10 ms·

Western boycotts don't affect the palm oil market much because most of the world's palm oil is consumed by India where it is prized for its cheapness, and where

by guelo 8y ago

Western boycotts don't affect the palm oil market much because most of the world's palm oil is consumed by India where it is prized for its cheapness, and where sustainability concerns are dismissed as a western luxury.

ljf 8y ago
Really no harm though in removing our use of it for a food oil or fuel. Do you agree?
Pfhreak 8y ago
Some impact is better than no impact. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  Is it though? I wonder about this a lot. Let's say 100 farmers around the world sell palm oil, for $100 a tub. About half wreck the environment, about half are very careful and replant what they harvest. Western people come in and start to refuse to buy the "environment wrecking" Palm Oil. So they go to the environmental friendly sellers, and start paying $150 for ethical palm oil. On the other hand, people that don't care or places that can get away with it continue to use forest destroying palm oil. There is now a price difference ($100 for normal stuff, $150 for ethical stuff), so most non-western demand shifts to the cheap stuff. End result: Still 100 farmers selling palm oil. 50 being ethical, and 50 not. The 50 unethical farmers still make $100 per tub. The 50 ethical farmers now make $150 per tub. The environment seems no different. The only difference is that $50 got transferred from the banks of wealthy westerners to the ethical palm oil farmers. Which is nice and all, but I am not seeing how it changed anything in the environment. You would need almost EVERYONE to switch to the ethical route for it to do anything. That would cause surplus supply and price drops of unethical palm oil. Even 50% of users switching seems not nearly enough.
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    If there is enough demand, the unethical farmers can move to the ethical side to make the better price.
    - brianwawok 8y ago
      Sure at some tipping point. But in my case the unethical farmers can easily sell the same stuff they already produce, just to a different part of the crowd.
  - fulafel 8y ago
    Your scenario would still fix half of the forest-wrecking, so yes it is. Additionally, there is now an incentive to become an ethical farmer for the remaining half.
    - rymohr 8y ago
      Or there’s an incentive for the unethical farmer to wreck twice as much to make up for the 50% decline in revenue.
    - brianwawok 8y ago
      > Your scenario would still fix half of the forest-wrecking, so yes it is. No, in my scenario only half the farmers were wrecking the forest anyway. That did not change. > Additionally, there is now an incentive to become an ethical farmer for the remaining half. Perhaps, but also higher costs. They may still be less ethical then the unethical farmers.
      - fulafel 8y ago
        Ah, thanks for the clarification. So the gist of your concern is that pre-existing naturally occurring sustainable production might get windfall profits- but and the demand is not enough to change the remaining production. This is analogous to the situation in electricity n markets and hydro production btw. Old hydro dams built in the 50s produce power for customers paying extra for "green power" and the money doesn't go to investments in wind/solar.
fredley 8y ago
A western ban makes it easier to apply international pressure. Not saying it's easy by any means, but it's easier.
sachdevap 8y ago
Could you cite a source for that? India's use of palm oil is at about 15% from what I can find.[0] It's a big number, but not as big as "most" suggests. Moreover, the same source lists that about 95% is used as edible oil. In a country with high poverty, to claim "sustainability concerns are dismissed as a western luxury" is just a statement of fact. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from, it is hard to care for orangutans dying in another country. This is not an excuse for apathy, it is just human nature. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/10/india-palm-oil-sustainability-deforestation-unilever-greenpeace https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/10...
- GordonS 8y ago
  I'd be interested in seeing a source for this too. I happen to have a lot of Indian friends, and I'm a big foodie, so we talk about food a lot. Ghee seems to be the main cooking fat that's used (or coconut oil in the south), although just like we in the West were told to switch away from butter "because health reasons", Indians are told ghee is bad. Rapeseed oil ("canola" for the merkin) seems to be the main one, and Mustard oil gets used quite often too.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    It's not necessarily food, as palm oil is also used in cosmetics etc.
  - Pxtl 8y ago
    Yeah, I work on public health research that includes India and they always ask us the Ghee and Coconut oil questions. Short answer is we don't know. Long answer is I just write the software - ask the boss.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    ("canola" for the merkin) "Canola" is Canadian in origin. In fact, the "Can" in "canola" means Canada.
    - 8y ago
siruncledrew 8y ago
Most of the world's palm oil is being produced in Indonesia and Malaysia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil#/media/File:2013palm_oil.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil#/media/File:2013palm_... India, China, the EU, and Indonesia are among the largest global consumers of palm oil according to this: https://www.palmoilandfood.eu/en/palm-oil-consumption https://www.palmoilandfood.eu/en/palm-oil-consumption Europe reducing their palm oil use at least makes an impact, and should be encouraged. I'm figuring India, China, and Indonesia heavily use palm oil given their geographic proximity to the largest source of palm oil cultivation, which is why it's cheap. More pressure should be put on Malaysia and Indonesia to curb deforestation for the sake of planting oil palms. Further, more pressure should continue to be put on corporate supply chains to decrease their palm oil use. The farmers of these countries are slashing and burning forest land because palm oil is the crop that is in demand. The change has to flow from the top down in order to stop desperate and ignorant suppliers from burning away their own lands and contributing to deforestation and climate change for a few pennies on the dollar.

by guelo 8y ago

ljf 8y ago

Really no harm though in removing our use of it for a food oil or fuel. Do you agree?

Pfhreak 8y ago

Some impact is better than no impact. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

brianwawok 8y ago
Is it though? I wonder about this a lot. Let's say 100 farmers around the world sell palm oil, for $100 a tub. About half wreck the environment, about half are very careful and replant what they harvest. Western people come in and start to refuse to buy the "environment wrecking" Palm Oil. So they go to the environmental friendly sellers, and start paying $150 for ethical palm oil. On the other hand, people that don't care or places that can get away with it continue to use forest destroying palm oil. There is now a price difference ($100 for normal stuff, $150 for ethical stuff), so most non-western demand shifts to the cheap stuff. End result: Still 100 farmers selling palm oil. 50 being ethical, and 50 not. The 50 unethical farmers still make $100 per tub. The 50 ethical farmers now make $150 per tub. The environment seems no different. The only difference is that $50 got transferred from the banks of wealthy westerners to the ethical palm oil farmers. Which is nice and all, but I am not seeing how it changed anything in the environment. You would need almost EVERYONE to switch to the ethical route for it to do anything. That would cause surplus supply and price drops of unethical palm oil. Even 50% of users switching seems not nearly enough.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  If there is enough demand, the unethical farmers can move to the ethical side to make the better price.
  - brianwawok 8y ago
    Sure at some tipping point. But in my case the unethical farmers can easily sell the same stuff they already produce, just to a different part of the crowd.
- fulafel 8y ago
  Your scenario would still fix half of the forest-wrecking, so yes it is. Additionally, there is now an incentive to become an ethical farmer for the remaining half.
  - rymohr 8y ago
    Or there’s an incentive for the unethical farmer to wreck twice as much to make up for the 50% decline in revenue.
  - brianwawok 8y ago
    > Your scenario would still fix half of the forest-wrecking, so yes it is. No, in my scenario only half the farmers were wrecking the forest anyway. That did not change. > Additionally, there is now an incentive to become an ethical farmer for the remaining half. Perhaps, but also higher costs. They may still be less ethical then the unethical farmers.
    - fulafel 8y ago
      Ah, thanks for the clarification. So the gist of your concern is that pre-existing naturally occurring sustainable production might get windfall profits- but and the demand is not enough to change the remaining production. This is analogous to the situation in electricity n markets and hydro production btw. Old hydro dams built in the 50s produce power for customers paying extra for "green power" and the money doesn't go to investments in wind/solar.

fredley 8y ago

A western ban makes it easier to apply international pressure. Not saying it's easy by any means, but it's easier.

sachdevap 8y ago

Could you cite a source for that? India's use of palm oil is at about 15% from what I can find.[0] It's a big number, but not as big as "most" suggests. Moreover, the same source lists that about 95% is used as edible oil. In a country with high poverty, to claim "sustainability concerns are dismissed as a western luxury" is just a statement of fact. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from, it is hard to care for orangutans dying in another country. This is not an excuse for apathy, it is just human nature. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/10/india-palm-oil-sustainability-deforestation-unilever-greenpeace https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/10...

GordonS 8y ago
I'd be interested in seeing a source for this too. I happen to have a lot of Indian friends, and I'm a big foodie, so we talk about food a lot. Ghee seems to be the main cooking fat that's used (or coconut oil in the south), although just like we in the West were told to switch away from butter "because health reasons", Indians are told ghee is bad. Rapeseed oil ("canola" for the merkin) seems to be the main one, and Mustard oil gets used quite often too.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  It's not necessarily food, as palm oil is also used in cosmetics etc.
- Pxtl 8y ago
  Yeah, I work on public health research that includes India and they always ask us the Ghee and Coconut oil questions. Short answer is we don't know. Long answer is I just write the software - ask the boss.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  ("canola" for the merkin) "Canola" is Canadian in origin. In fact, the "Can" in "canola" means Canada.
  - 8y ago

siruncledrew 8y ago

Most of the world's palm oil is being produced in Indonesia and Malaysia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil#/media/File:2013palm_oil.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil#/media/File:2013palm_... India, China, the EU, and Indonesia are among the largest global consumers of palm oil according to this: https://www.palmoilandfood.eu/en/palm-oil-consumption https://www.palmoilandfood.eu/en/palm-oil-consumption Europe reducing their palm oil use at least makes an impact, and should be encouraged. I'm figuring India, China, and Indonesia heavily use palm oil given their geographic proximity to the largest source of palm oil cultivation, which is why it's cheap. More pressure should be put on Malaysia and Indonesia to curb deforestation for the sake of planting oil palms. Further, more pressure should continue to be put on corporate supply chains to decrease their palm oil use. The farmers of these countries are slashing and burning forest land because palm oil is the crop that is in demand. The change has to flow from the top down in order to stop desperate and ignorant suppliers from burning away their own lands and contributing to deforestation and climate change for a few pennies on the dollar.