About this iReport
- Posted February 24, 2013 by
- Palmhugger Follow
Location
New York City, New York
New York City, New York
More from Palmhugger
- The Rainforest Action Network in the pantheon of cheats on palm oil!
- The Rainforest Action Network sells out again…on palm oil!
- The Nobel Peace Prize to the EU made trite by the EC!
- RAN joins the ranks of doomsayers and cranks on palm oil: Disproven and Debunked
- RAN starts to limbo lower now in their attacks on Palm Oil
Is the EPA Acting in Bad Faith Over Its Palm Oil Based Biofuel Emissions Savings?
The Wikipedia description of bad faith is that of “double mindedness or double heartedness”, but some would say that the EPA have showed a lack of both heart and mind recently as they attempted to impose their mandate to extend to the environmental practices in foreign countries. The agency have ascribed palm oil based biodiesel with an emission saving level of just 17%, making it slightly less than the 20% threshold which is required in order to qualify as a biofuel.
How the EPA came to this conclusion is anyone’s guess because it certainly does not match up with real world test results. Researched published in peer reviewed journals, and carried out by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board show results that are completely shows up the bad faith of the EPA. This research shows that palm oil based biodiesel produces a greenhouse gas saving of 60.4% when it is produced without methane capture; this is the same type that was assessed by the EPA. With methane capture the results went as high as 74.7%.
The EPA has apparently based their results largely on assumptions, which if they took the time to check, they would have discovered were inaccurate. Assuming that changes in land use for the cultivation in palm oil would result in CO2 emission of up to 57% is wholly inaccurate because this does not take into account the effects the oil palm plantations will have on the environment, acting as planted forests.
The method of calculation used by the EPA in determining palm oil’s emission savings level means that they have double counted emissions output from palm oil production as some of this has already been accounted for in Malaysia’s commitment to the UNFCC ((see nc2.nre.gov.my)
It would appear that the EPA’s results were based on selective science, guesswork, and the desire to protect America’s own edible oilseeds. This violation of WTO rules will not help their relationship with nations such as Malaysia and Indonesia, which are strategically important to the US and many in these countries are already beginning to view the EPA in a negative light.
The general suspicion now is that, just as with the EC in Europe, the EPA in the US is making efforts to protect its own oilseeds which are unable to compete against the high yielding palm oil. The inherent yield of palm oil is 4 to 5 metric tons per hectare, which is almost ten times the yield of soy. In addition to that, the palm oil yield curve appears to be on an upward climb while many American oilseeds have reached their peak. All these make palm oil a marked commodity which cannot be stopped through open competition but through surreptitious and dishonest ploys and schemes such as these.
There is little doubt that the EPA is influenced by green groups such as the Rainforest Action Network which have been campaigning against palm oil for several years now. These green groups are getting funding from governments with an ulterior motive - the protection of their own indigenous oil seeds.
The reality is that palm oil production is not land intensive. The green groups do their best to convince everyone that large amounts of deforestation are required for palm oil when the truth is that it simply does not. In allowing themselves to be influenced in this way by the green groups, the EPA are not only showing bad faith, they are showing no backbone, and in the process have discredited themselves.
Note: About Inc Society of PalmHugger: We are made up of professionals and individuals with a great passion for the truth.
We are biologists, creative designers, engineers, business men and women, professional tennis players, stay-at-home moms, retirees, college students, filmmakers, journalists, communication experts. You name it!
Our goals are all the same – to advance the cause of truth through better and wider dissemination of true palm oil environmental news and views, assisting in CSR initiatives, or developing programmes for advocacy and lobbying of palm oil environmental matters, always with an emphasis on truth.
Who we are not: We are not politically linked to any political parties. We are also not donor nor profit driven. Every single cent raised through our initiatives are channeled back to fund Palmhugger programmes that require financial assistance. www.Palmhugger.org
How the EPA came to this conclusion is anyone’s guess because it certainly does not match up with real world test results. Researched published in peer reviewed journals, and carried out by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board show results that are completely shows up the bad faith of the EPA. This research shows that palm oil based biodiesel produces a greenhouse gas saving of 60.4% when it is produced without methane capture; this is the same type that was assessed by the EPA. With methane capture the results went as high as 74.7%.
The EPA has apparently based their results largely on assumptions, which if they took the time to check, they would have discovered were inaccurate. Assuming that changes in land use for the cultivation in palm oil would result in CO2 emission of up to 57% is wholly inaccurate because this does not take into account the effects the oil palm plantations will have on the environment, acting as planted forests.
The method of calculation used by the EPA in determining palm oil’s emission savings level means that they have double counted emissions output from palm oil production as some of this has already been accounted for in Malaysia’s commitment to the UNFCC ((see nc2.nre.gov.my)
It would appear that the EPA’s results were based on selective science, guesswork, and the desire to protect America’s own edible oilseeds. This violation of WTO rules will not help their relationship with nations such as Malaysia and Indonesia, which are strategically important to the US and many in these countries are already beginning to view the EPA in a negative light.
The general suspicion now is that, just as with the EC in Europe, the EPA in the US is making efforts to protect its own oilseeds which are unable to compete against the high yielding palm oil. The inherent yield of palm oil is 4 to 5 metric tons per hectare, which is almost ten times the yield of soy. In addition to that, the palm oil yield curve appears to be on an upward climb while many American oilseeds have reached their peak. All these make palm oil a marked commodity which cannot be stopped through open competition but through surreptitious and dishonest ploys and schemes such as these.
There is little doubt that the EPA is influenced by green groups such as the Rainforest Action Network which have been campaigning against palm oil for several years now. These green groups are getting funding from governments with an ulterior motive - the protection of their own indigenous oil seeds.
The reality is that palm oil production is not land intensive. The green groups do their best to convince everyone that large amounts of deforestation are required for palm oil when the truth is that it simply does not. In allowing themselves to be influenced in this way by the green groups, the EPA are not only showing bad faith, they are showing no backbone, and in the process have discredited themselves.
Note: About Inc Society of PalmHugger: We are made up of professionals and individuals with a great passion for the truth.
We are biologists, creative designers, engineers, business men and women, professional tennis players, stay-at-home moms, retirees, college students, filmmakers, journalists, communication experts. You name it!
Our goals are all the same – to advance the cause of truth through better and wider dissemination of true palm oil environmental news and views, assisting in CSR initiatives, or developing programmes for advocacy and lobbying of palm oil environmental matters, always with an emphasis on truth.
Who we are not: We are not politically linked to any political parties. We are also not donor nor profit driven. Every single cent raised through our initiatives are channeled back to fund Palmhugger programmes that require financial assistance. www.Palmhugger.org
- TAGS:
- oil,
- palmhugger,
- palm,
- hugger
What do you think of this story?
Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
Be and editor! Choose an option below:
iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.
© 2013 Cable News Network. 
Comments