[quote]Quote:
Huge soya farms financed by Cargill, the largest privately owned company in the world, are the rainforest’s new worst enemy . . .
On the ground, what was once a thriving ecosystem supporting at least 300 tree species for every hectare, is now a wasteland. Dead roots and dry grass crunch underfoot and the breeze throws up dust from eroded soil. . .
Brazil has overtaken the United States as the world’s leading exporter of soya. . . . Brazilian soya beans are feeding Europe’s growing hunger for cheap meat substitutes, and have overtaken logging and cattle ranching as the main engine of deforestation. . .
In the past three years, nearly 70,000 square kilometres of the Amazon rainforest have been destroyed. The smoke from burning trees pushed Brazil into the top four of global greenhouse gas producers in 2004. Despite commitments from the government of President Lula da Silva, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest continues. . . there was a 32 per cent decrease in the rate of deforestation last year. . .
news.independent.co.uk/environme … 181617.ece [/quote]
Very clever bit of smearing.
Does Cargill own the farms? Does Cargill farm the soybeans? No and no. What is Cargill responsible for? Building a silo to transport soybeans from farms that it does not own, buying produce from farmers that it does not control, all in accordance with local rules and regulations. It does, however, loan these farmers money. So just how much of the devastation of the Amazon is Cargill responsible for given that it is not the one farming? And it is not the one responsible for dealing with any illegal farming? Why doesn’t the Brazilian government enforce its own rules? Why did the Brazilian government allow Cargill to build this site to transport soybeans? Why does the Brazilian government not stop Cargill from providing loans? How important are those loans to these farms? Would they not exist without these loans? Apparently so, since they were already engaging in extensive farming of soy beans which is precisely why Cargill decided to build the silo near this area? Right?
And if you are so interested in the exacerbation of deforestation why are you worried that there has been a 32 percent DECREASE in the rate of deforestation?
As to global warming. You have suggested that by buying soybeans from these farmers that Cargill is responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions but are these not caused by the farmers themselves engaging in slash burn tactics? and given that you are so critical of this practice would you also be critical of any environmental groups who have caused similar destruction? advocating policies that lead to vast increases in the rates of greenhouse gas emissions? I ask because…
[quote]PALM OIL: PANACEA OR ENVIRONMENTAL NIGHTMARE
Compiled by Ruth Rosenhek from Wetlands International and various other sources
Just a few years ago, politicians and environmental groups in the Netherlands were thrilled by the early and rapid adoption of “sustainable energy” achieved in part by coaxing electrical plants to use biofuel, in particular, palm oil from Southeast Asia.
Spurred by government subsidies, energy companies became so enthusiastic that they designed generators that ran exclusively on the oil, which in theory would be cleaner than fossil fuels like coal because it is derived from plants. But last year, when scientists studied practices at palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia, this green fairy tale began to look more like an environmental nightmare.
The drive for “green energy” in the developed world is having the perverse effect of encouraging the destruction of precious tropical rainforests. Oil palm plantations destroy bio-diversity and are associated with human rights violations and worker exploitation. Millions of hectares of rainforest in Borneo, Sumatra and Malaysia have been cleared to accommodate oil palm plantations. Companies are now turning to peat swamp forests, the preferred home of the orangutan, one of man’s closest relatives.
Peatlands store more carbon than any other terrestrial ecosystem. Peatlands cover over 400 million hectares of land, which is only about 3% of the global surface of land and fresh water. However, they store huge quantities of organic material, equivalent to approximately 2,000,000 million tonne CO2; comparable with 100 years of the current emissions of fossil fuels. The lowlands of humid tropical forests in Asia areas are endowed with extensive peatlands; in these areas the peat soils store 30 times more carbon comparable than stored above ground in normal rainforests.
Millions of hectares of peatland rainforests are being logged and drained, particularly for oil palm and pulpwood plantations. The situation is exacerbated by annual peat fires covering millions of hectares. This leads to huge emissions of carbon dioxide fuelling the greenhouse effect. It is estimated that the great forest fires in Indonesia of 1997-1998 resulted in carbon emissions equivalent to 30-40 percent of all emissions from burning fossil fuels in the world that year. Indonesia is now considered one of the major carbon polluters on the planet.
New alarming figures about Indonesia Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics have calculated the emissions from peatland areas in Indonesia on the basis of soil and land-use data, including comparison of comprehensive field data on peat depth and carbon contents. This recent study shows that over the last years, there has been an average annual emission from peatlands of an alarming 2000 Million tonnes CO2 including 600 Mt from decomposition and 1400 Mt from fires. This is more than the CO2 emissions from India or Russia and almost three times the German emissions on an annual basis.
Unrestrained biofuel expansion will accelerate, not slow down climate change, as rainforests and peatlands are converted to energy crop monocultures and release their carbon in the process. Recently a new biodiesel plant has opened in Darwin. Most of the palm oil it will use for its biodiesel is being imported from SE Asia. More than 26% of all Indonesian oil palm concessions are on peatlands, and similar figures apply to Malaysia. It is estimated that production of one tonne of palm oil will result in an average emission of 20 tonnes of CO2 from peat decomposition alone - not taking into account the emissions from fire and other CO2 emissions during the production cycle.
The rampant deforestation associated with the spread of oil palm plantations has had a devastating effect on animal species. The orangutan, Sumatran tiger, Sumatran rhino, Asian elephant and numerous other incredible species are threatened with functional extinction in the wild within the next two years if nothing is done to curb destruction of the rainforest.
the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) promises to “promote the growth and use of sustainable palm”. Unfortunately, the RSPO is a relatively new and voluntary organisation and has yet to implement the criteria by which oil palm plantations will be deemed sustainable. Even more serious, the RSPO has not determined how the criteria will be enforced or monitored.
The Kyoto protocol, allows western countries to reach their emission targets by helping to reduce the emissions in the third world countries (Clean Development Mechanism). However, the Protocol excludes the emissions from soil and (degraded) vegetation and limits itself to reducing emissions from industry, housing, traffic and agriculture. As a result there is little or no attention for peatland degradation, a huge cause of global warming. [/quote]
rainforestinfo.org.au/climat … lm_oil.htm
So would you like to hold the environmentalists to the same standards of conduct that are holding Cargill? I mean if Cargill is responsible for all of these terrible things because it buys soy beans from these farmers, are not these environmentalists also responsible for designing policies and incentives that promote palm oil and aren’t those who buy this palm oil then equally culpable for any destruction caused? Just curious to see how you will “balance” these moral considerations…
My bad… I forgot to include the link. Very sorry…