I know bullshit when I see one. Dr Yusof Basiron, CEO of Malaysian Palm Oil Council wrote in the NST earlier:
Malaysia utilises 90 per cent of its agricultural land for rubber and oil palm, which are essentially planted forests yielding timber and fibre in addition to rubber and oil as co-products. They contribute significantly to biodiversity as both rubber and oil palm behave as forests. In industrial countries, biodiversity on agricultural land is rarely mentioned. [The palm-oil advantage in biofuel, NST, Feb 24 2007]
Though the article has many valid points, especially on carbon neutrality of palm oil, it asserts that rubber and palm oil plantation contribute to biodiversity is downright absurd.
Consider for instance the biodiversity of a kilometer square of untouched Borneoan rainforest versus a kilometer square of palm oil or rubber plantation. Between the two, which would have more species of flora and fauna per kilometer square?
Any basic sampling will prove the former is richer in term of biodiversity. Therefore, how does converting rainforest into monocultural plantation plots contribute to biodiversity?
Surely, conversion reduces biodiversity.
In my opinion, if the article needs to be effective in convincing concerned individuals and groups that such plantation is sustainable, the article needs to prove that rubber and palm oil plantation-related deforestation does not occur. Alleging monocultural plantations lead to greater biodiversity does not help convince people like me that deforestation related to plantation activities does not occur. It sounds as if the article is defending such conversion!
In fact, such absurd assertion regarding biodiversity amounts to intellectual dishonesty at best, a lie at worst.