Bill Gates Investment in Synthetic Palm Oil Dismissed by Malaysian Industry
Malaysia does not see the production of synthetic palm oil by US start-up company, C16 Biosciences, as a threat to natural palm oil supply chain, particularly when palm oil is produced under the best agricultural practices and sustainability standards.
This was the statement issued by the Malaysian industry to the widely reported investment made by Bill Gates who made his fortune off the internet platform, Microsoft.
The response from the Malaysian industry was a bit surprising. We did not rate Bill’s investment into C16 Biosciences as news worthy in the development of the global vegetable oil industries.
Did Microsofts Carbon Footprint inspire the investment in synthetic palm oil?
To provide some background for readers that are not familiar with this issue,
As the second richest man in the world, the fortune he made from Microsoft has been cleverly invested into the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation with its impressive portfolio including Berkshire Hathaway, Canadian National Railway Company, Caterpillar Inc and Walmart.
His money-making savvy is so well recognized that investment advisors like The Motley Fool promote his investment decisions as a sure way to make money. Stories like how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is making money while creating sustainable forms of energy and vaccines and medicines for poor people around the world makes for a heart warming reason for anyone to throw their savings into whatever Bill is investing in.
This is not the first time that Bill Gates has invested in start-ups. His investment in Terrapower in 2011 was supposed to deliver a “safer and cheaper” form of nuclear energy which did not pan out. He blamed it on a trade war taking place between China and the US.
This was the statement issued by the Malaysian industry to the widely reported investment made by Bill Gates who made his fortune off the internet platform, Microsoft.
The response from the Malaysian industry was a bit surprising. We did not rate Bill’s investment into C16 Biosciences as news worthy in the development of the global vegetable oil industries.
Did Microsofts Carbon Footprint inspire the investment in synthetic palm oil?
To provide some background for readers that are not familiar with this issue,
As the second richest man in the world, the fortune he made from Microsoft has been cleverly invested into the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation with its impressive portfolio including Berkshire Hathaway, Canadian National Railway Company, Caterpillar Inc and Walmart.
His money-making savvy is so well recognized that investment advisors like The Motley Fool promote his investment decisions as a sure way to make money. Stories like how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is making money while creating sustainable forms of energy and vaccines and medicines for poor people around the world makes for a heart warming reason for anyone to throw their savings into whatever Bill is investing in.
This is not the first time that Bill Gates has invested in start-ups. His investment in Terrapower in 2011 was supposed to deliver a “safer and cheaper” form of nuclear energy which did not pan out. He blamed it on a trade war taking place between China and the US.
Synthetic Palm Oil as another Microsoft “Moonshot?” to Save Earth?
Considering the enormous wealth he possesses, the investments into C16 Biosciences are a pittance so why did Bill Gates throw some coin into the company when he should know, that mimicking nature in a lab is an impossible venture? As the Malaysian spokespersons said:
“For example, the intricacies and complexities of nature’s triglyceride species patched to a glycerol molecule and present in palm oil through varied configurations can hardly be fully duplicated by current technologies."
A comprehensive financial report on Bill Gates investment in C16 Biosciences was published by Bloomberg which brought up several start-ups that have tried to mimick nature in a lab.
“Other companies are following suit. California-based startup Kiverdi Inc. is using microbes to convert carbon dioxide into an alternative to palm oil. Scottish startup Revive Eco is extracting useful oils from coffee waste and Indonesian startup Biteback is finding those oils in insects.”
Notable among the quotes from the Bloomberg report is this comment from the University of Bath that said:
“There’s no guarantee that it will work. The University of Bath is studying the development of palm oil alternatives and it’s expected to conclude that current technology isn't economic on a commercial scale. The highest expense is extracting the palm oil once the microbes have made the synthetic version, said David Leak, a professor in the university's biology and biochemistry department. Without overcoming those hurdles, palm oil alternatives might remain a niche product.”
So why did Bill Gates choose to invest in C16 Biosciences and not the other players with a longer history of trying to produce “palm oil” in a lab?
Considering the enormous wealth he possesses, the investments into C16 Biosciences are a pittance so why did Bill Gates throw some coin into the company when he should know, that mimicking nature in a lab is an impossible venture? As the Malaysian spokespersons said:
“For example, the intricacies and complexities of nature’s triglyceride species patched to a glycerol molecule and present in palm oil through varied configurations can hardly be fully duplicated by current technologies."
A comprehensive financial report on Bill Gates investment in C16 Biosciences was published by Bloomberg which brought up several start-ups that have tried to mimick nature in a lab.
“Other companies are following suit. California-based startup Kiverdi Inc. is using microbes to convert carbon dioxide into an alternative to palm oil. Scottish startup Revive Eco is extracting useful oils from coffee waste and Indonesian startup Biteback is finding those oils in insects.”
Notable among the quotes from the Bloomberg report is this comment from the University of Bath that said:
“There’s no guarantee that it will work. The University of Bath is studying the development of palm oil alternatives and it’s expected to conclude that current technology isn't economic on a commercial scale. The highest expense is extracting the palm oil once the microbes have made the synthetic version, said David Leak, a professor in the university's biology and biochemistry department. Without overcoming those hurdles, palm oil alternatives might remain a niche product.”
So why did Bill Gates choose to invest in C16 Biosciences and not the other players with a longer history of trying to produce “palm oil” in a lab?
Perhaps the press releases from those start-ups failed to address what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was looking for. Offsetting the environmental footprint of their wealth. The Guardian ran an excellent opinion on Microsofts attempts to address its carbon footprint with “moonshots” and questioned the company’s dealings with fossil fuel companies.
Protecting Forests as offsets
In its press information, C16 Biosciences smartly plays up the “woke” campaign behind palm oil and deforestation. Marketing tactics like this are not entirely surprising as most start-ups will resort to making fantastical claims to attract funding.
Our view at CSPO Watch, is that the small investment in an alternative to palm oil is a clever distraction from the environmental impact of Bill Gates wealth.
The marketing staff at C16 Biosciences have undoubtedly done their research on funding potential when they targeted palm oil with statements like:
“Palm oil is the most popular vegetable oil in the world. It is found in nearly 50% of products on supermarket shelves—including soaps, shampoos, makeup, and packaged foods like bread, ice cream, peanut butter and cookies—and is a $61 billion global industry. Unfortunately, the production of palm oil relies on the destruction of tropical rainforest and corresponding ecosystems, and this deforestation emits half a billion tons of carbon dioxide each year while threatening critical habitats for endangered species, including orangutans, rhinos and elephants. As urgency around climate change has increased, the need for a truly sustainable palm oil alternative has heightened.”
Targeting palm oil is puzzling because if one were to try and create a laboratory version of a natural vegetable oil, soyabean oil would have been much easier. Plus it could come with promises to save the Amazon forests in light of recent scrutiny on the soy industry and its impact on the Lungs of the Earth. The only problem with pitching a synthetic version of soy is that palm oil is better for human health than soy. The thing is with palm oil is its natural content of vitamins A and E which are beneficial for human health whereas soyabean oil contains neither.
Was the investment in C16 enough of a distraction away from the carbon footprint of Bill Gates’ wealth?
It would appear that for the moment, the small investment in C18 Biosciences has created enough of a distraction from Microsoft’s big statements on carbon neutrality. Chris Lang of REDD-Watch who published scathing reports on Microsoft including “How Microsoft avoids answering questions about its “carbon negative” partnership with Pachama: “We’d like to politely decline to respond on this one” and “Microsoft’s climate bullshit” has been ignored.
These were hard-hitting criticisms of Microsoft’s environmental footprint and the company’s failure to address them with real solutions.
It is not known at this time whether REDD Monitor will continue to challenge Microsoft’s environmental impact but as for the philanthropic mission behind Bill Gates use of his wealth for the “betterment of humanity through technology,” the globally renown advocate for natural solutions, Vandana Shiva has a different opinion on his investments.
From her labelling of Bill Gates as a thief in 2015 to her association of Bill Gates to the work of Monsanto in 2020, Vandana Shiva has been a vocal opponent to Bill Gates use of technology to try and replace what is natural.
The Malaysian palm oil industry was right in saying that synthetic palm oil is not a threat to the demand for natural palm oil.
“There are so many other intrinsic difficulties that will come with trying to copy nature’s palm oil.”
It would be ironic indeed, if C16 Biosciences added vitamins A and E extracts from palm oil in an attempt to copy nature.
Published April, 2020. CSPO Watch
Protecting Forests as offsets
In its press information, C16 Biosciences smartly plays up the “woke” campaign behind palm oil and deforestation. Marketing tactics like this are not entirely surprising as most start-ups will resort to making fantastical claims to attract funding.
Our view at CSPO Watch, is that the small investment in an alternative to palm oil is a clever distraction from the environmental impact of Bill Gates wealth.
The marketing staff at C16 Biosciences have undoubtedly done their research on funding potential when they targeted palm oil with statements like:
“Palm oil is the most popular vegetable oil in the world. It is found in nearly 50% of products on supermarket shelves—including soaps, shampoos, makeup, and packaged foods like bread, ice cream, peanut butter and cookies—and is a $61 billion global industry. Unfortunately, the production of palm oil relies on the destruction of tropical rainforest and corresponding ecosystems, and this deforestation emits half a billion tons of carbon dioxide each year while threatening critical habitats for endangered species, including orangutans, rhinos and elephants. As urgency around climate change has increased, the need for a truly sustainable palm oil alternative has heightened.”
Targeting palm oil is puzzling because if one were to try and create a laboratory version of a natural vegetable oil, soyabean oil would have been much easier. Plus it could come with promises to save the Amazon forests in light of recent scrutiny on the soy industry and its impact on the Lungs of the Earth. The only problem with pitching a synthetic version of soy is that palm oil is better for human health than soy. The thing is with palm oil is its natural content of vitamins A and E which are beneficial for human health whereas soyabean oil contains neither.
Was the investment in C16 enough of a distraction away from the carbon footprint of Bill Gates’ wealth?
It would appear that for the moment, the small investment in C18 Biosciences has created enough of a distraction from Microsoft’s big statements on carbon neutrality. Chris Lang of REDD-Watch who published scathing reports on Microsoft including “How Microsoft avoids answering questions about its “carbon negative” partnership with Pachama: “We’d like to politely decline to respond on this one” and “Microsoft’s climate bullshit” has been ignored.
These were hard-hitting criticisms of Microsoft’s environmental footprint and the company’s failure to address them with real solutions.
It is not known at this time whether REDD Monitor will continue to challenge Microsoft’s environmental impact but as for the philanthropic mission behind Bill Gates use of his wealth for the “betterment of humanity through technology,” the globally renown advocate for natural solutions, Vandana Shiva has a different opinion on his investments.
From her labelling of Bill Gates as a thief in 2015 to her association of Bill Gates to the work of Monsanto in 2020, Vandana Shiva has been a vocal opponent to Bill Gates use of technology to try and replace what is natural.
The Malaysian palm oil industry was right in saying that synthetic palm oil is not a threat to the demand for natural palm oil.
“There are so many other intrinsic difficulties that will come with trying to copy nature’s palm oil.”
It would be ironic indeed, if C16 Biosciences added vitamins A and E extracts from palm oil in an attempt to copy nature.
Published April, 2020. CSPO Watch