Can gene editing be a solution to the rising cost of climate change? Climate change has already had a number of effects on agriculture, including in Europe, which is seeing smaller harvests and higher production costs. Dutch farmer Hendrik Jan ten Cate told the Financial Times he sees only one option if Europeans want to continue eating locally grown food: Gene-edited crops that can withstand higher temperatures and longer periods of drought. Europe’s food supply is in jeopardy, and farmers are unable to keep up with the pace at which climate change is occurring, he warned.

The time has come for innovative methods, agriculture experts say. Enter gene editing: Altering the genes of crops has been a hot topic for debate in the agriculture industry for many years. Gene editing is a process by which specific changes can be made to the DNA of an organism. Unlike traditional forms of genetic modification, gene editing does not involve the introduction of foreign DNA. These changes can be used to fix mutations that cause diseases or to add desirable traits, like being able to handle drought. Gene editing proponents say their method is just like traditional plant breeding, only faster and more precise. But that is not how it’s widely viewed in Europe, with EU regulations stacked against gene-editing

Environmentalists argue that agricultural companies are using climate change and world hunger as an excuse to sell new technologies that haven’t been tested yet. “There is no reason to deregulate gene editing,” says Mute Schimpf, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe. “It is a new technology developed in the last 10 years. We don’t know how it might impact on nature, on agriculture and how the consumer interest will be affected.” But Europe is slowly becoming the only major economy that doesn’t like gene-edited crops, and some lawmakers are starting to think the benefits for farmers, the economy, and the environment outweigh the risks.

---

Oh, the irony of flying into a climate summit on dozens of private jets: Some 36 private planes flew into Sharm El Sheikh and another 64 landed in Cairo for COP27, according to data from FlightRadar24, which notes that there could have been more private jets that were not tracked due to limited coverage, the BBC reports. Private planes produce substantially more emissions per passenger than commercial flights. The Gulfstream G650, which was the model most flown into Egypt, uses about 1.9k liters of aviation fuel per hour. A flight from Amsterdam to Sharm El Sheikh uses up nearly 9k liters of fuel, producing 23.9 tons of CO2 and 45.3 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions when non-CO2 emissions that also have a warming effect are factored in.

It’s not the best look, but is it really that bad? Maybe not: Assuming the planes were at full capacity (15 passengers), each private plane passenger is responsible for 3 tons of emissions for the journey to COP27, which are “negligible compared to the impact of decisions and commitments made at these summits,” the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit’s international lead told the BBC.