Malaysia intends to present orangutans to nations that import its palm oil. The move aims to allay concerns that palm oil production is often linked to the destruction of the endangered apes’ habitats.
Malaysia has said it plans to present orangutans to major palm-oil-importing countries with the aim of boosting its credentials as a conserver of biodiversity.
The Asian nation is the world’s second-largest producer of the widely used commodity, whose production is blamed by environmentalists for fuelling the destruction of the great ape’s habitats in both Malaysia and Indonesia.
The move comes after the EU last year approved a ban on importing commodities, like palm oil, that are linked to deforestation.
Malaysia says the ban has been introduced to protect the bloc’s own oilseeds market.
Why?
From the article:
Because 1) orangutans are only one of the hundreds of thousands species affected by deforestation, and 2) catching, transporting and confining animals in zoos is hardly an improvement to their life: apes are social animals who live in large groups in large habitats, they suffer in zoos. 3) this is the commodification of sentient beings, ironically the very species they pretend to wanting to help. Greenwashing at its finest.
Orangutans aren’t social like most apes are, but your other points are right on.
That’s a quote from Malaysia’s commodities minister, so I don’t know if you can trust it. The article also says
Any statement that boils down to “this extractive industry is environmentally sustainable” is massively suspicious. I don’t trust that statement at all. I don’t buy that you can produce palm oil on that scale while respecting nature.
Well IDK how it’s done with Palm oil, but AFAIK what is meant by sustainable, is that the area is regrown, that’s how we do with forestation here too. And that’s been grown and harvested sustainably for many decades.
Basically you are putting forward what is called an argument from ignorance.
So let me get this straight: they cut down the forest, plant palm trees, harvest it for i guess a few years, and then… plant the forest back? How does that make sense just on any level?
I mean at least i happen to know it doesn’t make sense on an ecological level as a new groth forest is massively different from an old growth forest, so the new forest is no replacement for the old one.
Also i’m not sure if you understand what an argument from ignorance is? It’s not an ignorant argument, it’s a specific type of logical fallacy. The observation that no extractive industry has proven sustainable is a predictor that they’re unlikely to prove sustainable in the future.
Your argument from ignorance is that you don’t understand how palm oil can be sustainable, and because you don’t understand it, you think it must be unsustainable.
Without having read the article, I’m not sure I buy that it’s as sustainable as they say.
Argument from ignorance is pretty worthless and nothing more than a baseless opinion, which you are of course free to have.
What, does it say something different, assuming you read it? Generally speaking, third world palm oil production is unsustainable, because how could it not be with weak rule of law.
If it pertains to capitalism it’s unsustainable by default.
Bullshit, capitalism has nothing to do with it, it’s all about the regulation. Communist Soviet Union polluted way more than their capitalist counterparts by every measure, because their regulation sucked.
Yes, totalitarianism also has endless growth problems…