There is an environment cost to manufacturing a car, any car. Sure in the long term, more efficient is better is better for the environment, but you want to amortize the harmful costs of manufacturing (and discarding) cars by getting as much use as possible.
In other words, a policy like this would require a fair bit of balance (make sure cars stay on the road for long enough), otherwise it risks increasing pollution.
As long as it's measured by MPG per occupied seat. Our family fills our Dodge Durango and gets better MPG per occupied seat than a single driver Smart car.
In the case of the recent wildly sharp increase in consumer prices is caused by lower supply of goods... not by increase of money supply.
If the demand stays the same, the supply goes down... then the price will go up.
It's pretty common sense if you think about supply and demand, but I am perplexed at the amount of people that don't practice any critical thought, let alone skepticism.
Anti-GMO is tantamount to being against the extreme overuse of pestisides and herbicides, being anti-GMO is actually rooted in evidence as well as common sense... I don't want my strawberries or my corn bathed in round-up ready. Even if the corn does grow larger... glyphosate is bad.
It really bothers me that anti pesticide & herbicide people choose to place their crosshairs on GMOs. The GMO isn't the problem! It's totally throwing the baby out with the bathwater and serves to muddle and confuse the conversation rather than advance their cause of reduced *icide use. There are real benefits to be had from GMO crops. If GMOs weren't demonized as a whole as a proxy for *icide usage maybe there'd have been more research or investment in more, and more useful GMO crops.
Your own link makes a compelling case that herbicide resistance is ~by far~ the largest application of GMOs. The most commonly cited and largest impacts of GMOs
derive primarily from hebicide application. They are demonized by proxy because they are inextricably linked.
> Your own link makes a compelling case that herbicide resistance is ~by far~ the largest application of GMOs.
I make absolutely no claim to the contrary.
> They are demonized by proxy because they are inextricably linked.
That's like demonizing computer manufacturers because computers are inextricably linked to cybercrime. (cue someone bringing up a real-world example of exactly that, I'm sure)
Is it really so hard to fight the herbicide and pesticide usage itself that's doing the harm that attacking the entire concept of GMOs is necessary in some way? If the use of such chemicals was disallowed in the first place, there'd be no incentive to use roundup-ready crops.
The only things that I can think of that fighting against the GMOs in general instead of against herbicides and pesticide usage directly gets you is a target that's easier to scaremonger against from what I've seen.
It bothers me because it's dishonest. The problem isn't the GMO crops. The problem is companies dismissing customer harm in the face of increased profit. Fight the usage of the chemicals. Fight the companies harming their customers for a buck. Heck, fight the specific usage of roundup-ready crops. Leave GMOs as a concept and a field out of it.
> That's like demonizing computer manufacturers because computers are inextricably linked to cybercrime.
Is the vast majority of computer use for the explicit and sole purpose of cybercrime? If so, this is news to me. It's more like demonizing the dark web since its main function is to facilitate crime.
The primary purpose of GMOs is to increase herbicide usage. This isn't some philosophical argument; this is how GMOs are actually used. How can you separate a tool from it's primary usage? To me, an honest discussion of GMOs requires one to leave abstract notions behind and consider the context of GMOs in modern agriculture. This context is overwhelmingly centered around herbicides. If you remove herbicide-resistant GMOs for the discussion, there's barely a point in having it all because what remains is so insignificant.
If investment into non herbicide related GMO crops is avoided by investors, universities, etc. because the social optics are poor because GMOs have a bad rap, we are missing out on progress we might otherwise obtain.
Again, is choosing to be fully accurate and saying "herbicide resistant crops" instead of "GMOs" really so much of a problem? How the crops gained that resistance is besides the point.
So if you're anti-roundup why not just be anti-roundup? A genetically modified organism is just that, it doesn't make any commentary on whether or not pesticide is used. We've been 'genetically modifying' organisms via selective breeding as long as we've had agriculture...
Herbicide-resistant GMO crops account for over 80% of total GMO crop area worldwide. There's a reason why people usually talk about both at the same time :)
It should be obvious that no one plants a glyphosate-resistant crop without the express intention of spraying more glyphosate than the equivalent non-GMO crop can tolerate.
We're not allowed to know if food has Roundup in it. The only clue is that if it is not GMO it probably doesn't have Roundup. If you're pro-GMO you should be pro-labeling of agricultural chemicals in foods.
I have a feeling that payed bots/shills operate on this forum because each time a comment like this is made it gets downvoted asap.
As the poster above said: modern GMO doesn't mean "no need for pesticides": modern GMO is instead "we made plants resistant to PESTICIDES so they can withstand MORE toxins before they die so that we can kill more pests by increasing the pesticide dosage without killing the plants first".
The result is a huge increase in the amount of this toxic chemicals in the plants.
