[Smushman]

An accurate observation.

Though I agree with your principle (ie this is not a complete analysis), in the authors defense it is accurately titled "African palm oil expansion is bad news for the continent’s primates."

Had it been titled "An analysis of the impacts of African palm oil expansion", your argument would have been poignant.

[sailfast]

Yes and no. The Ars author cites a study that uses the highest possible number (from another study 9 years old from Corley) plus another high number for biofuels that does not take into account farming techniques or price elasticity, and then indicates that because of this, maybe Africa's habitat will be significantly eroded because it's "highly suitable" to palm oil based on their study of the climate. No cost accounting, political geography, etc discussed.

The original study from Corley seems quite measured in the Abstract (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290110...) and also indicates that a number of factors would prevent this from happening due to substitution.

"Alarmist habitat erosion is good for clicks" is not a good reason to perpetuate hypothetical land use when there is plenty of actual non-hypothetical discussion to be had around the industry.

Do I need to go to the mat on this? Probably not, no, but it is symptomatic of a larger issue that I have trouble abiding: Oversimplified article associates two things together in the mind of information consumers who do not fully understand the problem. That association is for life. The correction / nuance never comes. Best to try and get to that nuance up front if at ALL possible, otherwise it's irresponsible.