[Lanny_MacDonald]

Gotta question the comprehension of the article or the topic in general. Grab the most sensationalistic part of the article and uses that as the premise for rabble rousing rather than taking the whole topic and article into context. Consider this from the same article.

"I went to my land one morning, and found it had been cleared. All my rubber trees, my plants had been destroyed," he says, fighting back the tears."

Seems one indigineous crop was bulldozed in favor of another, so this impacts the environment in what way? Seems environmentalists have nothing to do with this at all and are actually not in favor of the move at all.

"A report in July by Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieu Defensie) and two Indonesian NGOs strongly criticised Wilmar, a Singapore-listed company, thought to be the world's biggest palm oil company. It accused Wilmar of illegal forest clearances in West Kalimantan, inadequate Environmental Impact Assessments and clearing land outside its concessions. Wilmar denies the allegation."

This appears to be a move by corporate interests, not environmentalism, and acting upon their own greed and not the wishes of the environmentalist community, or those working the lands themselves. Seems the corporate intersts are ignoring the customary claims to the lands and exercizing their ability to crush the peasant of the region.

"The company, a subsidiary of the Indonesian Duta Palma group, did offer Alexander compensation for his land. But Alexander says it is not enough, and that he is yet to receive anything. "Deep in my heart I feel I don't want to let go of my land, but if I have to, they have to pay me," he adds. The villagers say about 25 of their plots were cleared for palm-oil expansion without their consent."

It seems that the people of the region, and the local government itself understands the issue a lot better than the individual who started this thread with evidence that counters his claims.

"There are a lot of greedy companies in the world," adds Agus Purnomo. "We mustn't allow the bad companies to set the tone. We need the good ones to come and set the standard."

And someone had the balls to toss the term "snake oil" on the table? That person should consider the way they twisted the context of the article and used one line in it, which was really irrelevant to the article itself, to try and sell an argument.

On the topic of bio fuels, I think the concept is good one, but in reality it causes more problems than it solves. It may work in North America, where farmers could actually stop being subsidized and paid to plow crops under, but in other parts of the world it is not feasible. When some parts of the world cannot even grow enough crops to sustain their people, bios fuels is not the answer. IMO, bio fuels are only part of the solution, not the whole answer to our energy problems. I still contend that a single consumer energy source (electricity) is the most tangible solution, and would all waste products from food crops (biomass) to be used in energy production. This process is taking something that already exists, and processing or reprocessing it. No extra land is required, other than the power site, and it is even more friendly to environment as we clean up much of the waste products we leave lying around. Also, biomass is useable with almost any waste product, so it can be adapted to any environment and market.

IMO, the greatest problem with environmentalism and corporate interests today is the lack of vision by both sides. They continue to work against each other, rather than with each other and finding solutions to problems that work for a given region and economy. To me, environmentalism is regional, as it impacts the local biosphere first, then the global biosphere. We all have to clean up our act first, and that means become self sufficient in all ways (food production, energy production, etc.). Unfortunately, the all mighty dollar gets involved, and the good in ideas gets corrupted as greed finds its way into the equation.