What ingredient can be found in more than 50 percent of consumer goods and is all at once innocuous-sounding, environmentally deleterious and increasing in production?
For some, the answer will be vehemently decried. “Oil!” they’ll shout, remembering the mammonism of that shameful enterprise.
But though oil does indeed fit most of the above criteria, I elaborated on the wide reach and hard grasp of that nefarious industry earlier this semester. Instead, a similar, almost equally destructive force comes to mind this week as a ripe and worthy environmental issue: palm oil.
In its most prevalent form, palm oil is used as cooking oil, but it is also found in a multitude of other products. Its recently discovered commercial versatility is what has made palm oil production skyrocket since the 1980s, now accounting for more than 65 percent of all global vegetable oil trades.
Now, rapid development of a high-value crop is not always a bad thing, but when that crop is principally produced via unscrupulous means, as is the case with palm oil, it most certainly is.
Palm oil is mainly harvested in Malaysia and Indonesia, where its foremost production measure involves torching rain forests, which are then replaced with vast monocultural plantations.
Deforestation is an abomination (to no one’s surprise), but what’s more is that it is now considered the only viable way to increase palm oil production. And even worse, the deforestation is being conducted on such a colossal scale that it decimates the natural habitats of some critically endangered species.
To get a sense of just how big of a role deforestation plays in palm oil production, consider the recent report that found that by 2020, Indonesian palm oil plantations will be releasing more carbon dioxide emissions per year than the entire nation of Canada.
And in terms of natural habitat destruction, the increasing development of palm oil plantations is beckoning in the extinction of the Sumatran tiger, rhinoceros and orangutan, three critically endangered species native to the Indonesian rain forest.
Striking as all of this may be, there is still hope for the future of palm oil. Initiatives emphasizing the need for more sustainable palm oil production measures are springing up as consumers and environmental groups pressure companies to modify their practices.
One initiative is the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which was formed in 2004 to promote more sustainable palm oil measures by implementing global standards and engaging stakeholders from all parts of the industry.
More compelling, though, activists across the globe targeted the multinational corporation Unilever for manufacturing palm oil-intensive goods in 2008. Conservation organization Greenpeace spearheaded the campaign, for which members dressed as orangutans flooded Unilever’s London, Rome and Rotterdam headquarters in protest.
Their efforts were successful, too. Not long after the orangutan inundation, Unilever released a statement citing its new plans to draw all its palm oil from “sustainable” sources by 2015.
Whether palm oil production can be truly sustainable is a bigger question for a longer column, but Unilever’s willingness to adjust business practices based on consumer pressure is nonetheless an important change that should not go unnoticed.
What Greenpeace’s protests and Unilever’s resulting action showed us is that multinational corporations are not always the rapacious, exploitative and manipulative entities we sometimes portray them as.
Of course, there will always be some bad apples, but with the right amount of public disapproval, companies cannot afford to keep their ears shut when it comes to consumer preferences.
That being said, I propose it’s time MU took its own stand against palm oil in the form of an institutional boycott, at least to rid us of conventionally harvested palm oil products. The evidence is indisputable: Palm oil is disastrous for our environment. Why, then, shouldn’t we exercise our influence by demanding more sustainable alternatives?
Missouri Students Association senators, student organizations and anyone else who thinks MU has the capacity to further their sustainability initiatives should work to bring the notion of a palm oil-free campus up for serious discussion.
Originally published in The Maneater
No comments:
Post a Comment