Palm Oil Truth Foundation - Palm Oil and the Politics of Environmental Extremism

Palm Oil and the Politics of Environmental Extremism

Written by Frank Tate
Friday, 12 December 2008
It has taken a global economic crisis for common sense to prevail and take root in the environmental debate, long hijacked by the irrational and the hysterical. It has provided an overwhelming case for reassessing where our policy priorities should lie if we are genuinely concerned with world welfare. In his first major speech since taking the post of federal environment minister, Jim Prentice signaled his government will not stir greater troubles in Canada's economy with strident environmental policies. "We will not - and let me be clear on this - we will not aggravate an already weakening economy in the name of environmental progress," Prentice said in a speech to business leaders at the Bennett Jones Lake Louise World Cup Business Forum recently (i). "If this means re-examining the way forward in the face of present-day economic realities, then so be it." It is just days before the minister heads to Poznan, Poland, where Prentice will join other world leaders working to craft a new world climate change treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, He said the challenge now is to keep economic and environmental policy on equal footing. "These are amongst the most difficult and pressing issues of our time," he said. The Palm Oil Truth Foundation observes how pragmatic and sensible the statement made by the Minister is, albeit perhaps, the product of present day economic realities. What a far cry from the socially irresponsible, emotive and exploitative alarmism of environmental organizations such as the grossly misnamed Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (FOE). Take the recent BBC Report (ii) on a “report” published in the journal Conservation Biology by Finn Danielsen of Denmark's Nordic Agency for Development and Ecology, which alleges that “palm oil plantations reduce plant and animal diversity, and do little to reduce carbon emissions.” The “report” goes on to allege that “tropical forests are increasingly cleared to make way for palm oil crops, leading to a reduction in habitats for many rare species and that the problem is most acute in Malaysia and Indonesia which produce around 85% of the world's palm oil.” The Freudian slip in the “report” is that the real reason for its opposition to palm oil is the “subsidies to purchase tropical biofuels given by countries in Europe and North America supposedly to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from transport.” Whilst acknowledging that “grassed areas where forest had been destroyed in the past, the land farmed and then abandoned, did become a net absorber of carbon after 10 years of being planted with palm oil,” the “report” made no mention of the fact that Malaysia (which the “report” touts as one of the countries where the “problem” is most acute) still maintains forest cover of over 65%. This is despite the country being the erstwhile world’s largest producer of palm oil for more than a hundred years! By selectively cherry picking their data, the “report” has sought to plot an environmentalist agenda against palm oil that is not only misleading but patently untrue when considered against the reality on the ground. The reality is that any monoculture would compromise to some degree plant and animal diversity and would probably not outperform the natural rainforest in terms of CO2 sequestration. The real question is one of degree. Any rational discussion of this issue cannot ignore the fact that a palm oil plantation is probably the most eco-friendly of ALL oilseed plantations, including soy, canola and sunflower. Why is that so? First, the incredible productivity and yield of the oil palm tree. It is well known that one hectare of oil palm plantation yields more than 4.5 metric tons of oil. This is more than 10 times the productivity of the competing oil seeds. What this productivity translates into is that LESS land is required to yield the same quantity of oil. That explains why Malaysia is able to maintain such a high degree of forest cover despite being the world’s largest producer and despite more than a hundred years of oil palm cultivation. Secondly, the oil palm tree, being a tree with a high leaf index is certainly far superior to the ground crops and bushes that constitute soy, canola or sunflower farms. Thirdly, the palm oil tree is virtually a perennial crop with a productive lifespan of up to 30 years. This characteristic of the oil palm tree means that palm oil plantations are spared the ecological damage that is caused annually by the competing oil seeds with annual harvest, replanting and fertilization cycles. Finally, if we consider the severe social and economic dislocation that Mr Danielson’s moral posturing would bring. it is indeed baffling that he should choose to frame his “report” on the high minded hysterical catastrophism of climate change politics rather than propose rational solutions! THE END. References (i) http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=1c00bef5-02a8-46e8-88bc-dcd7c46f8f2b (ii) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7758542.stm

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

If I could chime in, those fellas at Greenpeace and FOE must be hitting the sauce again. Makes no sense at all - the anti-palm oil crap. Fools no one!

Posted by DL, on December 17, 2008 at 2:35

Greenpeace, FOE and the rest of the environmental hyenas should slink back to their caves. Jackasses!