Palm oil is a very important component of things we use in daily life. About 2/3 of goods bought in the supermarket contains palm oil. What’s more, palm oil is also used as biofuel. Using palm oil as biofuel is environment friendly and it creates employment in less developed countries.
To satisfy the demand for palm oil, there is a great need for palm plantations. Those plantations are not only created from existing farmland , but also by replacing the rainforest! The old trees are sold to paper manufactures. Hence, the first profit is made before any palm tree is planted. By cutting the rainforest the natural habitat of several species is destroyed. Furthermore, cutting trees is badly for the reduction of CO2 emission. To destroy the environment is morally wrong.
On March 17 Greenpeace started a spam action against Nestlé. The same day Nestlé broke a contract with one of his palm oil suppliers, Sinar Mas. Sinar Mas is a company that buys the oil from plantations that have replaced the rainforest. Greenpeace was not completely content, because Nestlé still gets palm oil from Sinar Mas via other suppliers. Competitors of Nestlé, Kraft and Unilever, have already banished Sinar Mas out of their supply chain. Although, in developing countries it’s difficult to trace down the origin of the oil.
The creation of employment in developing countries is morally right. Nevertheless, an argument against this case is the lack of respect for nature. Because the pros and cons have both moral arguments, I see this as a morally hard case.
My conclusion therefore is, with the right way of cultivation, there is enough existing farmland. Consequently, employees can remain their jobs in the palm oil business with respect for nature.
Background article 1
Background article 2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think this case is considered as a political problem. There is not moral issue for each actor. If we want to define the moral issue, the pre-assumption should be that everyone should have the freedom to act. Just when they have freedom they can choose their way of acting. However I don’t see any freedom of choice. For example I don’t think the developing countries can have any alternative to make business.
This problem is not restricted on the actors involved. This long problem is chased to the problem of the past. Although so I think individual cannot solve this problem. The solution is may related to international cooperation, the help of global society. Therefore it can only be solved by political discussion.
Post a Comment