been rising sharply. Many people mistakenly assume that the price rises are the result of the not-yet-introduced Carbon Tax. Others believe that it reflects the “rising cost of electricity”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In reality, your State Government is to blame. It’s called deregulation.
In 2007 and again in 2008, the Australian Energy Market Commission recommened that the State Government of Victoria should cease regulating electricity prices as there was “sufficient competition” in the sector. There was quite a push for this to happen, from the Council of Australian Governments to the OECD. Whilst the other states were still developing plans to remove price caps, Victoria’s Labor government under John Brumby deregulated electricity prices in 2009 and from thereon in, it became a free-for-all.
Other states have followed. Yet it need not be.
In most States and territories, the electricity sector is government-owned with a mixture of government and private retailers. In Victoria’s case, the former State Electricity Commission (SEC) was broken-up and privatised. The state’s elecricity industry was transformed from a vertically-integrated state monopoly (the SEC mined the coal, generated the electricity, distributed it across the state and retailed the final product) to a fragmented privately-run affair.
The SEC was profitable, yet it’s agenda was social rather than financial. In the states that have state-owned utilities, most of these are profitable too. Yet politicians speak of a need to “promote investment” in the sector and promote green energy. Yet surely this is no easier than in a profitable industry that the government principally owns and regulates? I am convinced that it is ideological blindness that prevents state governments from using their utilities for community good.
Electricity is an essential service and one cannot feasibly live without it in Australia. The electricity sector is also a natural monopoly. I do not believe that essential services nor natural monopolies should be privately-owned.
But even if you don’t share my social democratic views, surely it is difficult to argue that the Victorian model of a privately-owned sector subjected to price caps was less desirable to a laissez-faire free-for all, if one truly cares at all about the the cost-of-living. As others have validly pointed out, how can governments lament significant rises in the cost-of-living whilst their own companies are primarily responsible?
It really doesn’t matter how competitive an industry is, nor how many competiting companies operate in a sector if the prices for everyone rise at such an alarming rate. Governments have chosen to inflict these price rises on the public. This was done by choice.
The bad news is that prices are forecast to rise evern further now that there are no price caps, and that’s before a Carbon Tax is introduced! No wonder the appetite of the public to pay a carbon tax on electricity is fast disappearing.
I am convinced that we collectively need to address the challenges of climate change, by reducing carbon emissions. I also believe that we need to look after all members of our society by ensuring that essential services are managed for the benefit of all.
The rises in the price of electricity since 2006 have hurt lower income earners and promoted inflation, but done nothing to help the environment. With massive prices rises associated with the rental crisis, the housing affordability problem and petrol prices, one is forced to ask to who’s benefit these reforms were made?
Every Autumn I look forward to the emergence of toadstools or the fruiting bodies of the vast fungi networks that surround us all. Fungi are remarkable organisms, and play a range of very essential roles in the environment.
Amanita muscaria forms a beneficial relationship with pine trees, and hence the two will often be seen together.
In a horticultural context, most fungi are either beneficial or harmless in the garden, so I never understand the preoccupation of some gardeners with removing them. Picking toadstools and expecting the fungus to die is no more effective than removing the apples from an apple tree and expecting that to die! This is because toastools are merely the fruiting bodies of the fungus. The rest of the organism is usually hidden underground in the form of strands called hyphae.
Some fungi are saprophytic, meaning that they live on dead or decaying plant matter and return nutrients to the soil. Others are symbiotic, meaning that they form a beneficial and mutual relationship with plants whereby both the plant and the fungus benefit. Within this category, fungi may either be michorrizal (growing in or around the root cells) or endophytic (growing within the leaves and branches).
Unfortunately my mycology (study of fungi) is quite poor, and hence I cannot identify most of the fungi that I see.
I have no idea what this species is, but the cluster is pretty.
This year, the toadstools have been especially prolific in Melbourne, on account of the cold and wet summer which hjad been followed by an early and wet winter. (Autumn seemed to last for a week this year!).
Here are some photographs of some of the specimens I have seen during Autumn 2011. Enjoy!
Amanita muscaria is one of the most-recognised fungi. This species forms a symbiotic relationship with pine or birch trees… which is why you will only find this species growing beneath these species. The fungus helps the tree collect nutrients from the soil, and in return the pine provides the fungus with carbohydrates.
This is Astraeus hygrometricus, a species I’d never noticed before. I have written ‘noticed’ because these look like pebbles until one gets down on one’s hands and knees and takes a close look. Each is about 1.5 centimetres in diameter. This is sometimes called an “earth star” because there’s actually a larger body below the earth’s surface.
Can you see the bird nest fungi (Cyathus striatus) in this photograph? I thought these look more like gumnuts than birds nests but a close inspection reveals the origin of this species’ common name. The spores (“eggs”) are distributed when droplets of rain fall into the “nest” and push the “eggs” out, which split open and release the spores. This species will live off decaying wood matter (mulch, as seen here), faecies or other decaying plant matter.
I believe this is Chlorophyllum hortense, growing in a lawn. A common species, often destroyed in its prime by lawnmowers! I found this i a park, where I initially mistook it in the distance for a piece of litter. A second toadstool is emerging beside the first.
The next three species I can tell you nothing about, because I have not been successful in identifying them. Nevertheless, I thought they looked attractive so I took their photos anyway…
Whilst you’re out and about this Autumn, keep an eye close to the ground. You never know what you might discover!
Recent Comments...