![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
I’m gonna have to nuance that: while palm oil is an environmental disaster, it is in fact the most efficient vegetable oil in terms of land area per ton of finished product. This is because the the plant that produces it is incredibly productive, more than sunflowers or rapeseed.
So changing to other vegetable oils would result in more land area being cultivated overall.
So let me get this straight: they cut down the forest, plant palm trees, harvest it for i guess a few years, and then… plant the forest back? How does that make sense just on any level?
I mean at least i happen to know it doesn’t make sense on an ecological level as a new groth forest is massively different from an old growth forest, so the new forest is no replacement for the old one.
Also i’m not sure if you understand what an argument from ignorance is? It’s not an ignorant argument, it’s a specific type of logical fallacy. The observation that no extractive industry has proven sustainable is a predictor that they’re unlikely to prove sustainable in the future.