Abstract
This is a reply to Buckeridge & Aidar's (2002) Point of View on the possible usefulness of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) built to increase carbon sequestration, and Plant Gene Therapy (PGT), particularly in rain forests, as future tools to reduce excessive atmospheric CO2. We argue that the alternatives to carbon sequestration they presented should not be treated as scientific or political priority, since their arguments have major ecological and socio-political flaws, such as ecological unpredictability, the existence of an already high potential for carbon sequestration by native non-manipulated plants, and the relevance of scientific and political sovereignty in regard to the global change issue.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
