[Submitted] Greasing Palms

[Verdant Haven]

I am aware of issue 685 which touches on Palm Oil production, and believe this is distinct enough to stand alone.

[TITLE] Greasing Palms

[VALIDITY] Poor economy, at least a moderate environment

[DESCRIPTION] With @@NAME@@'s economy facing significant struggles, agricultural interests are pushing for permission to commence slash-and-burn clearing of land for the profitable but controversial practice of oil palm farming.


[OPTION 1] "The benefits are vast, and so is the profit margin" asserts agribusiness foreman @@RANDOMNAME@@, "and don't pretend we couldn't use the cash! Those fat cats in the United Federation and other rich countries are hungry for palm oil, and our job seekers are so desperate we can pay next to nothing! I mean sure, we have to cut down more trees every few years as the soil is exhausted, but the oil palms we're planting replace them, right?"

[EFFECT 1] palm oil has proven to be a slippery slope


[OPTION 2] "Wrong!" hollers activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, gasping for breath after pedaling @@HIS@@ bicycle all night to reach @@CAPITAL@@ in time. "Not only are oil palms insufficient to replace native vegetation, but they destroy habitat for the Orange-Tinted @@ANIMAL@@ too! Slash-and-burn farming produces huge carbon emissions, and what good is profit if your people are kept poor? It's an unsustainable business model. You must ban palm oil production from @@NAME@@, before it's too late!"

[EFFECT 2] government press releases remind citizens "the trees are more important than you"


[OPTION 3] "Sustainability, eh? That might work as a compromise" muses obscure government bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Let's create a series of requirements for sustainable palm oil production, mandate good worker conditions, and establish a new government watchdog to perform annual inspections on each producer. If those rich nations want us to do their dirty work, make them pay a fair price! We can fund the sustainability program with a tax on this new industry, right?"

[EFFECT 3] the slogan "We charge more because we care" is failing to lure foreign buyers

3rd Draft:

[TITLE] Greasing Palms

[VALIDITY] Poor economy, at least a moderate environment

[DESCRIPTION] With @@NAME@@'s economy facing significant struggles, agricultural interests are pushing for permission to commence slash-and-burn clearing of land for the profitable but controversial practice of oil palm farming.


[OPTION 1] "The benefits are vast, and so is the profit margin" asserts agribusiness foreman @@RANDOMNAME@@, "and don't pretend we couldn't use the cash! Those fat cats in the United Federation and other rich countries are hungry for palm oil, and our job seekers are so desperate we can pay next to nothing! I mean sure, we have to cut down more trees every few years as the soil is exhausted, but the oil palms we're planting replace them, right?"

[EFFECT 1] palm oil has proven to be a slippery slope


[OPTION 2] "Wrong!" hollers activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, gasping for breath after pedaling @@HIS@@ bicycle all night to reach @@CAPITAL@@ in time. "Not only are oil palms insufficient to replace native vegetation, but they destroy habitat for the Orange-Tinted @@ANIMAL@@ too! Slash-and-burn farming produces huge carbon emissions, and what good is profit if your people are kept poor? It's an unsustainable business model. You must ban palm oil production from @@NAME@@, before it's too late!"

[EFFECT 2] government press releases remind citizens "the trees are more important than you"


[OPTION 3] "Sustainability, eh? We can do that" muses obscure government bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Let's create a series of requirements for sustainable palm oil production, mandate good worker conditions, and establish a new government watchdog to perform annual inspections on each producer. If those rich nations want us to do their dirty work, make them pay a fair price! We can fund it out of the profits they claim we'll see."

[EFFECT 3] the slogan "We charge more because we care" is failing to lure foreign buyers

2nd draft:

[TITLE] Greasing Palms

[VALIDITY] Poor economy, at least a moderate environment

[DESCRIPTION] With @@NAME@@'s economy facing significant struggles, agricultural interests are pushing for permission to commence slash-and-burn clearing of land for the profitable but controversial practice of oil palm farming.


[OPTION 1] "The benefits are vast, and so is the profit margin" summarizes ag-boss @@RANDOMNAME@@, "and don't pretend we couldn't use the cash! Those fat cats in the United Federation and other rich countries are hungry for palm oil, and our job seekers are so desperate, we can pay next to nothing! I mean, sure, we have to cut down more trees every few years as the soil is exhausted, but the oil palms we're planting replace them, right?"

[EFFECT 1] ashen fields have replaced ancient forests


[OPTION 2] "Wrong!" hollers activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, gasping for breath after pedaling @@HIS@@ bicycle all night to reach @@CAPITAL@@ in time. "Not only do oil palms not suitably replace native vegetation, they destroy habitat for the Orange-Furred @@ANIMAL@@! Palm oil production causes huge carbon emissions, and what good is profit if your people are kept poor? It's an unsustainable business model. You must ban the palm oil industry from @@NAME@@, before it's too late!"

[EFFECT 2] citizens gaze at scenic woodlands to take their minds off empty bellies


[OPTION 3] "Sustainability, eh? We can do that" muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, a bureaucrat from one of your more obscure government offices. "Let's create a series of requirements for sustainable palm oil production, mandate good worker conditions, and establish a new government watchdog to perform annual inspections on each producer. If those rich nations want our products, they're going to have to share the wealth! We can pay for it out of these profits they say we'll see."

[EFFECT 3] rich nations look elsewhere for imports

1st draft:

Alright, here's the start of my effort at a Palm Oil issue. It's an interesting one to work on, because Palm Oil is actually a super versatile, high-efficiency crop. The problem is, it permanently destroys vast areas of land, wrecks habitat, and the industry has a long history of exploiting or harming workers and native people. Both sides legitimately think they're in the right. I am aware of issue 685 which touches on Palm Oil production, and believe this is distinct enough to stand alone. I did my best to keep it succinct, though books could be (and have been) written on the subject. I've also attempted to write it in such a way that it is valid for any nation, whether capitalist or socialist, with or without cars, etc. Please let me know if I'm running afoul of any validities!

[TITLE] Greasing Palms

[DESCRIPTION] The profitable but controversial practice of oil palm farming has made its way to the outskirts of @@NAME@@, with multiple agricultural interests making known their desire to clear land for new palm oil plantations and production facilities.


[OPTION 1] "The benefits are vast, and so is the profit margin" summarizes ag-boss @@RANDOMNAME@@, concluding @@HIS@@ hours-long presentation on the subject. "Palm Oil has countless uses from cooking to cosmetics, has no trans-fats, has a high production yield per acre, and we pay our workers practically nothing! I mean, sure, you have to cut down more trees every few years as the soil is exhausted, but the oil palms we're planting replace them, right?"

[EFFECT 1] ashen fields have replaced ancient forests


[OPTION 2] "Wrong!" hollers activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, gasping for breath after pedaling @@HIS@@ bicycle all night to reach @@CAPITAL@@ in time. "Not only do oil palms not suitably replace native vegetation, they are destroying habitat for the Orange-Furred @@ANIMAL@@! Palm oil causes huge carbon emissions in production, to say nothing of the smoke from slash-and-burn farming, and only the tiniest fraction of it is made sustainably! You must ban palm oil from @@NAME@@, before it's too late!"

[EFFECT 2 flora and fauna take precedence over food and finances


[OPTION 3] "Sustainability, eh? That gives me an idea" murmurs @@RANDOMNAME@@, a bureaucrat from one of your more obscure government offices. "We should create a series of requirements for certification of sustainable palm oil production facilities, and a new government watchdog to check on and rate each producer. Then we can follow-up with annual re-inspections, plus intra-annual surprise spot-checks, and those who pass can put our stamp of approval on their product! If they fail, shut ‘em down!"

[EFFECT 3] forests are cut down to produce the paperwork that protects them

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Very solid. As always.

[Australian rePublic]

Wait, what exactly is the problem with palm trees? California, USA has heaps of palm trees, why aren't they a problem there? Queensland has heaps of palm trees, why aren't they a problem there? Quite a few houses in my neighbourhood have palm trees (mine included, which has 3 or 4 of them) why aren't they a problem here?

[Trotterdam]

So, soil exhaustion, eh?

Is there a reason standard industry techniques like crop rotation don't work on palm trees?

[Verdant Haven]

Very solid. As always.

Thanks :-D

Wait, what exactly is the problem with palm trees? California, USA has heaps of palm trees, why aren't they a problem there? Queensland has heaps of palm trees, why aren't they a problem there? Quite a few houses in my neighbourhood have palm trees (mine included, which has 3 or 4 of them) why aren't they a problem here?

The "palm tree" in common parlance is not the same as an oil palm.

Palm trees as typically thought of - California, Hawaii, etc, are coconut palms, typically Cocos nucifera. The whole tree is useful, producing wood, fiber, food, oil, and other components. They are a healthy part of the ecosystem. They look like THIS, and have produce coconuts that look like THIS.

An oil palm is something very 72 different. It is a plantation-grown crop, typically Elaeis guineensis. Only the fruit is used (to make oil), and it utterly wrecks the environment. They look like THIS, and produce palm fruit that look like THIS

So, soil exhaustion, eh?

Is there a reason standard industry techniques like crop rotation don't work on palm trees?

They are trees rather than traditional crops, so it's more like an orchard than a wheat field. They take multiple years to mature to production levels, and sap the soil to a degree that you can't just cut them down or wait a year or two and re-use it - the alternate crop wouldn't grow anymore, and even if it did, you'd lose multiple years every time you tried to cycle it. There are some efforts at sustainability that try to slow down the decay by planting other crops under and around the oil palms, but it doesn't buy that much time unfortunately, and the palms still annihilate the soil value in short order.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Worth noting that IRL, the main consumers of palm oil are not the producers of palm oil, so this issue doesn't exactly frame the RL situation. It's actually for us more a case of our first world demand fuelling environmental damage and human rights abuses in poorer countries. In turn, these countries are only tempted to destroy their rainforests because they have few other routes to joining the exclusive club of economically prosperous countries.

I don't know if the issue ought to be rejigged to make it more about responsible importing rather than responsible production, as that's an issue for almost every nation in the real world, whereas questions about production only apply to a handful.

[Trotterdam]

I don't know if the issue ought to be rejigged to make it more about responsible importing rather than responsible production, as that's an issue for almost every nation in the real world, whereas questions about production only apply to a handful.

Problem is that comes closer to stepping on the toes of #685, which also has you responding to production happening in a different nation, though the actual complaint is still quite different.

On another note though, I think we can actually use more issues that aren't first-world-centric. Maybe add a restrictive validity to it to make sure it's only received by the kind of nations that would consider such drastic measures to boost their economy, but "how to fix your economy when you have little to work with" is an interesting question.

[Verdant Haven]

Trott is correct on why I made it about domestic production - wanted to avoid overlap with 685, which already does the embargo thing (for unrelated reasons). I did try to include the fact that it's largely an "over there" problem for wealthy nations, by setting it as a new thing that is creeping up on your borders, though I could make that more explicit if it would help. I also wanted to avoid getting tangled in validities with trade policies and economic types, since nations of all types do have some part to play in this crisis, from different angles.

I like the idea of having some more issues for struggling economies, and could create some split options here to address that, since who knows where on the scale the player receiving might be. Perhaps something like:

Option 1a - strong economies: use current text
Option 1b - weak economies: speaker suggests boosting economy with palm oil, since what you're doing doesn't seem to be working

Option 2a - strong economies: speaker points out flaws and says they're not needed because you're doing fine
Option 2b - weak economies: use current text

Option 3 - unmodified

That would allow the same question, but would contextualize the debate a bit for whether or not the receiving nation is more likely to be on the exploiting or exploited side of the coin.


With your permission Trott, after this issue works through drafting, I might take a swing at what you suggested - an issue for low economy nations with proposals to boost their situation a bit.

[Trotterdam]

With your permission Trott,

Sure. Why would I make the suggestion if I didn't want you to use it?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The idea of splitting the issue presentation could work, but I'd be more inclined to hew closer to a purer version of what Trott suggested - making it only for economically weak countries. The story is stronger in that circumstance, and it feels more like an actual dilemma.

I'd suggest the stronger countries should be asking more about the importing question, which I am sure can be presented in a separate issue in a way that has no overlap with Externalities Palmed Off.

[Verdant Haven]

Ok - a new draft is up, focusing in specifically on the version of this for economically challenged countries. If this progresses well, I'll write up a second issue for the rich nation side of the coin.

[Daarwyrth]

Ok - a new draft is up, focusing in specifically on the version of this for economically challenged countries. If this progresses well, I'll write up a second issue for the rich nation side of the coin.

I like it! It's well-written and witty

[Verdant Haven]

Thanks Daarwyrth :-D

I'm headed out of town for the weekend, but will be back to take a look at more feedback and get another draft going on Monday. Au revoir!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

[DESCRIPTION] With @@NAME@@’s economy facing significant struggles, agricultural interests are pushing for permission to commence slash-and-burn clearing of land for the profitable but controversial practice of oil palm farming.

Premise looks good now. Straighten those apostrophes and quote marks prior to submission though.

[OPTION 1] “The benefits are vast, and so is the profit margin” summarizes ag-boss @@RANDOMNAME@@,

Not sure ag-boss is a recognisable term. Googling it links to a company by that name.

“and don’t pretend we couldn’t use the cash! Those fat cats in the United Federation and other rich countries are hungry for palm oil, and our job seekers are so desperate, we can pay next to nothing! I mean, sure, we have to cut down more trees every few years as the soil is exhausted, but the oil palms we’re planting replace them, right?”

[EFFECT 1] ashen fields have replaced ancient forests

Effect line doesn't deliver a joke, but it has a nice poetry to it. Ideally, deliver a joke, if not, it's still passable.

[OPTION 2] “Wrong!” hollers activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, gasping for breath after pedaling @@HIS@@ bicycle all night to reach @@CAPITAL@@ in time. “Not only do oil palms not suitably replace native vegetation, they destroy habitat for the Orange-Furred @@ANIMAL@@! Palm oil production causes huge carbon emissions, and what good is profit if your people are kept poor? It’s an unsustainable business model. You must ban the palm oil industry from @@NAME@@, before it’s too late!”

I'd say "palm oil production" rather than "the palm oil industry".

[OPTION 3] “Sustainability, eh? We can do that” muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, a bureaucrat from one of your more obscure government offices. “Let’s create a series of requirements for sustainable palm oil production, mandate good worker conditions, and establish a new government watchdog to perform annual inspections on each producer. If those rich nations want our products, they’re going to have to share the wealth!

What does that last sentence mean? Clearly costs are going to land on the producing corporations, not the foreign nations, who can just import from elsewhere.

[EFFECT 3] rich nations look elsewhere for imports

Poor effect line, as it describes the world rather than @@NAME@@, which is a no-no for nation front pages. You can still deliver information like this, but in a NAME-centric way.

Maybe:

[effect] an advertising campaign describing @@DEMONYM@@ palm oil as being "reassuringly expensive" does not seem to be convincing foreign importers

[Verdant Haven]

After hiatus I've revived this one as well! I've updated the language in the options to reflect feedback and clarify text, and have replaced all of the effect lines to add a bit of humor.

[Australian rePublic]

Wait, what exactly is the problem with palm trees? California, USA has heaps of palm trees, why aren't they a problem there? Queensland has heaps of palm trees, why aren't they a problem there? Quite a few houses in my neighbourhood have palm trees (mine included, which has 3 or 4 of them) why aren't they a problem here?

The "palm tree" in common parlance is not the same as an oil palm.

Palm trees as typically thought of - California, Hawaii, etc, are coconut palms, typically Cocos nucifera. The whole tree is useful, producing wood, fiber, food, oil, and other components. They are a healthy part of the ecosystem. They look like THIS, and have produce coconuts that look like THIS.

An oil palm is something very 72 different. It is a plantation-grown crop, typically Elaeis guineensis. Only the fruit is used (to make oil), and it utterly wrecks the environment. They look like THIS, and produce palm fruit that look like THIS

Many people who live in palm tree areas, such as me, will see this issue and think "nothing wrong with plam trees". As such, find a way to include a speaker who'll specify. Also, in my neighbourhood, those trees are used soley as decorations. Despite the fact that there are many of them, I don't think I've ever seen a fruit grow from one. Even more reason to specify

[Verdant Haven]

Many people who live in palm tree areas, such as me, will see this issue and think "nothing wrong with plam trees". As such, find a way to include a speaker who'll specify. Also, in my neighbourhood, those trees are used soley as decorations. Despite the fact that there are many of them, I don't think I've ever seen a fruit grow from one. Even more reason to specify

It does specify, literally every single time the subject is mentioned. Every speaker, plus the issue text itself, specifies oil palms and/or palm oil. The phrase "palm tree" is never used.

...oil palm farming...

...hungry for palm oil...

...the oil palms we're planting...

...ban palm oil production...

...Not only are oil palms insufficient...

... sustainable palm oil production...

The proposal is also specifically built around descriptions of exactly what the potential problems with it are for those who care about such things:

...we can pay next to nothing...

...we have to cut down more trees every few years...

...the soil is exhausted...

...insufficient to replace native vegetation...

...destroy habitat...

...unsustainable business model...

If a person reads this and decides it is about every day Arecaceae sp. palm trees, and chooses to ignore all of the descriptions in favor of assuming it's actually about a totally different thing that doesn't actually have any of those problems, then I don't believe putting in another speaker saying the same thing again is going to fix it. That would be like putting a speaker in to an issue about airplanes just to specify that we're not talking about the mathematical concept of planes, in case any geometry teachers get confused.

[Australian rePublic]

Many people who live in palm tree areas, such as me, will see this issue and think "nothing wrong with plam trees". As such, find a way to include a speaker who'll specify. Also, in my neighbourhood, those trees are used soley as decorations. Despite the fact that there are many of them, I don't think I've ever seen a fruit grow from one. Even more reason to specify

It does specify, literally every single time the subject is mentioned. Every speaker, plus the issue text itself, specifies oil palms and/or palm oil. The phrase "palm tree" is never used.

...oil palm farming...

...hungry for palm oil...

...the oil palms we're planting...

...ban palm oil production...

...Not only are oil palms insufficient...

... sustainable palm oil production...

The proposal is also specifically built around descriptions of exactly what the potential problems with it are for those who care about such things:

...we can pay next to nothing...

...we have to cut down more trees every few years...

...the soil is exhausted...

...insufficient to replace native vegetation...

...destroy habitat...

...unsustainable business model...

If a person reads this and decides it is about every day Arecaceae sp. palm trees, and chooses to ignore all of the descriptions in favor of assuming it's actually about a totally different thing that doesn't actually have any of those problems, then I don't believe putting in another speaker saying the same thing again is going to fix it. That would be like putting a speaker in to an issue about airplanes just to specify that we're not talking about the mathematical concept of planes, in case any geometry teachers get confused.

You're working on the assumption that people know it's a different thing. Many people don't

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It's reasonable to assume people aren't idiots, as assuming people are idiots is insulting to those who aren't, while idiots will be confused regardless.

I don't think you need to clarify further, VH.

[Verdant Haven]

It's reasonable to assume people aren't idiots, as assuming people are idiots is insulting to those who aren't, while idiots will be confused regardless.

I don't think you need to clarify further, VH.

Appreciate it, thanks :-)

"Idiots will be confused regardless" - a perfect summary of my thoughts on the matter.

[Australian rePublic]

Yea fair enough. Maybe you shouldn't listen to idiots like me

[Verdant Haven]

I'm bumping this issue up to Last Call, pending any additional feedback! If nothing major is forthcoming, I'll put it in by the end of the week.

Many thanks!

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

I'm bumping this issue up to Last Call, pending any additional feedback! If nothing major is forthcoming, I'll put it in by the end of the week.

Many thanks!

This seems like a good issue! The only thing is, I don't quite understand option three. Maybe it's just me, but that last sentence — "we can pay it out of the profits they claim we'll see" — is really confusing.
And I suspect-but-am-not-quite-sure that the option's suggesting you provide the oil production thing as a service to other countries, for a price… but if so, how practically is this different from option one? Both boost the economy and hurt the environment.
In any case, added clarity would help.

[Verdant Haven]

I'm bumping this issue up to Last Call, pending any additional feedback! If nothing major is forthcoming, I'll put it in by the end of the week.

Many thanks!

This seems like a good issue! The only thing is, I don't quite understand option three. Maybe it's just me, but that last sentence — "we can pay it out of the profits they claim we'll see" — is really confusing.
And I suspect-but-am-not-quite-sure that the option's suggesting you provide the oil production thing as a service to other countries, for a price… but if so, how practically is this different from option one? Both boost the economy and hurt the environment.
In any case, added clarity would help.

Basically, the difference is that option one is allowing unregulated mass production to the economic benefit and environmental detriment of your nation. Option three is reducing damage to your environment by reducing your profit (spending the money you'd otherwise be getting to build and enforce a regulatory structure).

I have tweaked the wording of option 3 to provide clarity.

[Verdant Haven]

Fire in the hole!

Greasing Palms has been submitted. Thank you, all, for the feedback!