Scientists have warned that a court decision to block the growing of the genetically modified (GM) crop Golden Rice in the Philippines could have catastrophic consequences. Tens of thousands of children could die in the wake of the ruling, they argue.
The Philippines had become the first country – in 2021 – to approve the commercial cultivation of Golden Rice, which was developed to combat vitamin A deficiency, a major cause of disability and death among children in many parts of the world.
But campaigns by Greenpeace and local farmers last month persuaded the country’s court of appeal to overturn that approval and to revoke this. The groups had argued that Golden Rice had not been shown to be safe and the claim was backed by the court, a decision that was hailed as “a monumental win” by Greenpeace.
Many scientists, however, say there is no evidence that Golden Rice is in any way dangerous. More to the point, they argue that it is a lifesaver.
If we had gone nuclear 60 years ago climate change would be nothing more than an interesting theory. Greenpeace has as much share of the blame for the current state of the world as Exxon mobil does.
This is just obviously untrue. Not least because we did build lots of nuclear power plants. One significant reason why we didn’t build more was their high price compared to … coal and gas plants. But sure, it’s Greenpeace’s fault and not Exxon Mobil.
To add to this: The great majority of nuclear plant operators are companies with a majority stake in fossil fuels. Apparently fossil fuel is more profitable for them than nuclear. Additionally, it is much, much more cheaper (like a 1:3 cost ratio) to produce renewable energy via solar and wind than to do it via nuclear energy. Also, fissile material is non-renewable and mining sites are mostly situated in non-western regions, making us yet again dependent on energy imports. Further, nuclear energy is just not as quickly scalable as renewables, as the construction of nuclear plants usually takes around 10 years, at minimum, whilst wind and solar parks with the same output as nuclear reactors only require a couple if years. Every pro-nuclear advocate therefore effectively supports the centralized fossil fuel industry (as opposed to decentralized energy production of renewables) and fosters dependence on increasingly expensive fissle fuel imports. The cognitive dissonance by proponents towards nuclear energy simply is as deep as the money pockets of our fossil fuel overlords who are desperate to keep control of the narrative and ownership of the energy production.
Another significant reason we didn’t invest more in nuclear was hysteria spread by fear mongering groups like Greenpeace.
They’re both to blame. They both put significant money and effort into keeping us on petroleum long after a viable alternative was available.
Classic brainwashed nuclear take presenting it as black & white like if all energy used in the world was from nuclear there would have been no issue on uranium ressource.
Well, let’s see. We have a century’s worth of uranium left, and only 50 years of petroleum. Also, resource scarcity isn’t really the problem with petrochemicals. It’s the environmental impact. Nuclear doesn’t have that problem. Classic brainwashed tree hugger poser rambling on incoherently while ignoring any and all inconvenient facts. You should join Greenpeace.
If you had 2 braincell working maybe you’d see fuel consumption is related to production so we wouldn’t have 100 year left if all energy was nuclear as it isn’t even 10% of today’s mix. This is basic energy knowledge if you don’t lnow that don’t even try to understand energy policy of countries dumbass.