Boycott palm/soybean oil to help GLOBAL WARMING. Read grocery store labels!

Why? Because palm and soybean oil are also used to make biofuels. Tropical rainforests are being destroyed to get the land to grow these products.

There are A LOT of prepared foods, crackers, cookies, cereals, frozen products etc that contain palm oil. Buying it in our processed foods is adding to this problem. I doubt shunning it in the grocery store will solve the problem but it will contribute toward a solution.

I also encourage you to write your favorite processed food maker and ask them to stop using it in their product. Not only is it a hidden transfat (because it's usually hydrogenated) but it contributes to global warming.

Lastly, I encourage you to contact your congresscritters and senators to demand they pass laws requiring more fuel efficiency from car makers rather than passing laws about ethanol or other biofuel because the current generations of biofuel are worse for the planet than gasoline is.





The original article on this is here
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/27/109

And thanks to chaska who first posted that article here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=524731&mesg_id=524731

olive, rapeseed, cottonseed, canola and sunflower oil will all work I think and are not in competition with biofuels. Peanut oil isn't either but they can't use that for processed goods because peanut allergies are more common and are deadly.

This won't make an enormous difference, but calling attention to what is happening with first generation biofuels, being in direct competition with food, is important IMHO.

Land that would have been used to grow soybean oil will just grow another type of oil.

BTW it is still being a biofuel when consumed by humans. It is converted to energy while creating Co2 emissions in the human body.

That's not the big problem. The problem is that there is no regulatory or legislative limit on how much of the food supply can be diverted into gas tanks. The more of it we use to fuel cars, the less there is left over to fuel people. And it's interesting that the relationship isn't symmetrical. Given that pretty much all the arable land in the world that's usable for crops is already in use, then every 1% of the world's oil use we replace with biofuel reduces the food supply by 12%. The calculations that lead to this conclusion are here.

I don't know how much land but I know it's still in the US budget.

We also don't generally farm suburban acreage - instead we spend billions upon billions on fresh water, herbicides and fertilizers to grow just the perfect grass and passing laws outlawing synthetic grass to save on all that poison into the ground water.

is not grown to the exclusion of other foods. It is a byproduct of our immense meat production. When biodiesel production surpasses the excess soy oil from beef production you will have a case. The Common Dreams article is from the UK, which has different circumstances than the US.

Personally, I don't eat foods with soy or palm oil if I can help it, but I drive on biodiesel every day.

Bill

the reality as far as i can tell is that prepared baked goods are just all-round awful for your health and apparently for the tropics as well

soybean is a cheap animal feed that has no real place in the human diet, other than soy sauce, and to extract naive people from their dollars by making them pay a lot of money for a cheap animal feed and pretending it's somehow healthy

yeah whatever

However, I don't think boycotting soybean or palm oils will have much effect. Better to boycott all biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) and start a letter-writing campaign to the Congresscritters.

I have a very critical article on crop-based biofuels here. In it I calculate that if we took ALL the world's food and turned it into fuel we'd end up with just 8% of the oil we consume on a daily basis. Crop-sourced biofuels are such a bad idea from virtually every perspective that promoting is should be regarded as a crime against humanity. Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.

Given that cellulosic ethanol and algae-sourced biodiesel aren't yet available, while Peak Oil is here now, the only thing to do is to start conserving. Drive less: take the bus, buy a smaller car, walk, cycle. Start getting used to not driving while that is still a choice rather than a necessity. Boycotting soy and palm oils will make you feel better, but driving less will actually accomplish something.

First off, we are currently producing a massive surplus of soybeans in this country. Rather than letting them sit idle, why not actually turn them into biodiesel? Gee, let's just not help those small farmers:eyes:

Oh, and there is at least one company that is making biodiesel using algae feedstock<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/new_company_to.php> Sure, let's not encourage them to produce a fuel that can indeed fulfill all of our transportation needs:eyes: Or we can discourage this company also<http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10381404> Oh, and what about all of us who are taking old used fryer oil, and recycling it into biodiesel? Are we simply supposed to let all that oil go to waste, with even more energy used in its disposal?

Conservation is a great, wonderful practice, something that we should all be doing in any manner that we can. But we've also got to face the fact that as any sort of modern society, we have got to have a non petrol fuel source for our transportation needs. Biodiesel, especially biodiesel from an algae feedstock is the best alternative going. Boycotting biodiesel simply means that we'll pollute more, use more petrol based fuel, and when we do go over that cliff, we will have absolutely no net to catch our fall.

Boycott biodiesel, yeah, that's a real bright idea:eyes: Which oil company are you employed with?

I have no real problem with using small quantities of residual crops for fuel, especially in highly localized and specialized circumstances. The problem I'm concerned about is the way biofuels are being sold to the public as a general solution (by none other than your idiot President) when in fact there is no way they can fulfill that role. Even a cursory look at the net energy calculations shows that crop-based biodiesel and ethanol are much lower on the energy food-chain than petroleum, and in their present forms don't alleviate GHG emissions nearly as much as their proponents at first hoped.

The problem is that petroleum is about to start going away, and the decline is more apt to be fast than slow. This is going to result in enormous public pressure to obtain fuels from any source possible. The fact that they have already heard about crop-sourced biodiesel and ethanol means that this is where the first pressure will be applied, much to the delight of agribusiness.

What the public does not understand is that issues of scale will force an immediate and severe arbitrage between food prices and fuel prices - the scale of fuel energy realistically available from food stocks is at least an order of magnitude lower than required. This appears to be the case even when the as-yet-unrealized panacea of cellulosic ethanol is taken into account. My preliminary number-crunching indicates that if the USA were to reclaim 2 tonnes of agricultural waste every year from each of it 470 million arable acres, and was able to process all that into ethanol (at the conversion efficiency of 70 gallons per tonne quoted by Iogen), it would replace about 10% of the oil you currently consume. The cost, of course, is the removal of most of the organic material required for the maintenance of soil fertility. This could be improved by using non-agricultural biomass of course, but it would still require the costly transportation and processing of billions of tons of material.

Algal biodiesel is in a worse situation. At least Iogen has a cellulosic ethanol pilot plant up and running, but if you look at the links you posted, you will see that the biodiesel facilities they promote are still R&D plants. There is no commercial algal biodiesel plant in operation anywhere, even at the pilot stage. This means that commercial availability is still years away, and it also means that the commercial viability of the process, its net energy and any constraints on its applicability (location, input requirements, waste disposal requirements etc.) have not been determined. We have no way of knowing if it will work yet.

Research into both of these energy sources must continue, but the problem we are facing is that there is a good chance the world will need to replace 2% or more of our oil consumption, compounded every year, starting within three to five years. That means finding an additional 25 billion gallons of oil equivalent every year. The current and projected sources of biofuels won't fill that need. They will fill some of it, but I doubt it will be more than a smallish fraction.

This is the reason that I promote conservation over biofuels. Conservation can realistically save the world a compounding 2% per year, at least for the next decade or so. In combination with biofuels this may fill the gap for a while longer. However, if we undertake to bridge the entire gap using biofuels (i.e. American and European lifestyles remain non-negotiable) we will rapidly run into the problems of low net energy and food/fuel tradeoffs.

My message is fourfold:

1. We need to educate ourselves as to the scale of the problem and the scales of the proposed solutions. This requires a degree of both skepticism and numeracy.

2. We need to be aware of the global consequences of trying to pound a too-big nail with a too-small hammer (e.g. we may economically induceother nations to damage their ecosystems by growing fuel for rich nations, therby doing net harm to the global ecosphere).

3. We need to be on guard against the soothing reassurances of politicians, economists and agribusiness that all will be well if we simply let the invisible hand do its work. That way lies industrial corn ethanol, large-scale soybean diesel and third-world famine.

4. We should all ask ourselves, "What will I do if it turns out there is no "Deus ex Machina" for this unfolding energy crisis?

Biodiesel using algae as the feedstock can indeed provide for all of our transportation fuel needs. <http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html> In addition to providing a fuel feedstock, this algae can be used as a natural way of treating wastewater, a practice that many treatment plant are already using, and have done so for decades now. In addition, aquaculture and growing this algae can revitalize our small farm economy. Wow, what a horrible, horrible thing:eyes:

Please, inform yourself before you go speaking of that which you know little about. Boycotting biodiesel here in the US is the height of stupidity.

You're suggesting we boycott palm and soybean fats/oils because they are also used as biofuels? By that same logic, we should stop eating corn - which I'll assert is FAR more prevalent in processed foods than palm/soybean oil. Oh, and boycotting processed foods in general is a good idea, not just those that contain x-y-z ingredients. We would all be better off if we learned scratch cooking.

I, for one, am thankful for palm shortening. It is an unhydrogenated (transfat free) solid fat. It means I can still make pie crust without relying on butter alone, and without using lard.

I agree that biofuels are a significant environmental concern. But boycotting one use of a natural resource in an attempt to stop an unrelated and questionable use of it just doesn't make sense to me.

But it's naturally hydrogenated and high in saturated fat.

I thought I'd mention that in case you use it often thinking it's not a saturated fat--it is! And if you already knew that, forgive me--I'm just looking out for your heart! :hug:

(p.s. Virgin coconut oil is also highly saturated but its effects seem to be neutral rather than harmful (if it's not hydrogenated during processing, which adds trans fats)... I've never cooked with it but I would guess it might taste okay in a fruit pie crust if not a quiche.)

Sat fats aren't verboten in our home, though we use them in small amounts. Butter is really the only sat fat we use daily (on toast), and I'm too busy for pie these days, but I have hope for the future.

I've thought about coconut oil, but I've found it prohibitively expensive. I'd love to taste what it does to a crust, though. Mmmm... banana cream pie w/ a coconut fat crust? Sounds pretty delish to me!

So do a lot of my relatives. So, pardon my mixed feelings. These issues are amazingly complex. Bio-fuels were developed as alternatives to petroleum, yes, but also as a way to use the surplus of soybeans farmers raise because of subsidies, university ag types, and transnational corps who encourage them to raise these crops. Then, the farmers get stuck when people boycott, or the latest bio-tech experiment doesn't pan out, or whatever drives prices down.

So, my advice is to write your congresscritters first, then do your best to find local or at least responsible sources for these products. A lot of nice, Midwestern farmers grow soy, with no intention whatsoever to harm the rain forest.

Oh, and ethanol, the most commonly used biofuel, is made not of palm or soy, but corn (mostly).

Damned complicated world!!

On edit: And buy locally grown specialty crops, especially if you live in areas with large commodity production. If farmers see a profit being made in selling carrots and celery, they might diversify away from such dependence on corn and beans. That would do a lot of good!!

for local growers, look here: localharvest.org

But it gets worse. As the forests are burned, both the trees and the peat they sit on are turned into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times as much as petroleum produces. I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.

I was putting B20 into my VW TDI and feeling all warm virtuous, until I read the palm oil study.

I suddenly realized that we are facing an enormous danger in the marketing of biofuels. People have been sold this fuzzy notion that biofuels are somehow "The Answer" to both global warming and oil depletion (or as it's being sold, "energy independence"). As long as this meme stays embedded in our culture there is no incentive for individuals to refuse crop-based biofuels or to agitate for more restrictive legislation. Instead, all the agitation is for more: more fuels, more research, more subsidies, more crops devoted to fuel. It is not in the interest of either agribusiness or politicians to kill the goose that's laying the golden turds.

Even Dems don't know the truth about biofuels. I don't. Looks like the person mentioned below has done a great deal of research on the subject. Her report is supposed to be coming out soon. We all need to watch for it and spread it around.

Kind of looks like about the only reliably clean options we have are solar and wind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=524731&mesg_id=532405

There is a company that goes around and collects all the used oil from all the restaurants on the island, and then they convert it into biofuel and sell it. No palm oil, all recycled oil... no rainforests harmed in the making.

It's a nice idea, but how much good does it really do?

Info about the company is here: http://www.biodiesel.com/aboutPacBio.htm

"The small scale, economically feasible Maui operation was recognized by biodiesel authorities nationwide as one of the first commercially viable biodiesel plants in the U.S. In 1997, Japanese businessman Soichiro "Sol" Yoshida contracted Pacific Biodiesel to design and build a similar plant for his Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise in Nagano, Japan. (That plant now processes used cooking oil from 60 restaurants, producing biodiesel that completely powers one KFC restaurant as well as many cars, trucks, and industrial engines.)"

And it seems Maui has more plans for biodeisel to produce electricity. Currently, the electricity is about $.27 per kw/h - very expensive, and they use 94% fossil fuels in their current production. This looks like a step forward although they're talking about importing the dreaded South American palm oil initially...

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47573

But it doesn't touch at all on biodiesel using algae as the feedstock. This is the biofuel that holds real promise. Clean, renewable, a boon to small farmers, and gee, can help treat wastewater.

Yet somehow all biodiesel is supposed to be a bad thing:eyes: I get the distinct impression that there's a lot of misinformation on this subject out there floating around.

second only to water vapor. Anything that burns (as in, oh, let's say biodiesel) contributes to global warming. Some fuels are worse than others however. Of course.

What's more, there are two effects not commonly known about by the general public at this stage.

One is the fact that dark colors (forests, bodies of water, algae fields) increase global warming by the very fact that they are dark colored. This is the reason we should all be going to light colored roofs in the future (there are other reasons too). The science actually seems to suggest that we'd be better off without trees in temperate zones - the rain forest on the other hand must be protected at all cost. (NO ONE is recommending that trees be cut down to decrease global warming)

Another little known effect is "sun dimming". Dirty fuels actually provide some shade for the earth and thereby decrease global warming. So which is better, biodiesel or regular diesel? Seems obvious, but maybe not. The point is we just don't know enough yet.

I'll say that again: We just don't know enough yet.

Solar, wind, geo-thermal, wave and tidal generated power, as well as others I'm likely forgetting, all seem like safe bets. And I think biodiesel from domestic (especially recycled) sources is a good start, but we must prevent at all cost the importation of biofuels from any country with a rain forest. Please, let's all get behind that.

I don't pretend to be an authority, but Monbiot is right, we must not let our governments lead us down the wrong path like they did when they set us on the petro-path (over the electric path). It looks pretty clear though that the electric car is our best long term treatment for the problem. "Treatment" not "solution"; there is simply no way we will be able to continue on as we do now, in the post-petrol era.

Sorry I don't share your view.

Bill

The forced choice of petroleum or biofuels is a logical fallacy. It's like asking whether you would prefer to be beaten with a stick or an iron bar. The proper answer is, "Neither, thanks."

you yourself introduced the choice in your previous post. I merely said that I don't agree with your decision.

Bill

they don't call it agricultural desert for nothing

i've seen wild flowers and wild birds in land grazed by cattle, i don't see wild flowers or wild birds in land where soy is grown because it is sterile

but we've got plenty of wildbirds around here--cardinals, bluejays, blackbirds, meadowlarks, robins, goldfinches, purple finches, purple martins, bluebirds, kestrels, hawks, hummingbirds, and on and on. I go birding all the time. As to wildflowers, they don't generally grow in fields with row crops, be it beans, or corn, or millet or what have you. The way row crops are cultivated keeps other plants from growing in the fields. Plenty of wild flowers in the hedge rows and ditches, though.

I've lived in soy bean country nearly all my life, and never heard the term "agricultural desert". And trust me, this is not a desert.

Soybeans themselves are actually a great crop for improving soil quality. All folks who are knowledgeable about organic, sustainable agriculture practices highly recommend growing soybeans as a cover crop, to be tilled back into the soil as "green manure"(same with winter rye and others). It is only when you don't practice proper crop rotation, industrial farming methods, and spray on massive quantities of chemicals that the land underneath soybeans becomes sterile. But really then, that's true with any crop, for it isn't the crop, it's the practices and chemicals that do the sterilizing.

the US grows huge amounts of soybeans to feed the meal to cows for beef production. The oil left is used, among other things, to cook, to make biodiesel, and to make a non-petroleum foam insulation. Some of the oil is discarded. So at present we are not making biodiesel out of soy that is grown instead of food. IIRC, palm oil biodiesel is rare in this country. I've never seen any, and I've been running biodiesel since March 2003. I've never seen any imported biodiesel, personally. However, I have made it from used cooking oil (for farm tractor use only, I pay my road taxes).

Anyway, you might want to start by boycotting meat, as it uses 17 times the land need for equivalent veggie protein.

I agree that rainforest deforestation is not a good thing, I just wonder if you are painting with too broad a brush.

Bill

NEED meat. :eyes:

Critters
vegetarian 7 years
vegan 3 weeks (but so far, so good)

Sure meat is bad. But I really think it's the case that there are too many humans. And the reason there are too many humans is because oil has allowed our population to grow to far in excess of what could be sustained without oil.

In any case, we all need to do whatever we can in our own lives to help the situation. Less, or no, meat is a great way to start, as is planting a vegetable garden.

the source in the OP is from the UK. They have different sources for biodiesel, as they don't own Iowa.

Bill

So I guess we're already boycotting.