Is the amount of palm oil being used in these applications even remotely close to the amount being consumed for biofuels?  I don't have the numbers, but I know that cars are super-thirsty compared to almost any other application (how many people can live on a year's supply of ethanol corn?), and petroleum use for non-fuel applications is quite small (plastics is I think less than 5% of total consumption).

My impression has been that the deforestation is being driven 99% by the huge increase in demand caused by biofuels (mostly for Europe).  If (if) that is the case, then wouldn't it be a much more relevant thing to focus on than beating up cosmetic manufacturers for an infinitesimal contribution to the problem?

Although demand for industrial scale biofuels-- or agrofuels-- is the leading cause of expansion of palm oil plantations, the vast majority the vast majority-- over 90%-- of palm oil still goes to food products.

Deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia-- far and away the largest producers of palm oil-- has been going on for decades, driven by market demand and the IMF's structural readjustment policies.Even before biofuels came on the market, palm oil was causing massive rainforest destruction.

America's consumption of palm oil is set to increase with increased demand for palm oil biofuels... but the vast majority of the demand still comes from food and cosmetics. Taking on both of these uses of palm oil is the only real way to make a dent in our consumption of this rainforest destroying oil.

My comment above was meant for Gar Lipow's post about wind...

...but while I'm here, I'd like to point out that the global palm oil industry has been busy destroying ecosystems for over one hundred years.  In fact, it was one of the first exploitations of ecosystems that was not for luxuries -- sugar, tobacco, coffee and cocoa being the big offenders, for hundreds of years now -- that were also the basis for slavery and near-slavery.

I believe margarine was the first big use of palm oil.  As far as I know, it has always been a monoculture crop that has been bad for the ecosystem and the people in whose land it is located.

The Rainforest Action Network's site is fine in many respects.  But it would be useful to include a map.

This is from the site of the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs, in their page on palm oil:

<<
Borneo is home to 13 primate species, 350 bird species, 150 reptiles and amphibians and 15,000 plant species.
Sumatra is home to Sumatran rhinos, clouded leopards, Sumatran tigers, Asian tapirs, Sumatran elephants, and thousands of other species.
>>

Orangutans of course get top billing and much more attention.  But gibbons are present on both islands; there are four genera and thirteen species of these smaller apes, distributed throughout Southeast Asia, but not doing especially well in most places.

The Sumatran rhinoceros is the smallest of the rhinos.  They walk delicately through the forest.  But sometimes traps are laid for them; their horns are smallish, but apparently still considered collectible.

(The somewhat larger Javan rhinoceros, pretty close kin to the Indian rhinoceros, is at this point restricted to two tiny populations, one at the west end of Java, the other in southern Vietnam, so they are probably not bothered by palm oil plantations -- though they have other things to worry about.)

The clouded leopards of Sumatra and Borneo are actually a separate species from the mainland clouded leopards, and are for now being referred to as "Bornean clouded leopards."

There are populations of both Asian elephants and tigers on Sumatra, both dwindling.  Like the rhinos, these animals are small, smaller than others of their kind on the mainland.  And as with the rhinos, poaching is a problem for them, as well as habitat loss.

Malayan tapirs are beautiful animals with soulful frightened eyes.  Their watermelon-striped calves are among the most beautiful babies in the animal kingdom.  There are conservation efforts under way on the mainland in Malaysia.  On Sumatra, at least it has worked in their favor that the human beings, who are Muslim, do not hunt and kill them for food, believing they are pigs -- an accidental benefit of religion.

As for the smaller animals, such as birds, reptiles and amphibians, it should be remembered that very often their ranges are small, so that concentrated deforestation in even a limited area could bring one or another of those species to the edge of extinction.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

but demand for vegetable oils (and animal fats) more generally. Different vegetable oils and tallow are not perfectly substitutable across uses, but there is enough of a degree of substitution in the use of oils and fats in food, for cooking, in soap-making, in cosmetics, and for the production of biodiesel, that the use of one oil (e.g., canola for biodiesel) ultimately has a knock-on effect on the prices of other oils and fats, and thereby the incentive to expand the production of those oils and fats.

So to speak of "the problem of palm oil" is to miss a basic point: it is the problem of global demand for oils and fats that is ultimately at the root of pressure to convert forests to palm-oil plantations or soybean farms.

These are only my personal opinions.

My understanding is that the overwhelming majority is still being used for food and cosmetics, though biofuels is a growth sector. I don't have a percentage off the top of my head.

That should be "global production of biodiesel has grown from around 2.5 million metric tons in 2003 and 2004 to 9 million metric tons in 2007."

(It would be nice if there were an edit option here.)

These are only my personal opinions.

I wonder what the Indonesian, Malaysia, and African smallholders think of this. 3 million of them depend on growing palm oil, and millions more are thinking of stepping into the sector because it lifts them out of poverty like no other sector.

Do the people who have created the site also include an overview of what they will do with these millions of poor farmers? Any relocation plans? Any alternative livelihood schemes?

Or do they just don't care about People and only about Orang Utans?

I'm all for phasing out palm oil monoculture, but only when such a phase-out is socially sustainable.

Let's not forget that the European and American people behind this site live in a culture that destroyed its own biodiversity centuries ago.

What's their advise to the millions of small farmers who depend on palm oil?

Jonas, short-sighted short-term employment for people in the developing world should not be abused as a hostage, in order to silence European and NA critics of deforestation in Indonesia, Brazil, DRC, etc.  Nobody wants the people of those countries to live in hopeless poverty; and to suggest that we do, or that we are selfish, thoughtless and hypocritical, is mean and unfair.

Let us trust that the best thinkers among us ("best" in the best sense of the word) understand the complexities of this corner of globalization, and understand as well that stopping deforestation in those countries will require positive changes for everyone, starting with the poorest, the most vulnerable, those most easily overlooked.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

before us European-types conquered their territories, peoples in developing nations had very sustainable farming systems, and palm oil was imposed with the barrel of a gun, and made possible by something close to slave labor. So the real question is, How do us rich ones help the poor countries return to a self-reliant food system?

In response to Jonas' comment: There are two main ways that palm oil is farmed in Indonesia. The first is through core-- or inti-- plantations which are owned and run by a company. Some local people are hired as harvesters and as people who clear the land, but this only supports a few people in a larger community.

The other type of plantation-- known as plasma plantations-- are small-- generally about 2 hectares-- and are owned by the community members. These are supported by the company, who loan money to the smallholders for seedlings and pesticides. Then the core plantation buys all the palm oil from the smallholders-- which means that they can control the price.

In the core plantations, workers make less than a livable wage, and only a few people in a community can make a living. In the plasma plantations, the workers are held in debt peonage to the core plantations. They can almost never make a profit, and it certainly does not provide real income and support. What it does mean is that these communities have lost their forest and any traditional ways of supporting themselves, and do not have a real way of making money through their plantations.

(Also, for transparency's sake, I work in the Rainforest Agribusiness campaign at the Rainforest Action Network and played a big part in developing The Problem With Palm Oil . org.)

Brihanalla covered much better than I what I was thinking about palm oil production in Indonesia.

As far as "conservation as colonialism" is concerned, I have to say I did laugh out loud at that one -- as for the bbc story, the understanding of how indigenous peoples are actually allies in conservation is now taking hold, as the article explained, and you can always point to some anecdote somewhere to try to argue against a particular policy.  But as Paul Hawken explains in his book "Blessed Unrest", indigenous peoples are now at the forefront of global efforts to save the planet from extermination.

I had to laugh at the "conservation as colonialism" line because it sounds like something a conservative (that is, a right-wing person) would say about conservation -- in both your case and their's, "progress" is being opposed, and since "progress" helps everybody, opposing progress hurts people.  

Now, I have nothing against technological development, in fact I think it is critical to getting the planet out of this mess, but the whole idea of "conservation", the way I understand it, is that conservation is a win for both humans and nature; by preserving nature, you preserve the basis for human survival.  Marx and most other 19th century thinkers didn't seem to understand this.

Another reason I had to chuckle is because in the US, many marxists-turned-conservatives have perfected the art of hurling the term "elitist" at liberals, a term that up until now has been very effective, which is weird because the conservatives are defending wealth and power.  But it occurs to me that this use of the concept of "elitism" was brought over from marxist discourse, and has about as much usefullness -- that is, practically none, because it doesn't help to construct a positive alternative. end of rant.

of manufacturing, not because of raw materials like palm oil, oil, or gas.  That's what development is: manufacturing development.

After watching a discovery show on the rain forest my husband & I began looking at items we had in the house.  We were surprised at the number that had palm oil and being disposing of them.  On another note - If you look at asisn food packages you will be surprised at how many contain Palm Oil.  We no longer buy these as well.

We as consumers have a responsibilty not only to shop safely but environmentally.  What we do does eventually effect others, maybe just not as fast as we like.

Liz

when it comes to conserving the whole?  And when it comes to anthropology, sociology, and economics?

I highly recommend the link Jonas posted: "Cashing in palm oil for conservation".  It is up and is free, so go read it and then see whether the "prohibition" mindset offered by so many big enviro-NGOs (and this original post) is really the only option.

C'mon, people.  Think broadly, and don't get so caught up in the emotional "save the ___" mentality that you think that complex problems driven by huge consumer demand can be solved simply by demonizing a product (and, in turn, a livelihood for many).  What are the alternatives?  Soy?  Heard of Brazilian rainforests?  Olives, canola?  Is there a lot of unused land just waiting for more acres of these crops?  What effects will shifting increased production to these crops do to other crops and available land?

The point I get from the food crisis and oil crisis that we're seeing is that it all comes back to overpopulation and overconsumption.  So until Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace and the rest spend 95% of their time working on those issues with the demographic that causes the biggest impact (their members? and other Americans/Europeans?), their "campaigns" to stop economic activity in developing countries will continue to look like so much neo-colonialism.

I am so tired of "conservationists" that can't seem to do anything but run "campaigns" and call for boycotts and be oppositional.  For gosh sakes, use all that youthful energy and creativity to do something new, something that works, something that might help all the parties involved.  Koh & Wilcove's proposal would do that.  Heck, RAN doesn't even need to think creatively; they could just follow the Koh & Wilcove proposal, run palm-oil plantations in a model sustainable manner, and use the revenues to protect more primary forest.

Until NGOs in rich countries put up the funds to both help developing countries economically and protect the lands that they (and I) consider worth protecting, I'm afraid I can't respect or support their efforts.

Dave

As I understand it there are such NGOs including the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public land and others.  They put their money where their mouth is. I am thinking the answer for the farmers is, like coffee and chocolate, to support Fair Trade Organic sources for palm oil cultivation and sale.  The other option sounds indeed like colonial indentured servitude to the multinational agribiz corporations which probably do not see the need to conserve Orangutans since it does not help their next quarter's profit and loss statement.

The real value of other NGOs who "campaign" on these issues is to educate consumers who can then send those signals through the market and politics about what they favor, in this case, sustainability and conservation of species from the top primate on down.  That is not euro-colonialism, that is enlightened living for a small planet that is pushing the limits of its carrying capacity.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

I've lived in Malaysia for the past 25 years and your article is so factually flawed that its easy to see why Westerners froth at the mouth when writing about this issue.

For one, Malaysia is the world's largest producer of palm oil and can still boast of 65% forest cover after more than a century planting palm oil - certainly much more the 20 or so per cent forest cover found in ALL the countries in the industrial West. That's because, for decades now palm oil planters in Malaysia has been planting only on legitimate agricultural land and because palm oil is the most high yielding oil seed in the world yielding in excess of 4.5 metric tons of oil per hectare compared to the less than 0.5 metric tons of competing oil seeds like soy, corn, sunflower and rapeseed. You see, palm oil is so productive that there is no necessity to destroy the jungle to set up plantations.

It is indeed laughable for you to allege that "the homes of the orangutans and many other rare creatures -- are being destroyed at the fastest rate in history in Indonesia and Malaysia to make way for palm oil plantations, accounting for between four and eight percent of annual global greenhouse-gas emissions."   Whilst it's true that the most recent estimate for the Sumatran Orangutan is around 7,300 individuals in the wild , the Bornean Orangutan population is estimated at between 45,000 and 69,000.  How can the homes of the orang utan and other rare creatures, by any leap of logic or stretch of imagination, be "destroyed at the fastest rate in history?"

I follow the Palm Oil Truth Foundation's website from time to time. I now understand why this site claims that the preservation of western hegemony is the only reason for these irrational attacks against palm oil.