Shouts from the desert

A New York Times column is suggesting that part of the solution to global warming will be to embrace environmental heresies. Among these heresies are support for things environmentalists are generally thought to oppose such as genetically modified crops, nuclear power.

It is true that environmentalists are often seen to oppose nuclear power and genetic engineering, however neither of these is opposed absolutely by the greatest minds in the environmental movement. The realities are much more nuanced.

Genetically engineered products are opposed by environmentalists for good reasons. There are many dangers involved in genetic engineering. On the other hand genetic engineering does provide great promise to reduce mankind's impacts on the environment. The problem is not with genetic engineering itself, but rather with genetic engineering being conducted by profit-driven corporations. The profit motive provides an incentive for corporations to cut costs by taking inadequate precautions and conducting insufficient testing to ensure that their products do not cause damage to ecosystems.

Thinking environmentalists are not opposed to genetic engineering &emdash; in fact they are genuinely excited by the environmental possibilities genetic engineering offers. Their goal is not to stop genetic engineering, but to ensure that it is brought within organisations whose sole motive is to support the public good, where safety protocols will not constantly be competing with the profit motive.

With nuclear power the issue is not that "nuclear" is a bad word. Nor is it that there are problems disposing of nuclear waste because we are easily able to dispose of such waste with today's technologies. The problems again come back to the custodians of the facilities &emdash; if they are profit-driven corporations they have an incentive to skimp on safety, and there is some risk that used nuclear fuel may find its way onto a black market where it might be used to build weapons. With appropriate safeguards nuclear power is potentially a factor in reducing mankind's environmental impact, but it would be a mistake to entrust a profit-driven corporation to maintain adequate safeguards at all times.

Like so many things, technology and the environment are complex issues with few absolutes. An environmentalist whose views stem from a strong understanding of science will often support positions which will make them seem like a heretic to people who stand outside the environmental movement and only see the broad message, or even those inside who act more from radicalism than from deeper understanding, but this should not prevent them from supporting those positions when appropriate.