Skip to main content

Palm oil plantations


Yesterday I wrote here on palm oil plantations. My point was that their creation at the expense of forests has bad effects, such as has justified the EU in barring palm oil from such plantations as imports. 

The bad effect on which I focused then involved the greenhouse issue of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and the value of "carbon sinks" such as forests.  This equates to the dis-value of their removal even if "temporary" while the commercially preferred sort of vegetation grows in.

At any rate, I also mentioned that there are other problems with such plantations. One of those other problems is water pollution. Here is a fact sheet: https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/is-palm-oil-harming-the-environment  

The gist of the water pollution problem is an excess of nutrients in the run off, run as Palm Oil mill effluent, or POME.  This leads to algae blooms in bodies of water downstream, which depletes oxygen levels, which creates dead zones where marine life (fish and coral cannot survive.  In short, POME disrupts the food chain.  

Have cheery thoughts for the rest of your day. Our final "science week" post tomorrow will be completely different. 

Labels:

Comments

  1. BelindaOctober 18, 2025 at 2:05 PM

    My husband was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease four years ago, and despite medications and therapies, his symptoms worsened. Last year, we tried an herbal treatment program from NaturePath Herbal Clinic. Within a few months, his alertness, coordination, and energy improved significantly, and he regained much of his independence and confidence.
    If you or a loved one is struggling with Parkinson’s, I highly recommend their natural approach: www.naturepathherbalclinic.com
    info@naturepathherbalclinic.com

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
22 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...
Post a Comment
Read more