Carbon credits for GM soy?
source: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11538-carbon-credits-for-gm-soy
-
-
- JanforGore
- added this
The Protocol, an international agreement to combat climate change that went into effect in 2005, includes a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) through which industrialized countries may acquire permits (carbon credits) that allow them to emit greenhouse gases in exchange for financing endeavors in the global South that supposedly capture or reduce emissions. These endeavors may include agro-industrial monocultures, including soy plantations in South America, according to the GRR in a report published in August.
The GRR reports that at least since 2005 the Argentine government has begun meeting with major soy producers to promote soy monoculture as a qualified activity in the carbon credit trade. As a result the soy industry in the country will be able to profit greatly from the growing "carbon market" and obtain legitimacy as an ally in the fight against global climate change. It is expected that the Argentine delegation to the next climate change summit, to be held this December in Denmark, will lobby hard in favor of the inclusion of monocultures, especially soy, in the CDM.
"Through carbon credits and the recently approved clean development mechanisms, direct seeding chemical agriculture could begin a 'genetically modified green revolution' in Africa and other parts of the world where agribusiness has yet to become hegemonic," the GRR states. "As a result, and against all logic within the climate change discourse, the United Nations is facilitating an unprecedented advancement in the global food and agriculture market while legitimizing overwhelming concentrations of food-based agricultural chains that allow for huge corporate conglomerates."
Source:
Grupo de Reflexión Rural. "Bonos de carbono: Para la siembra directa y sojización"
http://www.alainet.org/active/32363&lang=es
For more information (in Spanish):
http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Argentina
-
- groups:
- Community, Green, Current Tonight, Earth and Science, 3 more
-
- tags:
- Environment, Climate Change, Poverty, Deforestation, 5 more
-
-
SeaJade
-
"What the hell are people thinking?" - They are not thinking of anything but themselves and how much money they can make - this limited thinking business might be exacerbated by the amount of chemicals in food, water and air....
- 2 years ago
-
SeaJade
-
-
cyn_cyn
-
So sad... truly.
- 2 years ago
-
cyn_cyn
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
This simply cannot be allowed to happen. This will doom many more people to poverty and illness all for the profits of big ag. This is the antithesis to sustainability!
___
Excerpt:
Many people are ill. Many mothers and children have cancers. People are suffering from cancer of the uterus, brain tumours, anaemia, lupus, and purpura. There have been numerous spontaneous miscarriages. The pregnancies don’t continue because the children are so malformed, the body eliminates them…they say it doesn’t matter even though they are killing us. But they’re not just killing us, they’re killing the environment too. To make a few pesos they will destroy the land and our lives.”
This is the voice of Corina Barbosa. Her son, like many others in her community, is ill because he has agrichemicals in his blood. The sicknesses that are rife amongst the people of Iutzaingó in Córdoba province are believed to be due to the chemicals are being used to grow genetically modified (GM) soya.
This is a voice of the ‘Soya Republic’, a republic whose people are struggling to be heard. But who is destroying their land and their lives? And why is nothing being done about it?
Soya in Argentina
Argentina was once called the “bread basket of the world”. The country produced enough food to feed its population ten times over. Today Argentina is known as “The Soya Republic”. Half of the country’s arable land is dedicated to the growth of soya.
Soya is the nation’s economic lifeline and its biggest export, accounting for around a quarter of the country’s income. Ninety-five percent of the soya produced here is for export. The produce is mostly sent to Europe and South-East Asia, to be used for animal fodder and oils.
The extensive growth in producing the crop has happened rapidly and changed Argentina’s agricultural patterns. With a drive to produce more and more soya for economic gain, there have been little controls set on how the crop is grown. This has lead to the development of mass agriculture focused on a soya monoculture.
A monoculture is when one crop is grown over a wide area. This tends to be the only crop grown from season to season and so there is no crop rotation. This is an unsustainable farming practice as the same nutrients are extracted from the soil each season. Fernando Vilella, director of the Programme for Agribusiness and Foods at the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) explains: “Monoculture of any type is careless. It lowers sustainability, and is against wise farming practice.”
The rise of a soya monoculture has affected changes in the country’s environment and diet. The rush to clear land for soya farming has lead to rapid deforestation with a loss of 25,000 hectares of native forests a year and is the greatest cause of species extinction in Argentina.
The increased production of soya for export has also lead to a decrease of other crops being produced in the country. Consequently the Argentine population is becoming more dependent on imported foods, causing a rise in food prices.
The consequences of this agricultural model have a great impact on the country’s long-term welfare. However, the immediate effects of GM soya farming on the rural population are more startling.
continued at the link
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
JanforGore
-
The one activity causing the greatest loss of biodiversity would actually be categorized as sustainable and qualify for carbon credits? How outrageous is this? What the hell are people thinking? This is one great example of why carbon credit/ cap and trade schemes must be thrown out of any credible climate bill or climate treaty. This is simply a way to get around agribusiness spreading their tentacles for profit and ctually destroying biodiversity and contributing to climate change in the process. It would be obvious if this were allowed to happen that indigenous people and poor farmers are not going to be considered in any treaty hammered out in Copenhagen.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
