Thomas Robert Malthus was an English political economist and demographer who analyzed population growth and noted the potential for populations to increase rapidly, and often faster than the food supply available to them. Commentators often refer to such a runaway scenario, as outlined in Malthus's treatise An Essay on the Principle of Population, as a "Malthusian catastrophe".

Planetary scares of one kind or another have been with us for quite some time now.  It was a mere 30 or so years ago when we were told that the ultimate Malthusian nightmare was upon us - an unstoppable population explosion would inexorably lead to mass global starvation. (i)

Shortly after, we were warned by the Club of Rome, supported by large numbers of scientists and the main stream media that the world was fast running out of natural resources and consequently, world economic growth would grind to a halt. (ii)

In the early to mid-seventies, when the world’s temperature appeared to be falling, many “eminent weather scientists” warned that the world was facing another ice age. (iii)

The latest scare, global warming is no less hysterical.  “Environmental organizations” like the grossly misnamed Greenpeace and the Friends of the Earth (FOE) have been at the forefront of the “battle against global warming”.  The trouble with the actions of Greenpeace and FOE is that they discredit the entire environmental movement with their irrational and often baffling positions.  

Take their increasingly demented diatribes against palm oil, probably one of the most eco-friendly of oilseed crops.  Accusing palm oil of causing massive deforestation and thus contributing to global warming, Greenpeace and FOE called for restrictions to the growth of palm oil exports.

The trouble with their position, and this is obvious to even the casual observer, is that palm oil happens to be the MOST productive of all the oilseed crops!  With a typical yield of 4.5 metric tons per hectare, palm oil outstrips the productivity of its nearest competitor soy, by close to TEN times!  What this means is that palm oil requires TEN times LESS land than its competitors to produce the same amount of edible oil!

How can it then be credible for Greenpeace and FOE to claim that palm oil is causing massive deforestation?  If we look at the situation in Malaysia, which had been the world’s largest producer of palm oil for more than a hundred years, the country can still boast of 65% forest cover.  If planting palm oil for more than a hundred years can still leave the country with 65% forest cover, this seriously erodes Greenpeace and FOE’s spurious claims!

It is also well established that palm oil is inherently healthful packed chockfull with heart friendly nutrients like Co-Enzyme Q10, beta-carotenes and toco-trienols (a superior form of Vitamin E).  Its high productivity also ensures its popularity with multinational food manufacturers and processors in view of its price competitiveness.

In fact, in the view of Deforestation Watch, it is precisely these virtues and the high productivity of palm oil that could be attracting all these flak from “environmental organizations” like Greenpeace and FOE.  It is well known that these organizations require funds to continue their operations.  It is pertinent to ask: “Could Greenpeace and FOE be hired guns by some competing oilseed lobby, to keep palm oil cultivation from further expansion?”  If so, this is a gross abuse and misuse of the environmental agenda for an illegitimate cause!  THE END.

References
(i)   P Ehrlich, “The Population Bomb”, 1968; also W&P Paddock, “Famine: 1975”, 1967
(ii)  D Meadows, et al., “The Limits to Growth”, 1972.
(iii) Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World”, Newsweek, 28 April 1975