×
welcome covers

Your complimentary articles

You’ve read all of your complimentary articles for this month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please


If you are a subscriber please sign in to your account.

To buy or renew a subscription please visit the Shop.

If you are a print subscriber you can contact us to create an online account.

Green Philosophy

GM vs Climate Change

Andrew Lewis considers the ethics of using GM to help prevent global warming.

There seems little serious doubt among climate scientists that a key factor in global warming is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that there is a need to very quickly reduce these levels very substantially. Reforestation is one proposed contribution. What if, to speed up the reduction in CO2 levels, it was decided to implement a ‘Tree Solution’? Here GM (genetic modification) technology would be used to develop trees which were optimised genetically to convert large amounts of carbon dioxide into oxygen using the minimum of other natural resources. The genetic modification of suitable trees could mean a big increase in the amount of CO2 they convert to O2 for the same amount of sunlight; a reduction in the conversion of O2 to CO2 during the night-time; an acceleration of the maturation of the trees; an extension of the peak conversion lifecycle of the trees, to optimise return on investment; faster decay when the plants die, and the introduction of anti-pest enzymes to minimize the overheads and maintenance costs of large-scale reforestation. What might moral philosophy have to say about this? In a nutshell, do existing objections to genetic modification on moral grounds hold good when applied to an imaginary macro project such as using GM to minimize threats to human civilization from climate change?

Initial Reactions

What are the objections to genetic modification of crops in general? A sceptic might point out that GM ’s impact on our ecosystem is unpredictable and potentially destructive.