Palm oil

[inator]

I'm wondering what you all think of the argument made by à bas le ciel against the alleged unnecessary vilification of palm oil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hw02rfVUvs

He argues that if the land wasn't used for this particular crop anymore as a result of people boycotting the product, the land wouldn't just return to its initial state and the ecological impact of farming palm trees wouldn't disappear. For one, higher amounts of other types of oil would be produced to replace it and meet the growing global demand - though in other regions. Also, that land would just be used for another type of crop suited to that particular geographical region.

Although he emphasizes the second argument, I feel like the first one is much stronger.
While the land wouldn't return to its original state, at least we could slow down future deforestation. However, speaking to the first argument, it should be taken into consideration that palm oil is an extremely productive crop which, by some accounts (WWF), yields up to nine times more oil per hectare than its closest alternative. It also requires fewer fertilisers and pesticides than the alternatives.

Wouldn't pushing for higher farming standards be more effective than boycotting palm oil altogether (though I'm aware that the RSPO certification hasn't proved to be reliable)?

[brimstoneSalad]

He argues that if the land wasn't used for this particular crop anymore as a result of people boycotting the product, the land wouldn't just return to its initial state

He misunderstands the concern over palm oil, which is not the demand, but the growing demand, which is prompting these companies to burn down huge tracts of forest.
Palm farming is fine, burning down rain forests is a problem.

He's naive to think these issues can be solved by government regulation protecting the forests in the face of that kind of consumer pressure (and the amount of money involved).
That's like asking the government to ban meat while you're eating big macs. Change must start with consumers, that's the basic principle of ethical consumerism and taking personal responsibility for our actions. We can't wait for anybody to do it for us.

and the ecological impact of farming palm trees wouldn't disappear.

Once the land has already been cleared, that's not really an issue.

That's where "sustainable" palm supposedly comes from. The problem is the fungibility of palm oil, so it's the total demand that matters.
If we don't buy "sustainable" palm oil, then that oil will go to the Asian market instead and displace their purchases of palm grown on virgin land. If we do buy the "sustainable" palm oil, then they'll burn more forests to fill that demand instead.
It's just a cups game to imagine any fungible and limited resource comes in sustainable and unsustainable forms. Like the idea that there are diamonds that aren't blood diamonds. All diamond demand contributes to the ridiculously high market price of diamonds which fuels conflict (as if they could even be tracked).

If total demand were equal to or less than supply (at the problematic price point that results in harm) then it would all be sustainable.

For one, higher amounts of other types of oil would be produced to replace it and meet the growing global demand - though in other regions.

Other regions is the key word. Those forests are massive carbon reservoirs; not just the trees, but the peat they're sitting on. That's the worst land possible to burn and repurpose for human agriculture. Might as well light oil fields on fire.

Then there are also the Orangutans, which tend to get more attention than the greenhouse gas output.

We have plenty of land suitable for growing soybeans, corn, rape, sunflower, etc. for oil production. Even coconut has a broader range than the oil palm, so is a crop which could be expanded into more environmentally suitable farmland (even sandy or salty soil).

Also, that land would just be used for another type of crop suited to that particular geographical region.

The land that's already cleared might be if palm oil demand dropped.
We don't usually hear of forests being burnt down to grow tropical fruit, though. Even if it were, it's the sum total of demand for tropical agricultural products that results in this issue.

While the land wouldn't return to its original state, at least we could slow down future deforestation.

Correct.

However, speaking to the first argument, it should be taken into consideration that palm oil is an extremely productive crop which, by some accounts (WWF), yields up to nine times more oil per hectare than its closest alternative.

That's not accurate.

Here's a convenient table:

http://www.gardeningplaces.com/articles/oil-crops-compared1.htm
That doesn't adjust for yearly harvest. You have to multiply other crops by 2-3. Maybe even 4 for corn.

The only thing it's nine times more efficient at producing oil than is corn.
It only has a margin of about two over the much healthier olive oil (also a tree), and flax seed oil probably beats it in terms of yield adjusting for its time in the ground.

Remember, palm oil is about as good at clogging arteries as is butter.
Palm kernel oil is a little better (more similar in composition to coconut oil), but the tree produces comparatively very little of that.
If you want a healthier saturated fat, your best yield is coconut (still not healthy, but better than palm oil).

I don't regard palm oil as suitable for human consumption, it's really only good for making soap, so the combination of its expansion in its growing region being bad for the environment and being bad for your health makes it something of a lose-lose proposition.

It also requires fewer fertilisers and pesticides than the alternatives.

Where'd you get that?

Wouldn't pushing for higher farming standards be more effective than boycotting palm oil altogether (though I'm aware that the RSPO certification hasn't proved to be reliable)?

Unfortunately, no, unless everybody agreed (and everybody will never do so), due to the fungibility for those who don't care there will always be a market for the palm oil produced on burnt down virgin forests (even if the source could be reliably certified).

What we need to push for is the genetically modified yeasts that will produce these oils from corn feed stock.
Or, companies switching to fully hydrogenated oils from corn, soybean, cottonseed, etc.

Or we should just find ways to make food without so much saturated fat. As to soap, I think current supply can keep up with that as long as we stop eating the stuff and using it as biofuel. I try to avoid palm in general, but I can at least understand using it in soap because that's useful and hygiene has important human utility.

[brimstoneSalad]

I would further point out:

Even if palm oil isn't as serious an issue as we assume, I think the burden of proof falls on us to show that it is not (to show that it's better than butter or lard, for example -- it may not be, and I'm not willing to stake anything on that), particularly where it is so widely reported and criticized.

This is one very common argument carnists make against vegans -- use of palm oil -- to justify animal agriculture; it's arguably a "tu quoque" fallacy (we can discuss that), but being able to say we avoid it stops it in its tracks and makes us better advocates. It shows we aren't irrationally biased against animal products alone, when some plant products can be inordinately destructive too.


EDIT: By the way, welcome back! We missed you around here.

[Jebus]

Brimstone hits another home run. Excellent summary of the palm oil issue.

[inator]

another home run.

Not so fast

That's where "sustainable" palm supposedly comes from. The problem is the fungibility of palm oil, so it's the total demand that matters.
If we don't buy "sustainable" palm oil, then that oil will go to the Asian market instead and displace their purchases of palm grown on virgin land. If we do buy the "sustainable" palm oil, then they'll burn more forests to fill that demand instead.

Well not necessarily. Current average palm oil yields are well below the industry best, and plenty of suitable land is available. That doesn't just mean land that has already been destroyed, but also non-forest land that doesn't have any community use, has low wildlife value and little carbon stored. Growing palms on these open areas could actually offer net carbon savings.

Also, according to the World Bank/IFC, potential for yield improvements is high, especially on smallholder farms, which account for 44 percent of Indonesian palm oil plantations. Smallholders’ yields are often less than half of yields from large-scale producers. Access to capital, incentives to use improved breeds and better management practices could help increase production on these farms.

For example Brazil has been pretty succesfull at increasing agricultural productivity on existing farmland by increasing access to rural credit tied to compliance with environmental regulation.
A similar model could be used in Indonesia, doubled by a higher demand for 'sustainable' palm oil brands that establish strong relationships with their suppliers and incentivize them to increase their yields on non-forest lands.

Balmford et al (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract) found that increases in yield are as important as demand in determining expansion of crop area.

I'm not yet convinced that the best choice for me as a consumer is to create more demand for other types of oils rather than to contribute to a stronger public and market demand for responsible palm oil. This would in turn make sustainable palm oil more readily available and may shift some conflict palm oil consumers to buying sustainable palm oil instead (which could be very helpful IF the fungibility problem is resolved by my arguments above).

But sure, reducing total demand for all oils is best.

We have plenty of land suitable for growing soybeans, corn, rape, sunflower, etc. for oil production.

Similarly to palm oil, suitable open land is not always chosen for these crops either. See the connection between soybean crops and the loss of ecosystems in Latin America. While the majority of those crops is fed to farmed animals, we get the same problem of fungibility. Any extra demand has the potential to result in more deforestation if not managed correctly. Except the yield of soybean crops is lower --> more land needed.

Here's a convenient table:

http://www.gardeningplaces.com/articles ... pared1.htm
That doesn't adjust for yearly harvest. You have to multiply other crops by 2-3. Maybe even 4 for corn.

Here's some data from the World Bank/IFC.
http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/159d ... OD=AJPERES

Another key reason for palm oil‘s dominance in
the vegetable oils market is its inherent
productivity compared with the oil seeds. Oil
palm produces on average four tonnes per
hectare of palm oil, in comparison to other
competitor seeds (soybean, sunflower and
rapeseed; oils) that yield less than 0.8 tonnes
per hectare. (Table 1)

Table 1 is on page 12.

It also requires fewer fertilisers and pesticides than the alternatives.

Where'd you get that?

Also on page 12:

Other advantages of palm oil over oil seeds include
energy efficiency through utilization of its own
biomass as fuel for power and steam generation
in palm oil mills, and the lowest requirement for
inputs of fertilizers and pesticides.

Remember, palm oil is about as good at clogging arteries as is butter.

True, but say I want to buy peanut butter. From a health perspective, I'd rather get the one with some palm oil in it than the one with hydrogenated oils. With respect to what's available on the shelves at the moment, the choice is between saturated fat and trans fat, if I'm not mistaken.
And similar problem with similar products.

What we need to push for is the genetically modified yeasts that will produce these oils from corn feed stock.

Or genetically modified palms that live longer than the typical lifespan, which would reduce the need for removal and replanting of trees and increase the frequency of harvests.

Or, companies switching to fully hydrogenated oils from corn, soybean, cottonseed, etc.

With similar negative health effects (saturated fat) and lower yields.

Or we should just find ways to make food without so much saturated fat.

That would be nice.

[inator]

I would further point out:
This is one very common argument carnists make against vegans -- use of palm oil -- to justify animal agriculture; it's arguably a "tu quoque" fallacy (we can discuss that), but being able to say we avoid it stops it in its tracks and makes us better advocates. It shows we aren't irrationally biased against animal products alone, when some plant products can be inordinately destructive too.

We could also just say that we avoid conflict palm oil (if we reach the conclusion that that's the best thing to do as opposed to avoiding all palm oil). If the meat eater lacks trust in the difference between the two categories of oil, we can discuss that issue separately in more detail.

EDIT: By the way, welcome back! We missed you around here.

Gracias! I'll try to write here more regularly from now on.

[brimstoneSalad]

We could also just say that we avoid conflict palm oil (if we reach the conclusion that that's the best thing to do as opposed to avoiding all palm oil). If the meat eater lacks trust in the difference between the two categories of oil, we can discuss that issue separately in more detail.

If there were a reliable way to do that, that could be viable. I don't feel capable of adopting such a burden of proof to defend current systems.
It's much easier just to avoid it.

So, I think the argument is pretty much academic. Like the concept of cruelty free eggs and milk from hypothetical super-humane no-kill sanctuary-like farms.

Systems in place have a long way to come before that will be a strong argument, and I don't necessarily think they'll ever get there (I think biotechnology will beat them to the punch, if it's even possible for them to get there).

True, but say I want to buy peanut butter. From a health perspective, I'd rather get the one with some palm oil in it than the one with hydrogenated oils.

Partially hydrogenated oils which are high in trans-fats are being phased out.
There are options both with no added oils (just peanuts and salt), and there are options with fully hydrogenated oil.

So, the choice is between NO added fat, trans fat added, saturated fat added from fully hydrogenated oils, or saturated fat added from palm oil.

I've seen all of those options side by side in the peanut butter section of large grocery chains. Although maybe not trans fat, since that's being phased out. That's getting harder to find.

Consumers have already spoken, but in the U.S. the FDA is actually banning partially hydrogenated oils. They'll be phased out in the next two years.

Or genetically modified palms that live longer than the typical lifespan, which would reduce the need for removal and replanting of trees and increase the frequency of harvests.

That could help too. Is somebody working on this?

Or, companies switching to fully hydrogenated oils from corn, soybean, cottonseed, etc.

With similar negative health effects and lower yields.

They aren't just yielding oil and then throwing away the rest of the crop, though. Oil is a byproduct from most of these industries.
Oilpalm primarily yields oil.

You can probably guess that cottonseed oil is a biproduct of cotton farming (along with feedstock left over after the cotton fiber and the oil are removed).
Likewise, for corn and soybeans, there's a larger yield of protein and starch. For corn, once the oil is pressed, the high starch 'waste' can be used as feedstock for ethanol production, and then a high protein yeast-corn substance is produced.

Industry wastes very little. Oilpalm just produces little else of value aside from the oil.

Or we should just find ways to make food without so much saturated fat.

That would be nice.

I saw some sandwich cookies (non-name brand Oreo) that were made with canola oil (non-hydrogenated) instead of palm. I think food scientists are working on it. This is the kind of effort we should really support, over alternative saturated fats. We'll all be better off in the long run getting palm oil out of our diets.

Well not necessarily. Current average palm oil yields are well below the industry best,

That's an important issue. IF we could manage to double yield through better practices, the best way to encourage those persistent practices was to buy the product/pay more for it (above market rate) and track them, AND in doing so we only considered the increase in yield to be 'sustainable' rather than the whole thing, there might be an argument there.

Farmers are already incentivized to increase their yields though, that already doubles their income. What they probably need is upfront investment, not the promise of greater returns on their investments when they don't have the money to put into it anyway. Offering to pay them a little more later after they go 'sustainable' doesn't necessarily help much. It's particularly unhelpful when we force them to spend a substantial amount of that money on "fair trade" practices for their workers. I'm skeptical of the increased margins for the farmers themselves, and I don't think that's necessarily useful.

That doesn't just refer to land that has already been destroyed, but also non-forest land that does not have any community use, has low wildlife value and little carbon stored. Growing palms on these open areas could actually offer net carbon savings.

How much of that land is there, and why aren't we exploiting that land now exclusively instead of forest?
I suspect it has to do with upfront cost, and greater difficulty of growing oilpalms on that land.

If it's fundamentally more expensive to grow oilpalms on that land and it couldn't be dumped into the normal oil market due to higher cost of production, that could solve the fungibility issue with respect to Asian consumers. But is that really going to be enough to satisfy demand for sustainable palm oil? Or do consumers after Sustainable palm oil just run out of it and start buying unsustainable palm oil labeled sustainable as a marketing gimmick (like the current racket) again?

Also, it sounds like a lot of this expansion is into cattle grazing land. What's the cost of that? I doubt people are eating less meat. Maybe they're just tearing down or burning down more virgin forest somewhere else to graze cattle or grow soybeans to feed to cattle after losing this land to oilpalm.

Even the land shuffling could be a shell game.

For example Brazil has been pretty succesfull at increasing agricultural productivity on existing farmland by increasing access to rural credit tied to compliance with environmental regulation.

That sounds good, but does that have anything to do with us as ethical consumers?
Farmers and countries are already incentivized to do this in the current market.

A similar model could be used in Indonesia, doubled by a higher demand for 'sustainable' palm oil brands that establish strong relationships with their suppliers and incentivize them to increase their yields on non-forest lands.

It sounds like these things are being done either way, and that we can apply social and political pressure without increasing overall demand for palm oil (for all the good said pressure does, I think a boycott does more to just stop the industry's expansion for our sake).

The argument for the lesser evil of supposedly 'sustainable' palm sounds very much like the argument for buying "happy meat" to promote "better" animal agriculture. It's possibly based on the idea that the consumer doesn't get a seat at the table unless he or she is buying in, as though that seat means anything (if you're buying in, the industry already has your money and you're indicating satisfaction with the practice).
We have the choice to just opt out entirely, and I don't think there's any reason to believe that't not better.

If only the increase in yield were considered sustainable (instead of the whole yield), and only for a limited time, and the premium on sustainable oil funded loan programs (so they actually helped increase supply of standard market palm oil), that might be something else.
But if these practices aren't competitive, they aren't going to gain ground without subsidization, and I don't see that being very effective altruism.

This would in turn make sustainable palm oil more readily available and may shift some conflict palm oil consumers to buying sustainable palm oil instead (which could be very helpful IF the fungibility problem is resolved by my arguments above).

Or we can demand products without palm oil, which will also make those products more readily available.
I don't think the vast majority of consumers are going to switch unless it's cheaper.

There's no nutritional reason we should be eating the stuff.

The only thing that would really make it a true good was if it was definitively increasing the supply of standard palm oil. And since increasing that supply is a matter of loans and education, not purchases (which increases the demand instead), there's no reason to buy it. If we wanted to, we could contribute to loan programs and sustainability without buying, and it would do a lot more good (although I question the cost/benefit there).

Otherwise, it's like adding an arbitrary tax to diamond purchases, for example, to save lives and offset the blood cost of diamonds. The good is not inherently related to the purchase. It's more of an indulgence payment in attempt at recompense.

But sure, reducing total demand for all oils is the safest route.

For all palm oil, at least. We do need to eat, and non-tropical oils are a good option nutritionally. Particularly healthy ones like canola, which is mostly grown in Canada and China. ( http://www.research.bayer.com/en/canola.aspx )
Even olive oil is pretty good, in terms of it's high yield of monounsaturated fats.

Similar to palm oil, suitable open land is not always chosen for these crops either. See the connection between soybean crops and the loss of ecosystems in Latin America. While the majority of those crops is fed to farmed animals, we get the same problem of fungibility.

We have to eat something, and we need a protein source. Soybeans are far more efficient for that purpose, particularly if we aren't feeding them to animals (which veganism precludes).
It's not a great comparison, since that actually provides something much more valuable to human beings than saturated fat.

The combination of the high environmental cost and low human value are what make palm oil a bad wager.

Switching from Any extra demand has the potential to result in more deforestation if not managed correctly. Except the yield of soybean crops is lower --> more land needed.

For oil, not for protein and other yield. Most of these crops give us many things at once.
Soybeans in particular hold much more value in their meal after oil extraction than the oil itself.

With each ton of crude soybean oil, approximately 4.5 tons of soybean oil meal with a protein content of about 44% are produced. For each ton of soybeans processed, the commercial value of the meal obtained usually exceeds that of the oil . Thus, soybean oil meal cannot be considered a by-product of the oil manufacture. The soybean is, in this respect, an exception among oilseeds.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0532e/t0532e02.htm

You have to factor in other products of the plant and time from seed to harvest, and other crops that can be grown on the same land in different seasons.

Other advantages of palm oil over oil seeds include
energy efficiency through utilization of its own
biomass as fuel for power and steam generation
in palm oil mills, and the lowest requirement for
inputs of fertilizers and pesticides.

You can do that with almost any crop. The difference with something like soybeans is that the rest of the bean biomass is actually valuable as a product. You can use the stems and leaves, though there's not much left to them.

Corn stover, as it's called, probably has even more potential as biofuel feedstock:
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q4/purdue-study-shows-potential-for-growth-in-biofuels-from-corn-stover.html

I'm not sure where the article sourced the other claim. It says:

10 Teoh, C. H. 2004. ―Selling the Green Palm Oil Advantage?‖
Oil Palm Industry Economic Journal 4: 1.

Maybe you can find the link, I have to go pretty soon and a quick search didn't take me to anything definitive.

Perennial agriculture does have some advantages with respect to inputs, but I'd expect the same from olive trees, and soybeans are actually nitrogen fixing. Crop rotation is another good way to reduce inputs.

[Jebus]

The vet gave me a sample of Sunshine Factor for Doby. Is that a good brand? What red palm oil do you use if any?

Hi rentdresucq. Welcome to the forum. I really hope you write an introduction post as I am curious. Why are you an ostrovegan? Why are you a Muslim? Why do you want red palm oil? I don't know if it's all a joke but would like to know.

[brimstoneSalad]

The vet gave me a sample of Sunshine Factor for Doby. Is that a good brand? What red palm oil do you use if any?

Hi rentdresucq. Welcome to the forum. I really hope you write an introduction post as I am curious. Why are you an ostrovegan? Why are you a Muslim? Why do you want red palm oil? I don't know if it's all a joke but would like to know.

It's a spammer. Search Google for the original text, and you can see it's randomly copied from another forum. I think this kind of Spam bot is more sophisticated, and slowly amasses random and borderline incoherent posts by copying posts from other forums with the same key word, then... profit?
Maybe they post links in their signatures once they have enough posts.

It gets past the e-mail limit and possibly the ban too by putting periods randomly in the email address:

Like this:
b.o.ris.1.9.8.0se.cen.ov@gmail.com
b.o.ris.1980.s.ece.n.o.v@gmail.com

Thus multiple spam accounts from the same e-mail address. I don't know if I can do anything about it.

[inator]

Sorry for the delay.

There are options both with no added oils (just peanuts and salt)

Thanks for the tip, I found one with no added oils. The texture is not quite the same but I think it's actually better. Still, the palm oil/hydrogenated oil dilemma remains for other products.

Consumers have already spoken, but in the U.S. the FDA is actually banning partially hydrogenated oils. They'll be phased out in the next two years.

That's great. The EU doesn't seem to be doing as well, except for Denmark and very few other countries. There are recommendations for a maximum of 2% of trans fats in products, but nothing legally binding.
The labelling is pretty awful too. I haven't seen many labels that differentiate between partially hydrogenated and fully hydrogenated, so I prefer to avoid them completely.

So, I think the argument is pretty much academic.

Maybe it was so around 2005 when the main recommendation was to boycott palm oil. But some progress has been made since then and now few agencies are still recommending that course of action. Better to get palm oil production right to avoid leaking the issue elsewhere to another commodity.

Farmers are already incentivized to increase their yields though, that already doubles their income. What they probably need is upfront investment, not the promise of greater returns on their investments when they don't have the money to put into it anyway. Offering to pay them a little more later after they go 'sustainable' doesn't necessarily help much. It's particularly unhelpful when we force them to spend a substantial amount of that money on "fair trade" practices for their workers. I'm skeptical of the increased margins for the farmers themselves, and I don't think that's necessarily useful.

I'd say their interest is to increase total production with fewer costs, which is usually easier done by deforesting new land than by managing the plantations better. Farmers who follow the standards are actually pushed to increase their yields simply by not being allowed to deforest new areas (and by getting more support/revenue).
I think "fair trade" is a different certification. "Sustainable" is mainly about increasing yield on non-forest land (by selecting better breeds and managing the crops better) as far as I've seen.

If it's fundamentally more expensive to grow oilpalms on that land and it couldn't be dumped into the normal oil market due to higher cost of production, that could solve the fungibility issue with respect to Asian consumers. But is that really going to be enough to satisfy demand for sustainable palm oil? Or do consumers after Sustainable palm oil just run out of it and start buying unsustainable palm oil labeled sustainable as a marketing gimmick (like the current racket) again?

That + increased yields on already destroyed land. There's a lot of room for more of that before we run out of sustainable palm oil. Why would companies spend more money on sustainable palm if the people who care about sustainability aren’t buying it and instead leak the issue to other oil generating crops?
I know that tracing the source of the palm oil is difficult. The EU seems more serious about it than the US right now, I hear you don't have any agency regulating "sustainable" labels. International certifications by specific organizations are better, you could look out for those.

Also, it sounds like a lot of this expansion is into cattle grazing land. What's the cost of that? I doubt people are eating less meat. Maybe they're just tearing down or burning down more virgin forest somewhere else to graze cattle or grow soybeans to feed to cattle after losing this land to oilpalm.

Even the land shuffling could be a shell game.

That's a possibility, I'll look into that. At first glance I found that Indonesia is planning to buy Australian cattle grazing land, which makes sense.

They aren't just yielding oil and then throwing away the rest of the crop, though. Oil is a byproduct from most of these industries.
Oilpalm primarily yields oil.

You can probably guess that cottonseed oil is a biproduct of cotton farming (along with feedstock left over after the cotton fiber and the oil are removed).
Likewise, for corn and soybeans, there's a larger yield of protein and starch. For corn, once the oil is pressed, the high starch 'waste' can be used as feedstock for ethanol production, and then a high protein yeast-corn substance is produced.

Industry wastes very little. Oilpalm just produces little else of value aside from the oil.

Sure, since we don't live in a vegan world and animal feed must be produced, then by all means, let's consume the oil resulting from those crops. And we already do.
But say we replaced our consumption of palm oil and therefore raised the demand for other types of oil above the amounts necessary to meet the demand for other by-products destined for human and animal consumption. We still end up in a situation where we need to grow a certain crop exclusively for the oil. And future GMO solutions aside, the most efficient yield atm is that of palm.

I doubt there'd be a difference between palm oil and soybean/rapeseed oil in terms of by-products use if we seeked to replace our palm oil consumption with other oils.

EDIT: Found this:

http://www.unep.org/pdf/Dec_11_Palm_Plantations.pdf

The oils form 10 per cent of the total dry biomass produced by the
palm, but the 90 per cent left might be a source of fibre and
cellulosic material for second-generation biofuel production
(Basiron 2005). Production of biodiesel from oil palm has
been increasing in recent years, particularly in Africa and
Latin America (FAO 2010; Mitchell 2011).

It sounds like these things are being done either way, and that we can apply social and political pressure without increasing overall demand for palm oil (for all the good said pressure does, I think a boycott does more to just stop the industry's expansion for our sake).

This is not a choice between buying palm oil vs buying no oil. The question is whether the fungibility issue can be resolved so that responsible palm oil can be considered better for the environment than other types of oil we might buy.

The argument for the lesser evil of supposedly 'sustainable' palm sounds very much like the argument for buying "happy meat" to promote "better" animal agriculture. It's possibly based on the idea that the consumer doesn't get a seat at the table unless he or she is buying in, as though that seat means anything (if you're buying in, the industry already has your money and you're indicating satisfaction with the practice).

No. "Happy meat" still involves a breach of ethics, health concerns and even more environmental damage than with intensive farming. We can replace the nutrition we'd get from it with much better sources - from all three points of view.

"Happy palm oil", on the other hand, would mean less environmental damage than the alternatives. And unless the other oil isn't hydrogenated (which is rare), we get the same health risk.
Mt point is this: conflict palm oil - probably more environmentally damaging than alternatives. Responsible palm oil - probably less environmentally damaging than alternatives (due to better yield).

By alternatives I mean soybean, rapeseed and sunflower oil, since these are the main competitors. Olive oil and cottonseed oil are far behind. We could arguably increase the production of olive oil by growing crops in areas less suited for it than the fairly limited Meditereean region, though I'm not sure.
As for cotton, I imagine the industry probably already produces as much cotton as the market demands. Producing anything more than that would mean farming cotton strictly for the oil, which makes little sense due to yields.

We have the choice to just opt out entirely, and I don't think there's any reason to believe that't not better.

I'd definitely put in the effort to opt out and choose other oils (like I have until now) if I had some clear indication that that's the best thing to do.

I'm not sure where the article sourced the other claim. It says:

10 Teoh, C. H. 2004. ?Selling the Green Palm Oil Advantage??
Oil Palm Industry Economic Journal 4: 1.

Maybe you can find the link, I have to go pretty soon and a quick search didn't take me to anything definitive.

http://palmoilis.mpob.gov.my/publicatio ... 1-teoh.pdf

I think this is it and their source is FAO. There's a table on page 24.

Or genetically modified palms that live longer than the typical lifespan, which would reduce the need for removal and replanting of trees and increase the frequency of harvests.

That could help too. Is somebody working on this?

There's quite a lot of research in this direction.
http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealtime/ ... antations/

Meanwhile the challenge should be to close the yield gap between the average plantation output (3.5t), compared to the best known natural varieties that produce up to 3-4 times as much with good management practices .