The post you are reporting:
Absolutely right that this should be opposed. The deforestaton of the rainforest is a major concern due to the positive feedback loops that it causes in the environment. For starters, leaves in the rainforest breath, absorbing carbon dioxide and generating oxygen, and a lot of the moisture in the air is due to the open stomatas in the canopy. By clearing, the ground will heat up and rather than the forest being a positive carbon sink, the bacteria in the soil will heat up and become more active as ground matter decomposes, generating more CO2. So not only do you lose a huge area that can capture the carbon generated by our carbon heavy lifetyles, but you leave behind an area of land that adds to the carbon issue. Admittedly the new plantatons will absorb some carbon but it will be a fraction of the amount absorbed by a mature rainforest.
The only benefit to our economy is that palm oil is cheap, at a huge cost in extinction of other species and the loss of one of the worlds most efficient carbon sinks. There are alternatives, trouble is we only want to pay the least in monetary terms, regardless of the fact that it costs us so much more in other ways. The people of Indonesia are incredibly poor and are happy to earn money anyway they can, if we are prepared to pay. If we dont buy palm oil, there will be no economic benefit to the destruction of the rainforests.
As an aside, palm oil now appears in many products from shampoo to chocolate. It is possible to reduce the amount that you are subsidising the deforestation by checking the labels of products that you buy.