According to a 2011 report by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), deforestation, primarily the clearing of forest land for agricultural activities, was estimated at a rate of 13 million hectares per year between 1990 and 2005. Deforestation results in the immediate release of carbon stored in trees as CO2 emissions, a direct cause of climate changes.
So what do cookies have to do with global warming?
One of the main ingredients in cookies is palm oil (sometimes disguised on the ingredient label as “vegetable oil”). The popular vegetable oil has come under fire due to the environmental damage palm oil companies cause through massive deforestation of the rainforest, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. According to a 2011 ProForest report for the UK Government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), in 2009 the UK imported a total of 643,400 mt (metric tonnes) of palm oil. The food industry uses approximately 68% of the total import of p. oil. Combined with the 23% used for animal feed, the food sector as a whole consumes more than 90% of imported palm oil. Now here come the cookies – they make up the bulk of this, probably using over 20% of the total import of p. oil.
Palm oil and its derivatives have been criticized in recent years for the damage they cause to tropical forests, mainly in Indonesia and Malaysia. Palm oil companies use forest land as palm plantations. The felling of trees to produce oil and sell wood has a negative impact not only on the environment, but also on the animal species that inhabit these forests. At the same time, global demand for edible oils has been increasing, dragging down deforestation rates. In 2004, the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was created with the aim of establishing a sustainability standard and certification system to ensure that palm oil production is regulated and damage to the environment is minimized. of the tropical forest and its inhabitants. However, RSPO statistics for 2010 show that only around half of the globally available certified palm oil was purchased in 2010, raising questions about the effectiveness of the system.
Would palm oil companies and their massive deforestation practices be willing to stop at a REDD traffic light? In 2008, the United Nations launched its Collaborative Program to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD Program) with the aim of empowering developing countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) while promoting forest conservation and sustainability among local people. communities The UN defines REDD as “a cutting-edge forestry initiative that aims to tip the economic balance in favor of sustainable forest management.” The international community officially recognized the initiative at the 2010 Cancun Climate Summit, and participating countries pledged to invest $30 billion between 2010 and 2012 in REDD initiatives. In June 2011, the UN-REDD Program Policy Board committed an additional $8.7 million to fund global activities to support national REDD+ efforts.
REDD initiatives can earn carbon credits through their ability to extract and store greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the atmosphere. Each REDD carbon credit is equivalent to removing one metric ton of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere. These REDD carbon credits could be the profit alternative that can see palm oil companies eliminate deforestation and instead focus on conserving the forests they own while generating income through REDD carbon credit sales. .
An interesting recent study by Oscar Venter of the University of Queensland sought to compare the profits from palm oil and timber sales that a company would make against its revenue if it sold REDD carbon credits and committed to conserving the rainforest. The study focused on the forested region of Kalimantan, Indonesia, where deforestation has caused outrage among environmental groups. Oscar Venter and his team calculated the number of potential REDD carbon credits the plantation can produce and estimated that if each credit can be sold for $10 (£6), conserving the forest could be more profitable than clearing the land for oil palm. .
Such an implementation, while it may seem like a good solution, is sure to raise concerns and build resistance among e.g. oil companies, which have already invested significant amounts in establishments and production processes. But the positive impact of the potential shift from forest consumption to conservation, combined with a compatible income, will provide a more comprehensive business practice that benefits all parties involved: companies, local communities and the environment. This may finally allow palm oil companies to have their cookies and eat them too.