5 Dangerous Green Myths

Can you tell the difference between eco fact and eco fiction? With the green movement growing in momentum, we frequently come across any number of statements repeatedly presented as conventional eco-wisdom, statements we often do not question. Sometimes there is a ring of intuitive truth to these statements, which turns out to be false upon further examination. Other times, after a public debate, one aspect of an issue wins out over other equally important aspects--or the nuance gets lost. Then there is the guerrilla marketing approach: a particular industry simply puts out a message with such frequency that eventually it becomes accepted, regardless of truth.

Whatever the cause, some of these statements are powerful enough to rise to the level of green myths, and the line between fact and fiction gets blurred. These five in particular are causing tremendous global harm, but there are many more out there. We encourage readers to add to this list in the comments.

Green Myth #1: Genetically Modified Crops Have Higher Crop Yields and Help Reduce Poverty
While Prince Charles' statement that expanding the use of genetically modified crops will be the "biggest environmental disaster of all time" does have a touch of hyperbole in it, nonetheless the benefits of genetically modified crops have been exaggerated, to say the least. In terms of having higher crop yields, and reducing hunger or poverty the evidence simply doesn't support the claimed benefits of GM crops.
Read the full story here.

-OR-
Conflict Over How To Tackle Climate Change
Activist Sabotages Power Station, Reducing UK's Carbon Output By 2%

Comments

[mamacat]

03:13 AM on 12/23/2008

Much discussion can be had over the five choices listed, and the details presented in each of the choices.

Regarding GM crops: as is pointed out, currently most efforts are toward increasing profits by increasing the yield of something that is useful in the most developed countries. That is not to say that the potential of gene modificati­on to help the less developed countries is not there.

Not discussed in relation to the whole idea of gene modificati­on is the old rule on unintended consequenc­es. It is possible and maybe even likely that we will accidental­ly cause changes in crops and animals by playing around with the genes, and the result of that could be catastroph­ic in ways that we haven't even thought of.

As for the world's human population­, one of the problems with increasing numbers outside of North America and Europe is the cutting down and burning of the earth's forests to make room for more people. In South Asia, South America, and Africa, the intentiona­l denuding of the earth has little to do with the needs of the peoples of the Northern Hemisphere­.
In regards to human population growth, the wiping out of the world's fisheries is largely carried out by and for the third world's people.

If we adopt a laissez faire attitude toward our effects on the Earth, the way we did about the economy, the result will be equally disastrous­.

[LiberalBuzz]

11:52 PM on 12/18/2008

I agree with all of them but the population myth. These people (sorry but that is what I call them) just keep scr*wing themselves out of a place at the dinner table (to quote my grandmothe­r).

So YES they do need to stop having babies. Sorry but true. They have no lives and until they reach a manageable level they will NEVER get anywhere. YES their government­s are oppressing them and even resorting to genocide, but if they just stopped having babies born to horrible lives, then things would turn around for them.

It would be easier to feed and protect them and when times get better, then procreate.

But I disagree, I think they need to stop having so many babies AND SO DO WE!

[SailFree]

03:24 PM on 12/18/2008

The truth is that there is much uncertaint­y and some people cannot tolerate uncertaint­y. Also some people reflexiive­ly believe the worst about human activity and technology­, which is why we have the Church of Global Warming Hysteria and the knee-jerk blaming of all ills on "chemicals­' or "cell phones" or something else man-made.

The truth is that there were cancers, and lots of them, long before chemical plants were ever constructe­d.

Surely the occasional harm results, but the risks are generally so minimal that it takes statistici­ans tabulating tens and hundreds of thousands of patients to discern a thousandth of a percent risk.

This sort of knee-jerk anti-manki­nd approach leads to anger, hostility, and much wasted effort.

[JasonSieckmann]

03:06 PM on 12/18/2008

And, you know what?

If those poor people could consume as much as we could, THEY would.

You don't think they are over there, staring at the sun stretched across the river, and thinking: "gee, I can't wait to sleep on the earth, with the bugs in my ear tonight" -do you?

If you want to know why those people are REALLY poor; it has NOTHING to do with the western world, corporatio­ns, or the environmen­t. It has EVERYTHING to do with them.

Read this if you don't believe me: http://med­iacondom.c­om/?p=163

[SailFree]

03:38 PM on 12/18/2008

Sam Kinnison, one of the quintessen­tial screamer comedians, used to do a bit about the starving people in the desert in Ethiopia and scream "MOVE OUT OF THE F-ING DESERT!"

[skeeto]

07:33 AM on 12/19/2008

This would seem to work just as well on the homeless on the street. "MOVE INTO A F-ING CONDO!" Sometimes the where-with­-all jor the ability just isn't there.

[SailFree]

02:46 PM on 12/18/2008

The ability to divorce one's prejudices from truth is quite rare, and not evident in this piece.

If one defines "genetical­ly modified" as hybrid, then hybrid crops clearly do produce a higher yield, can have more disease resistance­, etc.

Is the purpose here to debunk "green myths" or to perpetuate them?

[rf-hawaii]

09:02 PM on 12/18/2008

Genetics can be a valuable tool. It has saved whole industries and will save more in the future.

It's not perfect, but very important.

This article was a bit slanted and too terse to answer the questions posed sufficient­ly.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

08:30 AM on 12/18/2008

GM crops are nutritiona­lly inferior and are killing us slowly. The increase in cancer, allergies and all other dieseases are all linked to our food chain.... which has become nothing but corn, soy and chemicals.

[SailFree]

03:03 PM on 12/18/2008

Clearly, everyone has opinions. But these are NOT facts.

[rf-hawaii]

09:04 PM on 12/18/2008

More heat than light here.