Southeast Asia Paying High Environmental Cost For Palm Oil
by Kimberley D. Mok, Montreal, Canada on 11.28.07
Image: Small part of the bigger picture - deforestation in Borneo, Indonesia (World Resources Institute)
In its annual Human Development Report released yesterday, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) highlighted the untenable environmental impacts of palm oil production. As a supposedly environmentally-friendly biofuel and healthier food ingredient, the demand for palm oil has risen steadily in recent years and can be found anywhere from cookies to cosmetics – yet, as we’ve shown on TH before (again and again), it is becoming clear that palm oil comes with a pretty heavy ecological cost.
“Expansion of cultivation of (oil palm) in East Asia has been associated with widespread deforestation and violation of human rights of indigenous people,” states the report, which singles out top producers Indonesia and Malaysia as countries where - in addition to deforestation and indigenous conflicts - palm oil production has also resulted in the destruction of key habitats of endangered primates.
“As a result of deforestation, some of which is for palm oil, Indonesia is the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, after the USA and China,” continues the report. “Deforestation to make way for large-scale mono-cropping of energy crops obliterates the ‘green credentials’ of the biofuel.”
The UNDP report cautions that other Asian countries – notably Burma, Thailand and Cambodia to Vietnam and the Philippines – should take a long hard look at the full environmental costs of palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia before they decide to go down the same road.
Already, the 2005 figures for the global cultivation of palm oil is estimated at around 12 million hectares, double the area back in 1997. Indonesia plans to convert even more peatland forests to palm oil and this year, signed no less than 58 agreements all worth $12.4 billion (US) to produce 200,000 barrels of oil-equivalent biofuel per day by 2010.
According to environmental observers, destroying these forests will not only mean less carbon sinks, but will also release the carbon stored in them into the atmosphere. “Peatland forests are traditional carbon storehouses. Typically they store up to 30 percent carbon dioxide,” says Shailendra Yashwant, climate and energy campaigner for the South-east Asia office of Greenpeace.
The report’s findings are expected to be one of the hotly debated issues in next month’s climate change summit organized by the UN and hosted in Bali, Indonesia, with delegates from 180 nations expected to attend.
::InterPress Service
See also ::UNDP Human Development Report 2007/2008, ::UN Report on Sustainable Bioenergy Released, ::UN says Palm Oil Industry is Wiping out the Orang Utan, ::Indonesia Fastest Forest Destroyer, ::Indonesian Deforestation Threatens Endangered Orangutans
Biofuel made from Algae!!
Not from corn, palm oil, soy, etc.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4213775.html
Please tell me - what can I do to help?
These pictures were really, just astounding. I can't believe the destruction.
Those are the most horrifying pictures I have seen in some time. Makes you think where else we can be having that negative impact, and not even know it.
But at least we are educating ourselves. There is hope.
Cheers!
I see almost no detectable change from 2000 to 2005. But when you have an agenda, and you want to assure people that the end of the world as we know it is imminent, what's a little lie?
And who is pushing biofuels, that is causing this poor country to chop down more and more trees?
The fuzzy thinking that goes on at this site is good for a few laughs a day.
Bob, methinks you need your eyes checked. Also, notice that the time scales aren't linear (the other pictures were over more than just 5 years...).
Clueless people are always good for a few laughs a day....
very strange and quite ironic that the concept of long-term sustainability is seen as a sort of threat when in reality the ones who gain are ourselves since we spend and consume less, saving money, time, energy, and in turn ourselves. So, in essence, anti-sustainability advocates are threatened by those who want less, when in reality they should be threatened by those who want more. Sorry to steer off topic - had to be said.
We must use our human creativity to find altenate sources and methods to meet our needs without resorting to needless destruction. We're better than that. This goes for silly "wars" as well.
Best way to help is to reduce demand! Stop buying products with palm oil in them!
Hint: Check out your Peanut Butter. The ingredient that keeps it from separating is most likely palm oil. Buy the kind that separates instead (yes, I know... such a pain the the butt to stir :-P)
You might want to change the citation on the deforestation map above. The image belongs to the United Nations Environment Program, not the World Resources Institute.
We're screwed. Just have fun while it lasts.
http://www.chapter322.biz/forex-investing - Learn Forex & Make Big $$$
Even more pertinent is the destruction of the Amazon forest, which has the highest rate of deforestation in the entire world. Every day more and more of the Amazon is destroyed causing massive destruction resulting in the loss of shelter and livelihood for the animals residing within as well as the local indigenous tribes that have lived within it for centuries. Flooding is a result of the massive scale at which forests are cut down, mostly by Brazil which also relies heavily upon the resources the forest has provided it. There are countless organisms living within the Amazon that have yet to be discovered or catalogued by humans, many of which do not have names inclusive of mammals and new fish, bird, insect and plant life.
Even more alarming is that Brazil is pushing for further deforestation and is beginning to uproot much of the forest in pursuit of crude oil. If this happens, this planet will lose one of the last vestiges of natural organic life.
Yea, hardly no detectable differance between 2000-2005 then a huge leap after 2005 the rate of deforestation increases about 10 fold?
It happens every time.
Tree huggers tell you to use wind power. No wait, it hurts the birds.
Use ethanol. No wait, we are using all the corn and converting to much land for pasture.
Can't use Nuclear.
Can't search for oil.
Can't use coal.
Can't use palm oil.
All we are left with is solar with an astounding 60 watts per square meter. Try running a factory off of 60 watts/sq meter. You would have to cover Alaska with solar panels.
They won't let us dig for oil and they squeal like pigs when the
Nothing will make tree-huggers happy.
Deforestation can never be prevented as long as human population increases! Don't blame it on palm oil! At least the palm trees are still green rather than some concrete industrial factories.
There are many other ways to save the rainforest habitats such as forming protected forest areas, which requires lots of funding. Therefore, it would be more practical for us to support forest protection scheme rather than destroy the credibility of palm oils!
The funny thing about this is all is that we in Malaysia and Indonesia are BLAMED for just trying to survive and have a decent living by working on our palm oil estates. The question is ARE WILLING TO FEED US? Do you want to let us live in the jungle and goaked at by foreigners who live in mansions and expensive jets?
The problem with many 'reports' towards palm oil plantation is ONLY ONE-SIDED. Have these people seen the SUSTAINALBE practise these companies are adopting? Quite doubt it.
I live in the northern part of Borneo and I KNOW what's going on. While, we do not subscrbe for reckless slashing of the jungle, leaving destructionin its path, but we DO subscribe for a sustainable procedure/technique
Even our timber businesses that cut trees alll the way to the deepest jungle, are replanting the foresest. Has any one reported anything good about it?
In Febrauary last year a high level talk was held in the town of Bintulu, Sarawak on the impact palm oil plantation. All the presenters were professors and experts in their repsective fields. They all gave a balanced view on the impact and agreed after their years of research in these areas to be fine and regenerating the jungles, though there were adverse effects in the intial stages.
The question now is that without these, the poor people of Malaysia will never have the kind of decent living other people in other countries enjoy. Who will take care of them? Waiting for hand-me-down foods?
Think about is and find a REAL solution if there is truky an 'Einvirnomental probem'. Dont' just point. Remember, there are Four other fingers pointing back at the ones pointing.