Maybe we should just tell the UN where to go, and be done with it. It seems to be the guiding philosophy of the Government of Canada when dealing with international environmental responsibilities. Last month, the Canadian Government decided to re-open the ‘debate’ surrounding the use of Terminator seed technology in Canada, though the seeds have been banned internationally since 2000.

Terminator seeds or GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) are engineered to be intentionally sterile so that they and their offspring cannot produce seeds that might be used by farmers for planting the next year. Development of the seeds began in 1983 in a joint effort between the US Department of Agriculture and the Delta and Pine Land Company (DPLC). In 1999 the Monsanto Corporation acquired the holding of DPLC, which ignited global alarm about the potential social and economic effects of introducing the technology through an international company.

The financial benefits of Terminator seeds for Monsanto are obvious; creating customer dependency ensures annual revenue. But the socio-economic and ecological consequences are also apparent. If farmers are forced to buy seeds each year, the potential to become impoverished and indebted becomes a serious concern, particularly in poorer nations. Further, should the seeds be introduced to the environment, the seed could render natural species sterile through crossbreeding.

In March of 2006 the most recent Convention on Biological Diversity was held in Brazil. At the convention, Canada argued in favour of the use of Terminator technology. The position held was that the benefits of Terminator seeds were worthy of further study and the role of corporate profit was downplayed. The rest of the nations present did not agree, and the ban on the use of terminator Technology was upheld, which binds Canada not to implement the technology.

There are no ecological benefits to introducing a species whose offspring are sterile; in fact it is dangerous to natural species. There are however, huge economic benefits for corporations by increasing farmer’s dependence on agribusiness suppliers. As the Canadian government insanely debates whether we should be the first country to introduce the Terminator species to our environment, the citizens of Canada should be demanding that our international reputation and natural habitats are not further degraded by a minority government.

January 17, 2006

If I were to say bandanas and bio-diesel, what would be the first thing that popped into your mind? Well, if you hailed from the American Deep South (or California), the answer would be simple: Bio-Willie.

Songwriter Willie Nelson, famous for his liberal and patriotic views has embarked on an ambitious business venture to bring bio-diesel to the American consumer. Advertised as ‘Farm Fresh Fuel’, the campaign is toted as an all-American solution to curb fuel consumption, promote environmentalism and empower US farmers. Bio-Willie, (I enjoy writing that), is a 20% blend of bio-diesel with regular petrol-diesel. With over 25 locations in the US, 16 of which are in Texas, Bio-Willie is still largely a niche market, but is looking to expand.

The controversy becomes: is Bio-Willie environmentally friendly? Governments and environmentalists have hailed bio-fuels as a solution to fossil fuel consumption and as a means to reduce green house gas emissions. This vantage has come under dispute as researchers have shown bio-fuels to be carbon intensive rather than carbon neutral.

When all of the energy inputs are accounted for in the production of bio-fuel crops, including fertilizers, pesticides, tractor fuel, etc., bio-fuels require more fossil energy to be grown than they produce as fuel. This deficit is magnified if the seeds are imported or the finished product exported to other countries. Further, with the gross consumption of fuel in the US (as well as Canada), all available cropland would have to be dedicated to growing bio-fuel in order to replace fossil fuel use.

Bio-fuel does have credible merits, they reduce the emission of nitrogen and sulphur oxides; they are biodegradable and renewable. The use of vegetable oil or food processing wastes for bio-fuels would be a great improvement upon their current destination as landfill. On a small scale, bio-fuels would be a great enhancement upon the efficiency of product use in North America. Unfortunately, the idea that bio-fuels will be able to replace our consumption of fossil fuels is at best a fantasy. Willie’s efforts are to be saluted, but as for sustainability we are ‘On the Road Again’.

   
  Dave Vasey is an Environmental Technologist who graduated from Durham College in 2001. Currently Dave is studying at the Faculty of Earth, Environment and Resources at the University of Manitoba.