Note that products derived from palm oil should be avoided if you can. www.wwf.org.uk/…/8-things-know-about-palm-oil

That is not really true and is more fear mongering. Palm oil is much better than any alternative that can be grown in the same regions. The issue is not palm oil but amount of consumption. Palm oil actually takes up less land than other crops that can produce that type of oil.

Palm oil actually takes up less land than other crops that can produce that type of oil.

I think this is a little bit of a false equivalence, though. A hectare of borneo jungle ≠ a hectare of Saskatchewan prairie. It’s probably an impossible thing to accurately calculate, but I’d like to see kind of control for ecological cost. E.g. is 1 hectare of borneo as important to the earth as 2 hectares of prairie?

It also seems a bit obvious that an ecosystem on the equator would be capable of greater production than one closer to the poles. It always bothers me when people compare like “x crop takes 2 times as much water as y crop” when crop x might be grown somewhere that water isnt an issue.

Yes, but palm oil is a hard fat, it’s used for cookies and anywhere that needs to be solid. alternatives are coconut oil and butter. Neither are better in yield vs land use.

But if butter can be produced in abundant habitat like the midwest prairie instead of threatened species-dense places like Borneo’s jungle, I’d prefer to go with the higher land use but ultimately less ecologically destructive option.