Viewpoint: European Commission must prioritize agricultural biotechnology or ‘the 2050 zero carbon emissions target will remain a mirage’
Viewpoint: European Commission must prioritize agricultural biotechnology or ‘the 2050 zero carbon emissions target will remain a mirage’


“Without further investments and simplification of procedures, the zero emissions target will remain a mirage. To achieve this, the European Commission must further incentivize the bioeconomy and not let investors flee.” Saying this are not critics or detractors, but the projections of an EU project, which has modeled several possible scenarios between now and 2050.
“The bioeconomy can make a substantial contribution to achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions and will be a key sector to do so,” says Justus Wesseler, coordinator of the European Biomonitor project. “However, further investments are needed, more than those currently indicated by the Green Deal. Otherwise it will not be enough.”
Procedural lengths and complexities… run the risk of costing businesses dearly, discouraging investors and thus curbing the bioeconomy. There are therefore two inevitable steps to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
“In the first place it is necessary to increase the amount of investments,” says Wesseler. “Secondly, the current regulatory policy must be changed to make these new technologies ready for use sooner than they are today. This will cost the European Commission nothing. All that is needed is political will.”
[Editor’s note: This article was originally published in Italian and has been translated and edited for clarity.]
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

![]() | Videos | More... |

Video: Nuclear energy will destroy us? Global warming is an existential threat? Chemicals are massacring bees? Donate to the Green Industrial Complex!
![]() | Bees & Pollinators | More... |

GLP podcast: Science journalism is a mess. Here’s how to fix it

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’
![]() | Infographics | More... |

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer
![]() | GMO FAQs | More... |

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?
![]() | GLP Profiles | More... |

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’








Viewpoint — Fact checking MAHA mythmakers: How wellness influencers and RFK, Jr. undermine American science and health
Viewpoint: Video — Big Solar is gobbling up productive agricultural land and hurting farmers yet providing little energy or sustainabilty gains
Fighting deforestation with CO2: Biotechnology breakthrough creates sustainable palm oil alternative for cosmetics
Trust issues: What happens when therapists use ChatGPT?
California, Washington, Oregon forge immunization alliance to safeguard vaccine access against federal undermining
30-year-old tomato line shows genetic resistance to devastating virus
The free-range chicken dilemma: Better for birds, but with substantial costs
‘You have to treat the brain first’: Rethinking chronic pain with Sanjay Gupta