African palm oil expansion is bad news for the continent’s primates | Hacker News Reader

African palm oil expansion is bad news for the continent’s primates

arstechnica.com

74 pointsokket39 comments

I don't understand how an article focused primarily on demand figures for palm oil does not even mention prices rising because of demand for palm oil.

Sure, I get that it's in Oreos and bread and toothpaste and a number of other products but if the price doubles will it still be in those products? It's used widely because it's solid at room temp, easy to handle, and helps with consistency, but I find it hard to believe that demand will not drop at _all_ if demand is really that high. You can't exactly turn over 20 million hectares in a year.

In my travels, I found this data to be useful: https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/which-everyday-products-...

An accurate observation.

Though I agree with your principle (ie this is not a complete analysis), in the authors defense it is accurately titled "African palm oil expansion is bad news for the continent’s primates."

Had it been titled "An analysis of the impacts of African palm oil expansion", your argument would have been poignant.

Yes and no. The Ars author cites a study that uses the highest possible number (from another study 9 years old from Corley) plus another high number for biofuels that does not take into account farming techniques or price elasticity, and then indicates that because of this, maybe Africa's habitat will be significantly eroded because it's "highly suitable" to palm oil based on their study of the climate. No cost accounting, political geography, etc discussed.

The original study from Corley seems quite measured in the Abstract (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290110...) and also indicates that a number of factors would prevent this from happening due to substitution.

"Alarmist habitat erosion is good for clicks" is not a good reason to perpetuate hypothetical land use when there is plenty of actual non-hypothetical discussion to be had around the industry.

Do I need to go to the mat on this? Probably not, no, but it is symptomatic of a larger issue that I have trouble abiding: Oversimplified article associates two things together in the mind of information consumers who do not fully understand the problem. That association is for life. The correction / nuance never comes. Best to try and get to that nuance up front if at ALL possible, otherwise it's irresponsible.

Worth noting that in many countries - including Australia and New Zealand - that it is not compulsory (legally mandated) for food manufacturers to label the oil that they use as Palm Oil. They can just state Vegetable Oil, thus hindering many consumers in these countries from determining which products in their local supermarket use palm oil - just by looking at the label directly on the product.

A poor outcome for consumers in these markets.

Is there any literature that actually states labelling items with palm oil vs vegetable oil actually makes a difference in consumer behaviour? In my small window of the world, I feel like the issue with palm oil is not well known.

This isn't literature, but from Melbourne Zoo's Don't Palm Us Off campaign, a campaign in favour of mandatory labelling of palm oil in Australia and New Zealand, their argument goes:

"Mandatory labelling of palm oil will help put pressure on food companies to start using sustainably-produced palm oil." [0]

There seems to be disagreement about what sustainable palm oil entails or how sustainable it actually is [1], so would be good to see this claim backed up with research.

[0] https://www.zoo.org.au/get-involved/act-for-wildlife/dont-pa... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/10/nestle-p...

In the US, in 2006, the FDA started requiring that food labels list grams of trans fat per serving. They were pretty vague about the legality of the requirement ("this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities"), and they allowed for anything less than 0.5 grams per serving to be reported as 0 grams [1]. Every label since then shows grams of trans fat per serving. However, I have never seen any number reported other than 0 grams. Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, once ubiquitous on packaged food labels, has practically vanished from them. For the most part it was replaced with palm oil (I suspect there was also a lot of serving size manipulation to take advantage of the 0.5 grams rule). It appears that the FDA is going to ban the addition of partially hydrogenated oil to food altogether by 2020 [2]. I imagine this (and perhaps similar legislation in other countries) is leading to increased demand for palm oil. This is not good for the environment nor Africa's primates. But how good is it for the primates on all continents, namely the humans eating palm oil all over the world? I suspect the answer is: way better than trans fats, but not very good.

[1] https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument... [2] https://www.fda.gov/food/ucm292278.htm

Its used in huge amounts in pastries, like donuts. It also makes for over 20% of Nutela content (55% being sugar), and its present in many other processed produts.

This thread has too much argument for the sake of arguing. People are trying to debate whether or not a nature vs. development dichotomy exists in the abstract. Of course it doesn't, but why don't we talk about the particulars of this situation instead of turning the comment section into a high school debate class? The article clearly states that it will be very difficult to balance conservation of primate habitats with expansion of palm oil harvesting. Given that information, and the fact that the continent is desparately in need of economic development, I think the environmental losses are justifiable if they lead to better livelihoods for Africans.

I was with you until

> I think the environmental losses are justifiable if they lead to better livelihoods for Africans

I have been to Borneo, I have seen the future and it is bleak. The guy running the Palm Oil Plantation has a car, AC in his house and a big screen tv. The ground is poisoned forever (after less than 20 years of growing palm oil) and ultimately the topsoil of Borneo will wash away into the leaving a lifeless desolate bump sticking out of the ocean.

Nothing abstract about that.

Sounds like a horrible future for Borneons. But, it's obvious why many farmers turn to palm oil.

It is a very effective cash crop (hence the big screen TV - possibly a Curved 100" OLED screen for "that guy" running the Palm Oil plantation ;) and the demand is there worldwide.

Farming is often a very tough existence, so palm oil is very alluring for many who would otherwise face relative or absolute poverty.

This opens up another question... will expanding the palm oil plantations result in "better livelihoods for Africans" in the affected areas? This isn't as simple as just more GDP, more money. Historically, plantations have led to a lot of disruption, dislocation, and habitat/environmental destruction for the people already living there, and whatever "jobs" are created tend to be low-paying, unfulfilling unskilled farm labor. So it's not necessarily a win for the people living there, although it may be a huge win for the plantation owners. It could be a big loss for everyone else. (For examples from American history, see the Trail of Tears and Southern plantation culture, particularly the Second Migration that came with the rise of the cotton plantations in the 19th century.)

Although palm oil consumption (of RBD palm oil) by industrial food processors has been rising for a while, a significant development was the scrutiny, public awakening, and regulatory phase-out of trans fats that happened in jurisdictions in the last decade or two.

Trans fats occurred in food as a side-effect of partial hydrogenation of unsaturated vegetable oils, where the result had desirable properties for food processing, performing similar to but remaining cheaper than animal-derived solid-at-room-temp fats.

Palm oil performs similarly to partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, and is therefore readily available substitute for manufactured foods affected by the trans fat phase-out.

> African countries have the right to develop economically

Who owns the Palm Oil companies razing Africa? Are they largely African held, or is this another extractive colonial project?

I imagine a contributing factor to this trend of palm oil being popular is the many folks pursuing "alternative remedies." Palm oil is high in medium chain triglycerides (MCT) and MCT oil is medically recommended for a number of very serious conditions, including Cystic Fibrosis and stomach cancer. Coconut oil, also high in MCT oil, was popular in an alternative remedy community I used to participate in.

Why increase production of palm oil when algae oil is healthier for you, more sustainable, and cheaper?

Africa’s main concern should really be the sustainable welfare of one kind of primate: Homo sapiens. I don’t recall ever seeing a “made in $AFRICAN_COUNTRY” label on anything. Theres a lot of economic potential there, but no one can be bothered to even start doing anything worthwhile with it. Once Homo sapiens is sorted out, the rest will come naturally.

Humans depend on the rest of the planet on many ways. The frontier of drug discovery come from plants in the rainforest at a time when conventional antibiotics are beginning to fail us. Lots of carbon is locked up in peat bogs in that same rainforest that we light on fire to clear land for palm oil production. We also need to manage soil properly if we are to sustain food production on this planet. Conservation is necessary regardless of whether you're doing it for other animals or for us. Conservation is about not letting short-term incentives thwart long-term sustainability, in other words self-discipline over impulsiveness.

Sure, but when people live in squalor and die of malnutrition and disease from time to time primates do not even register on the radar of priorities. Worrying about primate populations under these circumstances is an extremely ivory tower position to take. It’s like if your children were dying of starvation and you were agonizing over the carbon footprint of driving to the grocery store.

Environmentalism can easily become neo-colonialism in which largely Western countries impose their values and limit what developing countries do to better their people.

The people living in the countries in question should be free to make their choices regarding how they want to develop their country and economy without interference from the West.

Conversely, if the companies are held, run, or funded by Western countries, then the so-called "economic development" can also be seen as an imposition of values, and an application of economic incentives to limit what developing countries do.

Are people living in these countries free to make choices if Western investment interferes with their incentives?

Why the focus on Western companies? Yes, they have traditionally inhabited this role (although far from exclusively) but China is making big waves in Africa.

From what I have read, China cares not for the sort of development associated with the former colonial powers. They're in it to strip mine whatever they can, ship as much value back to mainland China as possible, and then leave the locals to their own devices after they've gone.

Everything they do is set up to be self-contained, with zero reliance on the local economy.

And this is wildly popular among Africans. They love how China doesn't attach all kinds of strings to their business. Western companies might think twice about selling guns to a regime that might use them to suppress dissent; Chinese companies will only count twice, once for the product and again for the payment. The only value they wish to instill is to buy more Chinese product.

If an African country paid China to clear-cut every last native tree and replace it with orderly rows of oil palm, China would do it, take their profit, and leave that country alone to deal with the fallout from its own decisions.

I can't say that the Chinese development model is better or worse than the Western development model in terms of the global impact, but it certainly leaves Africa free to be more African, for good or ill. Any environmentalist concerns would have to be home-grown.

Ok, also China.

Note that if we disrobe your statement of its developing-versus-West rhetoric, we end up with:

"People in any country should be able to do whatever they want in regard to environment without any interference from the international community."

Pretty much. yeah.

Frankly, us environmental hopefuls are trying to stop a tank rolling towards them. We wont and we will be crushed.

There is just no Hope - Most of the world lives in absolutely mind boggling scenarios. And they all hope to eventually have first world standards of living.

Our models, growth projections and debt depends on the world being able to achieve that growth. Humanity has made a bet that the future will be better for all - more consumption, more growth, more resources.

Except its just that our industries take advantage of unprotected commons. Amazon deforestation, sea pollution, over fishing, air pollution are the obvious big ticket examples.

Heck, many smaller economies go up the ladder because "regulations are far more flexible" - which is great for business, jobs and income. Want to dredge that river for sand?

Simply: The world economy does not correctly price the cost of damage to the environment in its transactions.

If it did so, costs would spike and a large number of transactions would cease to be viable.

-----

The illustrative example is plastic. I bet that 99% of the people reading this have plastic touching them right now. 85% of you will have more than 2 pieces of plastic on your person.

Plastic use is only going to increase; worldwide plastic use is VERY far from its eventual peak - most of India and China have yet to reach first world levels of consumption.

Now realize that plastic is hundreds of times cheaper than alternatives. It may also be LESS damaging than many alternatives like paper (chemical and water use).

Plastic is immortal, and is never going to break down, and we arent anywhere near how much plastic we will have to make before humanity leaves this planet.

If we stopped plastic tomorrow, our economy would crater. We would be back to tinning food. That will mean costs and would go up only on packaging costs, forget about cleaning and losses due to spoilage - thats just food. Forget medicines.

----

We arent going to get out of this by doing the right thing. We are going to get out of this because someone will start a plan to pull carbon out of the air and shove it into the core.

And then people will keep polluting.

-----

Sorry its been frustrating.

There certainly is a taste hypocrisy if European countries lecture other countries about wildlife after pretty much wiping out their own. But it would be stupid if developing countries repeated mistakes.

I think in the end the West should be willing to pay more for products from countries with good environmental practices.

American expansion was "bad news" for the continent's bison. But that was a net positive for the nation in the long run, as it allowed the US to become a more self-sufficient country. Developing countries shouldn't be discouraged from doing the same by aesthetes in the west who have already built their industry and infrastructure.

Nearly wiping out the bison was not a prerequisite to the US becoming self sufficient. Nor is destroying their natural areas a prerequisite for developing nations.

Additionally you’re presenting a false dichotomy of either we hold back developing nations or we say goodbye to nature. That’s ridiculous. We can help them to grow and become modern and raise their quality of life while preserving their precious natural areas.

Serious question. Is there any precedent? Where a people developed without harming their surrounding.

Connecting the coasts via trains would not have been possible with the millions of bison that used to inhabit the west. Either because of the bison directly destroying track, or interaction with the Natives who hunted the bison and were hostile towards Americans.

Damn bisons destroying our fine tracks and bringing Indians with them; let's wipe out their species!

I don't know what point you think I'm arguing, but I am saying what happened historically. The US would have had a much harder time maintaining their gains from the Mexican-US war less than 20 years earlier(and may have ultimately lost California et al back to Mexico) if they were not able to connect the west coast to the east via rail.

As someone that has a godfather that has an actual Bison ranch, Bison are definitely still here thankfully, and are simultaneously awe inspiring and fear inducing.

That part of Dances with Wolves where they leave a trail is not inaccurate.

And Bison will graze on areas that to be blunt, are practially useless for anything else but digging up dinosaur bones. The only thing we need to do is get out of their way. And you can even cull them sustainably, just find the ones that are on their way out and use them for food.

But I know nothing about palm oil, I presume there should be some way to treat it like paper where we can leave the simians alone and farm our own.

Also, don't try to pet a Bison, even in national parks. They're like moose level scary if they see you as a threat. I don't get why people think wild animals like you petting them. I saw a buffalo wreck a F-250, they are not pets.

The US didn’t become prosperous because of genocide. It became prosperous in spite of it.

How do you know? It seems good business to enter an area, kill the natives and claim the land as yours. It's not moral though.

You can acquire land without killing inhabitants, and people are resources. Let’s say the US was going to annex Canada, would it be good business to kill all the Canadians first, or to take them along with the land?

For the invaders there is certainly more money in wiping out the inhabitants. It's like moving pollution to other countries is very profitable for the business owner.

Please note: I am not advocating these practices.

Throughout history, the countries that rose to displace the old powerhouses did not do so by emulating the old countries' ways. Rather, they found new mechanisms to do what they needed to do. For example, the British did not adopt the Spanish encomienda system when they colonized the Americas or the East Indies.

Insisting that developing countries have to repeat the mistakes of developed countries to develop ignores the fact that finding ways to avoid those mistakes is one of the main ways that countries developed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com