A coalition of environmental groups spoke up last week to dispute whether widespread biofuel production and the sequestration of carbon using genetically engineered crops and trees are really best for the planet.

The Gaia Foundation, Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, the STOP GE Trees Campaign and World Rainforest Movement held a press conference last week in Nairobi, Kenya at the 12th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The event addressed the socially and environmentally devastating impacts of large-scale biofuel production, genetically engineered trees and crops, and carbon sink plantations, and explained why these schemes will not solve climate change.

The promotion of large-scale biofuel production as an alternative to fossil fuels, and of tree plantations to store carbon was popular at this year's UNFCCC. Genetically engineered (GE) [also called transgenic or genetically modified] crops and trees have also been promoted as a way to implement these solutions to the climate change problem.

"Not only will large-scale use of biofuels and genetic engineering technology not help to alleviate climate change, they may in fact exacerbate the problems of global warming while also causing environmental degradation, social inequality and poverty, particularly in developing countries," warned Teresa Anderson of the London-based Gaia Foundation.

Using important agricultural land and water to grow biofuels instead of food for domestic consumption will have a detrimental effect on food security, especially in poor countries, the groups said.

In 2006, an increase in the use of grain worldwide for conversion to biofuels led to a 60% increase in global grain prices, according to the group, which is hurting the poor and resulting in the cutting of trees. "Soya plantations in Latin America and palm oil plantations in Indonesia, being developed for biofuels, are driving deforestation and pushing hundreds of thousands of farmers and indigenous peoples off their lands," said Miguel Lovera of Global Forest Coalition. "Once again the developing countries of the South are being asked to pay the price for the unsustainable lifestyle of the North."

Activists are also condemning tree plantations used to store carbon: "This Convention needs to move away from complicated and fraudulent carbon trading schemes," said Ana Filippini of Uruguay-based World Rainforest Movement. "It should begin to address seriously the issues of how to phase out fossil fuels and how to stop deforestation".

While conventional monoculture tree plantations already have enormous documented social and ecological impacts, industry is now considering the use of genetically engineered trees in these plantations.

Genetically engineered trees were approved for use in carbon sinks by the UNFCCC in 2003. Environmentalists say more research needed to be done on the potential risks of these trees which may be engineered to kill insects, grow faster, be more easily pulped or be resistant to toxic herbicides.

"The release of GE trees in huge plantations to store carbon must be banned," said Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology Project. "The escape of pollen or seeds from GE trees into native forests would cause severe and unpredictable ecological impacts that could impact the ability of forests to store carbon, worsening global warming." Andrew Boswell of the Large Scale Biofuels Action Group added, "In the light of the precautionary decision on GE Trees made by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in March 2006, we urge the countries of the South to stay resolutely cautious about adopting these technologies that are not in their control, nor likely to be in their best interests."

For more information:

www.stopgetrees.com