Hacker News Reader

Comment by matthewaveryusa | Hacker News Reader

palm oil is the most efficient oil to extract by practically a factor of 2 [1]. So in the long term, if global supply increases or stays stable, if we replace palm oil crops with another crop, eventually we'll make the problem worse and face more deforestation.

Can someone explain why this wouldn't be the case?

[1] according to this http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html

View on HN

I keep trying to ask people this "What do you think the farmers will do if they can't grow oil palms?".

Cause the answer is obvious. They will not stop trying to make a living and working hard to feed their families. No, instead of growing the oil palm they will grow something else. And now we're at best right back where we started, but more realistically we are worse off, because there is a reason the farmers prefer oil palms. It is obviously because they are the most profitable, because they require the least work/land/capital for the most output. So the second best option they will choose for growing will be something that is even worse for the environment and the orangutans!

I believe that with palm oil the issue is that the entire tree is cut down as the oil is inside the core of the trunk. If people were soley using farmed trees, it wouldn't be so bad, but instead people are clearing animal habitats.

The oil is in the fruit of the tree not the trunk, they don't cut down the palms to extract the oil, they cut down the rainforest to make room for the palms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil

Right, thanks for the clarification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com