PoliticsJOE, ditch the stupid title guys. You are misrepresenting him horribly as you know. This message is too important to poison with a click bait title. C'mon.
Yea, destroying and anointing Lorax are very different things. Although he is probably doing it intentionally to draw in the ejits that actually need to hear this.
I don't think it's fair to misrepresent his argument to get a clickbait title. You can't be against all farming because we need to eat. My understanding is he is against animal agriculture and practices in arable farming which lead to pollution which is why he discusses organic farming methods Regenesis.
Yeah, this was a stupid title and thumbnail that undermines Monbiot's very sensible message about opening our eyes to the lies about the sustainability and environmental viability of modern 'eco-farming', greenwashing in other words. And will set people up to disagree before hearing a word.
At least Russell brand isn't on the thumbnail to this video... lol they Don't need to resort to click bait tactics when you've got george monbiot doing an interview surly... just giving talk TV ammunition with titles like this .
Yeah, lost a few points of respect for this channel with this presentation. Monbiot is saying something important here and not at all what this bullshit clickbait implies.
This is an excellent interview. Please stop using polarizing language such as "destroy". Progressive politics needs to use constructive, solution focused language that promotes dialogue and opt out of this kind of destructive and divisive discourse that plays into the hands of the same regressive political forces you are trying to critique.
I’m afraid that George and excellent are not aligned. He has a vested interest in us all rejecting rural life and farming practices to eat some manufactured gloop. He peddles the same old sound bites and bitches openly about farmers and farming. I’ve must attended a Monbiot v Batters session at Hay and there are no lengths to which he will stop to denigrate UK farmers so please don speak of constructive, solution focused, non-divisive discourse, George Monbiot does none of that.
Vertical farming in Germany of wheat has found that they can grow 10 times the amount of wheat with 80% less resources. So we need to fundamentally reform the way we produce food. Argophotovoltaics are another method for producing up to 300% more yield from a crop.
agrisolar does not, on the whole produce 300pc of comparable yields in the vast majority of circumstances, certainly not in the UK. It's disingenuous to suggest such being possible in the UK, but I'd place it to enthusiasm for future tech than anything else.
I have recently done some googly-research on vertical wheat farms (because it's considered one of the "impossible" species), and I noticed that for Germany there's 1 company that keeps popping up called Infarm, and I also noticed that aside from their very bold claims, they never post any research results, or even a description of their process. No photo's, no videos, nothing. No statement on the costs, on the energy consumption and on the price compared to field grown wheat, and that made me quite suspicious. It wouldn't be the first time that people pushed their hopeless projects and walked away with tens of millions in funding. Did you find out more than I did? Some specifics maybe?
Actually a lot vertical farms just don't work. I mean there litterally using Leds rather than the sun which is free. This energy exchange doesn't work.
From the different clips Politics Joe have created of the same interview, this has the most clickbait-y title of the lot. It was a really interesting discussion, or at least what George had to say was interesting, but that title is undermining it.
Im a self made livestock farmer, My dad was a herdsman and ive done it without any state or private funding and its damn hard. Mr Monbiot doesnt live in the real world an ex Stowe public school/ Oxford University. He has never had any real hands on experience of farming. I get no subsides and neither do a good few others of any description as Bliar changed the rules and subsidies go to the landowners. That is why hedge fund managers, bankers and the rich buy farms and land. Its money for nothing and they then rent the land out again! A total cock up by Bliar looking after the city, This country needs to produce food we do it but with a urban population that is now totally separated from its food production. This is a bad thing and sows the seeds misinformation. The supermarket strangle hold is killing farmers and yet people flock to them. People talk about animal welfare and fruit and vegetables grown sustainably yet buy the cheapest battery eggs, 6 week chickens and fruit and veg from the continent with countless air miles and cheap milk sold as a loss leader. We need to eat seasonally and sensibly we waste far too much food look at supermarket waste and home waste its disgraceful and a national disgrace. Until Mr Monbiot and the rest of the urban anti farming movement sit down and speak to real farmers not the NFU that represents 18% of farmers the big boys. But small and medium tenant /rent/owners. We might start getting somewhere, Mr Monbiot was offered the chance to speak to the NSA membership " National sheep Association " but refused? We have to work together but it takes two to tango but if this continues the misinformation about us how do you expect us to trust you? I suggest our critics try our to produce food and do it as a business its damn hard and the subsidies myth is just that it goes to the land owner not the person who farms it. Lets try and get some common ground and start respecting food and its production. We need to sit down and talk,listen and respect each other. Thats not happening its all anti farming and thats wrong.
He once lived in Machynlleth town, right in the centre of one of the most rural and sheep raising areas in the UK. He couldn’t hack it and some farmer must have told him some home truths for which he has never forgiven farmers in general. He makes no attempt to show how food would be produced for the masses when about 70% of all UK farmland is not suitable for anything other than grazed grass. He is right that people are very far removed from where their food is produced, however his one skill is in convincing the gullible that he is even half sane and to actually waste their money buying his fantasy books.
@Huw Williams to the original comment: your point about subsidies doesn't change the fact that we need to change the way we interact with the planet to survive in the long run. Business point: if more people were vegan it would be easier to sell vegan products. The problem here is that people currently aren't living their lives in a sustainable way but they have to change. To your comment about land usage: Did you know that 95% of the soy grown in Brazil is used to feed cattle. If we no longer need to feed cattle etc (who eat more crops than us) we could actually save on space used to grow crops as well. The fact that 70% of UK farmland isn't suitable for anything other than grass doesn't suggest that we don't have enough space to grow food (not meat etc). It actually shows how inefficient our current food production system is. Do you know anyone where 70% of the food they eat is meat? 🧐
@@jackdiamond931 Absolute rubbish. The planet is doing very well and barring a catastrophic event unrelated to humans, such as the inevitable advance of the next ice age peaking [we are still in an ice age but in a relatively short semi=melt] the planet will continue to balance itself. You have been indoctrinated by the doom-mongers in the grand religious tradition, hook, line and sinker.
Sense at last. George will never sit down with sheep farmers, he is on record and again yesterday at Hay festival, for saying that sheep have rendered the hillsides of Wales a barren wasteland. Which is utter nonsense, but he want us all eating manufactured gloop to line the pockets of investors who want to control our lives through food. He is n a mission and his open attacks on farmers and farming us unedifying. Minette Batters did put up a good fight tho.
@Jack Diamond jack then come and join the farming industry ? Im self made never given a penny by anyone if i can you can. Then buy or rent arable land and have a go its hard work for little money. You will need phosphate fertiliser unless you can get muck of livestock farmers. The best way is mixed farming sadly nearly destroyed by the EU. Their is nothing stopping you having a go? Try eating seasonally and stop eating imported out of season foods something vegans forget food milage , phosphate ferilizers etc
He also misrepresents facts to make his point. A recent Guardian article had us as one of the top water using nations in Europe. We're most definitely mid-table on that count, something a cursory Google proved. The way we view food needs changing, then the change to how we farm will come. There's no place for manufactured animal protein in this, we need to de-centralise the whole industry.
There is a guy in Minnesota who has a completely different version of farming -- not vertical, not high tech, and most importantly (?) not amenable to corporate takeover. He practices relentless indifference, where he tries many many varieties of perennials and self-seeders, and keeps the ones that are tough enough to live without intervention. He integrates animals for weeding and pruning, and has nearly constant output of *something* -- nuts, and fruits, and grains, and veggies, milks and meats. The productivity is small compared to standard practices, but his input is practically zero, so the income is almost all profit. Nearly zero fossil fuel input, zero chemical use, zero predator control other than a dog or a burro. The animals fertilize and till and eat pests. It's pretty great, actually.
We, as a species, are JUST learning what it means to be human after bumbling through 100,000 (+/-) years. But some (multinational corporations, multimillionaires and billionaires) have done so badly that we may not live long enough to benefit from what we’ve learned.
Though ... most major religions have a part of their Holy Books describing how to avoid this sort of catastrophe ... But... That didn't stop us turning Africa from forest to tundra, the 'Fertile crescent' (the middle east) into desert, or the American Midwest into dustbowl. It's not farmers that are responsible. It's bankers and the ruling rich - who can always squeeze that little bit more ouit of their subjects.
Sure, but saying that doesn't change anything. It needs people to see that buying a cheap Tesco chicken has a further consequence. At the moment the causal link isn't there for most, that buying that chicken 3 times a week conflates with pollution and climate change. Please substitute your own choice of value led supermarket brand and your own farmyard animal. If we can eat it, then at some point we'll shove it in a box no bigger than itself and force feed it rubbish
The conundrum is, if we want to grow crops for food without the use of chemical fertilizers, we would likely need to make use of the ample quantities of manure that livestock produce.
It's typical that a Guardian journalist favours a food system in which all our food is controlled by a small number of super massive companies, in secret. He fails to recognise that if one of those super massive labs were to fail, or have a disease outbreak, that would cause mass extinction
I agree. Even though I usually find George Monbiot to present fine arguments for his case, this does not square. He wants high intensive food production of perennials without using artificial fertilizer or animal dung from livestock. He cannot feed the world population and be at odds with the fossil fuel and fertilizer industry at the same time. And then your point exactly, if he is for a increased democratization of our political and social systems (which he clearly presents as a desirable alternative in other talks) then why he is lobbying for a greater concentration of power in the hands of industry when it comes to food? Government is never ever going to accept ordinary people using fermentation process to produce food in their own privately made labs for human consumption. Just think of all the expensive licenses and bureaucracy needed for anyone to get that kind of business up and running. Ordinary people can own livestock and recycle that dung into fertility for their market and kitchen gardens. It’s a more democratic way of producing our food. Just like Mark Lynas I’ve had much respect for their opinions and arguments regarding other topics, but when it comes to food and feeding the world I cannot see how their visions present a fairer, more just and ecologically sound food system.
Re-distribution of farmland and the borrowing secured on them ? Farmers are the biggest subsidisers of food in the country. Shall E re-distribute your assets? No, thought not.
Funnily enough this is what every successful Asian country did. Japan, SK, and Taiwan all had extreme land redistribution policies. It caused a huge boom in food production and massive economic growth. Source: How Asia Works - Joe Studwell
Alas, the removal of public benefit regulation from this island was funded by offshore tax-avoiding finance as a means to remove all regulation and asset-astrip the country all the quicker. Most UK property is now passing into the hands of offshore finance - as are the ownership of most of the island-born workforce. We were sold. The rumours of it being a unicorn-sale were exaggerated.
@@mowilliams2517most farmland isn't owned by farmers. It's owned by billionaires like Dyson or The Crown. The former are only interested in maximum returns for minimal investment. The latter keep their land because they're better than all of us because someone said so
We need vegetables, herbs, berry bushes and fruit trees planted on every estate in Britain, so we are not reliant on profit-hungry supermarkets and can source natural organic food locally. It isn't difficult as this was the case in the 70s when I grew up. Both sets of grandparents had gardens full of food and we used to forage for a plethora of edibles on our doorstep... Now we have food banks?
It's always good to grow food for yourself, but it's entirely unrealistic to shake your reliance on "supermarkets" that way. It would take way more than a small back yard to even get close to sustaining yourself (and an enormous amount of people don't even have one), not to mention an expert knowledge of preservation solutions. The only reason we have access to most greens through winter and spring for example is importation, are you going to be handling that individually too?
@@Arbaaltheundefeated We already import 46% of our food. We have thousands of miles of roads and council estates filled with decorative trees and bushes. Preservation including salt pickling, fermentation and pickling in vinegar has provided seasonal foods all year around for centuries. Modern farming methods such as hydroponics, aquaponics and verticle gardens provide many multiples of food per square meter.
@@steveparker8065 Oh, right, so in your world it's really simple and cheap for just anyone to farm pounds and pounds of greens *per day* and store it all to cover the year, maybe we should all be making our own vinegar and salt, grow our own sugar and breed our own yeast cultures to preserve it with since it's all so easy? Get your head out of your neo-primitivist clouds and listen to Monbiot, these are pipedreams fit for a world with a fraction of the population we have to contend with, and incompatible with our entire model of civilization.
@@tisFrancesfault Yeah, by all means people should definitely endeavor to grow food for themselves as and where they can. A nice vegetable garden is both an environmental boon and a great hobby that can bring a lot of mental wellness. But thinking backyard parcel agriculture is a solution to the future of feeding humanity is nothing short of delusional.
7.04: “just animal farming produces more GHG than all global transport.” Can anyone tell me where he’s getting his math from? A quick image search (global greenhouse gas emissions by sector 2020 ipcc) seems to me to suggest that while agriculture accounts for more than transport, livestock is a fraction of this and no where near transport… Any suggestions greatly appreciated..
Yes he’s peddling the same old stuff having been taken to task on the data time and again. Agri emissions in U.K. are about 1per cent of total emissions whilst in USA 4%. It’s fashionable to cite agriculture because of competing interests n terms of what George is peddling and Beyond Meat etc the fact is that the consumer has rejected al lot of the processed vegan foods and the investors are after them for misrepresenting projected returns. It’s a money game.
On Wiki you can get some data: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_agriculture On this counting it is ca. 25%, and it is still somewhat underestimated. I saw somewhere other, more minute calculations, which estimated it into more than 30%. Anyway, half of that is animal production, and that' how you get at Monbiot's thesis.
@@OgrodLesnyOstatnieWzgorze Thanks. There;'s always a difference between those who deny facts and those who simply look 'em up. The ones who look for information are campaigning to save our world. The ones who can't be *rsed to look up anything are complaining about laws that put childrens lives above more dangerous cars.
This nonsense about not farming animals has got to stop. The first vegan boom occurred concurrently with the lion's share of deforestation in the Amazon and Indonesia. Vegans rabidly try and protest that the majority of the deforestation has been to clear rainforest for pasture-based beef farming; how would that work then with the jaguars, anacondas and other predatory animals native to rainforests who are going to gobble up the farmer's cattle as soon as their backs are turned? Also, if you leave the land on which we currently graze livestock, it'll get overgrown, the grass will grow over one season and begin decaying in the next; that will emit as much methane as would be released if you grazed cattle on it. This scapegoating of livestock farming is a smokescreen for shale gas drilling (which provides the majority of novel methane emissions), and vegans are its gullible supporters.
Farmers are not nearly so resistant to specific changes of practice in principle. There tends to be a curiosity to future tech. The idea of a more hyper industrial concentration of food production is likely the future. This includes synthetic meat production. But the issue is, naturally farmers don't want to be fucked over, nor really would likely be involved in such changes. Everything will, as ever, be dictated, and that naturally pisses people off.
Since the Tories rewrote the way our country works in 1979, the thing that decides everything is no longer public good, but private progfit... THAT is killing independent everything to be replaced by ever-l;artgers corporations ... including farming.
And it's thumbnails and clickbait titles like this which is why you can't take "JOE" seriously as a media source. In this interview he discusses the turn Russel Brand's account has taken with sensationalism and clickbait in order to gain views and how it loses him credibility and makes him look silly, and here's you, doing the exact same thing. Be better.
What an idealogue. "Pay farmers to restore the land". Im still trying to figure out his realistic plan to feed us all. He says we should focus on concentrating farming in fertile soils etc....and removing it from infertile locations. Firstly, this sounds very much like superfarms, and secondly, thats exactly what we are already doing. And then finally, he d rather we just ate some soup of stinking bacteria.... I'm all for perennials Even idealogues can accidentally come across 1 or 2 good ideas without completely destroying them. Conpletely agree with him regarding the very final bit.
"Conspiracy merchants..." he proceeds to obliquely elaborate on a conspiracy after having already elaborated on yet another conspiracy. It's a conspiracy sandwich with Monbiot's hypocritical bullshit wedged in between.
What i dont understand is the conflation between places which already seem to be naturally growing beef on pasture like the uk and ireland which seems quite low impact, vs brasil or america where either massive deforestation is happening or the beef are fed corn
Exactly. Eradicate the fast food industry and we'll be fine. Also, having worked in hospitality for 35 years, restaurants and corporate events could take a look at themselves.
Yet we make our UK farmers lives impossible to then Import meat from these places doing real harm to the environment. All little farms and abattoirs going under, meaning more imports from places that don't have our standards and treat animals in a very cruel way.
Exactly, “seems quite low impact” that’s what they want you to think. The point is these animals diets are supplemented, even the grass in their fields is fertilised with ammonia, this is why much of our countryside is the same colour as a golf course. This is not good for our native species, even the dung is so full of pesticides from various preventative treatments nothing can live off it. We’ve already got rid of most of the trees here to make way for animal ag, Brazil is just doing the same now. Should we judge them?
there's nothing natural about the land used for agriculture in the UK. UK went through massive deforestation and wetland draining to create all our agricultural land. Also most grass fed cattle in the UK are also fed supplementary livestock feed, which are man-made dry pellets, usually containing a high proportion of soy grown in countries like Brazil which cut down large areas of rainforest for this purpose (to grow soy for livestock feed), as well as other crops like corn and wheat. And the pasture which cows are grazed on in the UK usually predominantly comprises Italian ryegrass, a non-native species which outcompetes most other species, essentially creating a monoculture. Almost all modern livestock pasture is very low in biodiversity, contributing very little in terms of ecosystem services beyond feeding livestock. Compare that to a woodland, which contributes to flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, air purification, water purification, crop pollination, pest control, recreation and wellbeing etc.
Climate change is NOT caused or cured by zero carbon! Silvo pastures have restored and regreened arid desert lands. North Africa was once lush and green until the Roman empire deforested and culled the wild animals there, sowed wheat and other crops causing it to turn to desert. Many other examples of 'rested' land that over time became barren without animals. So animals are a must!, part of a balanced system so vitall, not to be removed especially in arid lands. Science must observe real life and learn from history not just accept controlled tests and studies from people of institutions in lovely buildings.
Poor George.,i bet he feels he is in a minority of a fraction of a percent of truly conscious and intelligent beings.He is a legend,he has been banging his head against a brick wall for years.Hopefully the tide will turn soon due to his efforts and others like him.We owe him a huge debt of gratitude for bringing these issues into the public realm.Thank you George
Such a generalistic argument. Yes aspects such as mega dairy farms (in UK up to 2500 cows) have a huge negative impact on the environment. But on a smaller scale, this is both sustainable, animal friendly and environmentally friendly. Blame America for the large scale farming that parts of the UK have adopted!
It is all of those things, but crucially it is also inefficient to the point of irrelevancy, when it comes to the real question of feeding humanity. You don't need more than basic math skills to work that out. Sure, pasture fed beef and dairy can continue to exist... but it really would have to do so as luxury goods along the lines of single malt whiskey and caviar, if we're to do it in a non-destructive way.
@@Arbaaltheundefeated sorry but we already produce so much food that it has to be destroyed in vast quantities, the biggest problem is unfair distribution of food, and the market theory which keeps the food prices high. The UN recognise the benefits of small farms that practice rotational farming methods but people like Monbiot with his profile and platform use selective arguments to further their hidden agenda of supporting chemical based farming and food corporations with patents for plant based gloop protein.
@Aid this may be your experience but it certainly isn't my experience of being around farms, admittedly not factory farms but smallish farms, on speaking to the farmers they have all been devoted to their animals wellbeing and welfare. The IPCC believes that small farms are the future of farming, and regenerative farming is essential to restore soil biodiversity and stop desertification which increases land temperatures, it isn't simply about food. I am against industrial agriculture for many reasons including the belief that animals are not machines and monocrops are unsustainable, there are much better alternatives. Also the amount of food wastage that is allowed needs to be addressed.
Awful title. I'm of the left politically and live and work in a rural area. Sensationalist clickbait 'headlines' like this do absolutely nothing to engage with farmers and there are certainly those that are completely fed up with the tories, this will just alienate them. It's an unhelpful nonsense and I say that as someone who greatly enjoys your usual content. Appreciate you've got to feed the algorithm but this just feeds the Daily Mail.
One thing has become clear from the diets of the rich world - industrialised food production does not have good health outcomes. Medicine still does not understand well how different foods are digested or exactly how the microbiome works. What is clear is that unprocessed meat is far healthier than processed meat, fermented food is great and humans cannot live healthy lives on powdered food. His plan for us to eat this protein sludge is extreme when you think that we have no idea how our bodies will handle it. At the end of the day governments are most likely to introduce a form of GHG tax which if properly accounted for will make meat very expensive. At that point people will be forced to shift to other sources of protein and George will probably get his way. Sad as it is for everyone's taste buds - at least the UK doesn't have far to fall in that respect.
Vegan for the animals FIRST. Vegan for the PLANET. Vegan for my health. Vegan for mitigating future pandemics caused by zoonotic diseases that flourish in factory farming. Vegan for antibiotic resistant bacteria that flourish in animal farming. Thank you, George, for speaking the truth.
This is just a reposting of some of another video with an exaggerated clickbait title that doesn't reflect the content or what the interviewee said. Poor stuff.
I think it's important to point out that when you're eating animal products, you're contributing to deforestation, because animals are mostly fed soya beans and corn. We hear people saying that you shouldn't eat soya because it is being grown on deforested land, but a very small proportion of soya is for direct human consumption.
We need more animal farming not less. We as a species are eating foods meant for birds, herbivores, ruminants etc. The move towards eating various forms of grasses was the means to build up cities but it was also one of the greatest nutritional mistakes of our species. We have been sick, to varying degrees, ever since. Those parts of the world where people eat just meat - the Inuit, the Masai, have practically no heart disease, cancer or stroke, and our brains and various other organs need cholesterol to be built and maintained. Animal farming consists of letting things like cows (which procured only a fraction of a percentage of global methane levels compared to transport and energy production and whose bowel movements act as natures greater fertiliser) ruminate on grass fields and natural meadows would reduce our pollution levels. Wheat needs massive amounts of water, constant fertiliser from chemicals, massive transport systems, and has close to no nutrition so you have to eat lots of it resulting in all sorts of diseases of the digestion. If every human on this plant lived off one cow needing 3-4 acres of grass land to be healthy we would have no pollution, no significant health issues, and the environment would not need to be ‘managed’ to this degree. I really am tired, after 60 years of people telling us we needed to be eating more seed oils, carbs, sugar and fibre and experimenting on us and our children to now be lying to us about the environmental impact of a form of farming that is 1% of the damage we are doing to our world. It’s disingenuous, it’s ideological and it’s wrong. Politics Joe apparently being sponsored by Monsanto, Unilever, Tate and Lyle, Centrica and the seed oil lobby. By the way - answer me this - and spend more than 8 seconds on it: the human race has gone, all the power stations have gone, there are no more cars, there are no more plastics and somehow cows have taken over the earth and their 7 billion cows are the dominant species. You are telling me that as a result the world is a devastated mad max wasteland? Or is it, just maybe, all the other interests we have that have decided to point the finger at the industry with the least influence. Stellar reporting there Joes - really cutting through the messaging.
That's load of nonsense Humans evolved eating some meat, some fruit, some vegetables, some cereals, some etc. Beef farming produces a disproportionately high amount of greenhouse gas, which isn't ok because we can't wreck the planet so some rich farmers can buy new 4x4s this year. I'm laughing at the idea that 32 BILLION acres of grassland is your solution to the worlds calorie requirement! 😅 (we have 4 BILLION acres of arable land worldwide at the moment) You need to learn to be reasonable. Saying mad rabbit-hole-right-wing, conspiracy theory stuff makes people think you're a bit bonkers. Ps. Life expectancy at age 1 for the Inuit household population was 70.0 years for Inuit males and 76.1 years for Inuit females, which is 11.4 (95% CI 9.2; 13.6) and 11.2 (95% CI 8.3; 14.2) years shorter than for the non-Indigenous population. www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2019012/article/00001-eng.pdf
Great, I'm definitely going to take your random youtube commenter's word that Monbiot is straight up lying to us and just assume you know better. It's not like everything you say is a massive misrepresentation of reality. "If every human on this planet lived off one cow needing 3-4 acres of grass land to be healthy" What magical makebelieve world does your mind exist in where you can allow yourself to think stupid thoughts like that, let alone communicate them to others?
I watch a lot of this channels content, and I think the way the title frames George's argument is egregious and unfair, you don't need to resort to this, be the change in journalism we all want to see, not fall victim to media hype bullshit.
George Monbiot is a journalist. His willingness to talk about subjects he has no real knowledge about shows his level of arrogance. Industrial agriculture is the problem. But it’s not the only type of agriculture. What about regenerative agriculture?
Agree about the click bait title.....But it looks like the film "Soylent Green" wasn't too far from the truth. How many dystopian views of the future peddled in the 1970's are actually emerging now........Good comment on the state of reality.
I said to someone several years ago that we need to break away from the modern system of farming which is a very uneconomical use of the land available and more often than not results in commercialised countryside with little or no biodiversity and causes untold other environmental problems. They said I should stop reading so much science fiction 🤷♂
I would like to know what George thinks of things like the Chinampas of Mexico, that land is incredibly diverse and incredibly productive. I am not saying he is wrong, just building on his points. However, the scientists of yesteryear were all solving problems by further distancing humans from nature, with unforeseen consequences. However, maybe an EVEN deeper change of slowly reintegrating humans with nature is the key. Of course, urban centres will always require the kinds of intensive factory farming he talks about, thus requiring another land to produce a surplus to support them. But his system further requires the concentration of humans in small areas. If we simultaneously focus on the economic (and ecological) development of developing nations to help slow the birth rate of humans, while also starting permaculture agriculture in less dense areas, adopting vertical farming methods outside urban centres, and creating a protein-rich food solution by fermentation and perennial plants would also be a part of this as well (although I remain reserved on the nutritional consequences of those). Then I believe there is a solution in there somewhere. I think any solution that posits a uniliteral description of the solution is suspect (Vegan vs Carnivore both seem equally as silly for example). The truth is in the nuance; humans require resources, and the way society is currently structured is a one-way damage to the planet for the resources, but to say there are no other options is a tad presumptuous. Also, the title is degenerate and really devalues this important conversion and the interview, this guy is a legend in the game. @PoliticsJOE
Absolutely loved this interview, listened to it on Spotify. I was however shocked that a podcast decrying green washing oligarchy and corporate fossil fuel lobby ran a green-washing ad from ARAMCO of all companies!!???!!! Would be worth looking into who is sponsoring your content.
I'm a farmer's wife. I personally do not eat meat. One thing no one has ever explained to me is this: what would we do with all those animals. People do not keep pet cows, which is a shame. They are very affectionate. Would George Monbiot, etc, rather see them all slaughtered? Does he have a pet cow? If you have pet cattle (cow, bull, steer, etc), drop a 🐄 in response & and give the name of the breed. Also, what would we feed our pets? What about the ecological benefits of grazing?
Yes the argument is that 95+% of all the animals will be killed. Over the production cycle most of the meat production animals are killed anyway, only breeders live a couple of years past their production time. So the only functional difference is that breeding would be drastically reduced until there there is only a fraction of domesticated animals left, which would make ecological space for wild animals. For multiple reasons, I do not think this will happen to anywhere near 95+%, but that is the argument.
Are you suggesting that all those farmed animals bred into existence on farms aren't already going to be slaughtered? The solution is very obvious. As demand ramps down the need to breed animals to supply that demand ramps down. Just stop breeding them into existence. If your concern is more about the potential of making these farmed animals extinct then you should know that animal agriculture is the number one leading cause of biodiversity loss and extinction on the planet.
while there is a cycle involving carbon dioxide, it is not a direct transfer from grass to cows. Rather, the cycle involves plants like grass absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, using it to produce glucose, which is consumed by cows as part of their diet. The cows, in turn, contribute to the release of CO2 through respiration and waste decomposition. However it seems like your comment is intended to imply that cows have no negative impact on the environment?... If this was the implication... it's false: Factory farming of cows often involves intensive livestock operations where large numbers of animals are confined in small spaces. These operations can lead to various environmental issues, including: Greenhouse gas emissions: Cows in factory farms produce significant amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Methane is primarily released through cow belching and the decomposition of their waste. Deforestation: To meet the demand for feed, factory farming often relies on clearing forests and converting them into agricultural land. This leads to habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity. Water pollution: The concentrated waste generated by large-scale livestock operations can contaminate water sources, including rivers and groundwater, with excess nutrients and pathogens, which can harm aquatic ecosystems and human health. Water usage: Factory farming requires significant amounts of water for animal hydration, cleaning, and crop irrigation for feed production, contributing to water scarcity concerns in some regions. Antibiotic use and resistance: Intensive livestock operations often rely on the routine use of antibiotics to promote growth and prevent diseases in crowded conditions. This practice contributes to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which poses risks to human health. These factors, along with others, contribute to the argument that factory farming practices have detrimental environmental effects. It is important to consider the overall impact of industrial-scale animal agriculture when discussing the environmental sustainability of livestock production systems.
What’s doubly sad about this topic is that it’s very hard to discern what data from what study is not aimed at ‘proving a point’ and is just the data presented in an unbiased way. There are studies that prove either way the effect of agriculture on the environment. There is huge money backing everything he’s saying which was also a criticism he had about the FF industry! What makes him not see the hypocrisy in that?
It's very easy to get your proteins if you eat the amount of calories your need, whatsoever your diet is relaying on, even on a plant based diet. Do the maths and you will see. As a vegan, and doing so for ecological reasons, I was a bit worried not to get the right amount of proteins required. But when I did the maths I realised I was eating 100g of protein per day and it's a bit to much. So I reduced the amount of leguminous and cereals. And i'm still eating around 75g of protein per day. It's almost impossible to fall under 50g. No need of these fake meats or proteins produced in an industrial way! Just eat the cereals, grains leguminous ,and so on , which are given to the cattle, pigs, chickens , and cut the middle man. And it's even healthier, if you don't forget to take a vitamine b12 supplement. But , in another way , it's difficult to produce all the food we need without animals, because of the manure which helps to improve the soil, unless we use our own manure, which is possible on a personal level ( c.f the book of joe jenkins: 'Humanure') but a bit difficult for a farmer 😅 Better using the cattle to feed the fields than using the fields to feed the cattle. Sorry for my poor English writing.
Yesterday You must use our methods of farming or else ! Today You must be punished for using the method we instead you use because it damaging the environment .
Crops that can stay in the ground for a long time? If only we had a plant like that, maybe one that doesn't completely fail in a drought. Oh yes, we do... grass
Just a very minor point: he says that livestock farming causes pretty much all wild organisms "except those that eat cow dung" to lose out, actually thanks to avermectins (wormicides routinely given to cattle and other livestock to prevent them developing parasitic worms) even animals which eat cow dung (such as dung beetles) lose out, as they tend to die from eating the toxic avermectins excreted in the dung
If your reason for asking is you think that is that livestock farming isn’t bad in one of those contexts then I have some bad news for you about what actually goes on at your uncles farm…
@@ij184 My reason for asking is I deal with stats in my job. I was just looking for context to understand. I've enjoyed a couple of vegan Christmases with dear friends who very much care for the wellbeing of our planet, not just animals.
I think he did it for all 3? Is burning fossil fuels in the USA worse than burning them in the UK? 🧐In other words does it matter? If you deal with stats in your day job I'm sure you wouldn't struggle to find studies etc with documented stats online. They're all there.
Why aren't we talking about the elephant in the room which is out of control human population. The answer to our woes is simple but no government will touch it ,we have to drastically decrease our population.
Problem with natural carbon capture is that as the natural organisms die and degrade they release back the carbon dioxide - admittedly over a longer term but that just kicks the can down the road. Better that Carbon capture is into rock (CaCO3).
Oli keeps hopefully trying to reintroduce some small-scale touchy-feely eco-hippy agenda which Monbiot has already demonstrated is inadequate and unworkable.
HOW MUCH FOOD IS JUST THROWN AWAY IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, THE EXPIRY DATE WAS PROBABLY MADE COMMON JUST TO KEEP THE FOOD PRODUCTION WORKING OVERTIME. WHILE THE POOR LIVE OFF THE GARBAGE. HOW DISGUSTING CAN HUMAN SOCIETY GET? HOW GREEDY CAN BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN GET?
Love the clickbait title. Draw the idiots in with something fantastical like “eat the babies” then force them to sit there and listen to a reasonable argument.
It sadly sounds like he’s never been on a regenerative farm yet lumps all types of agricultural together. I agree with him that we really need to get out of industrial monocultures. But he seems to not grasp that non-domesticated herbivores exist. Bison and zebras still impact their environments, allowing for grasslands to exist. Regenerative farming follows nature’s methods in this way. Feedlots and conventional farming goes against nature. I really want him to spend time on a few regenerative farms. While they are all different based in their places and contexts, I think he would see that these types of farms really do heal the soil and ecosystems.
Also, as for his slagging off this so-called neo-peasant "bullshit", actually there's quite a lot we could accomplish if everyone took to doing a bit of farming. If you've got a problem with factory farming chickens, anyone with a garden can keep laying hens and, with even a few, you'd end up with more eggs than you know what to do with. No one said you to eat the eggs. And I've never heard vegans keeping chickens. Doing it on that scale would be far better for the animals, better for the environment, and it'd be a pretty effective way of utilising the large areas of space currently given over to people's gardens and public areas for agriculture.
I watched a film called "Mr Jones" last night. It was about the 1930s welsh journalist Gareth Jones. Let's just say the political apple doesn't fall far from the marxist tree.
Wasn’t it so obvious when you look around. Leave a city, go into what we call nature, take a good look around, or drive around like I have done in my camper for 7 years, and all you can see is farms farms farms. Would you trust the water around farms? NOPE. That already tells you enough. But it’s not just the water, it’s the soil, the air, all the ecosystems around farming that go against the balance of nature. Also, why is everyone SO OK about them putting poison in the very food that goes into your children. It baffles me how people can be so docile into thinking farmers are good. Like, it’s mental. If it weren’t for farmers, you’d look around today and see forests as far as the eye can see. Look how much forests they have destroyed to grow some poisoned crops or torture thousands of animals. Also the natural animals have nowhere to go. Deers are constantly in fear. And if it weren’t enough destruction for these farmers, the very same people go out hunting anything that moves!! …I know the agenda of WEF isnt for our good, but I really dont mind the indirect good they are doing making many go bankrupt. They’re ok with ending lives everyday, but as soon as the table is turned a fraction, they get so upset! We need a whole revolution, and the very vegans you tormented are the ones driving it from the beginning. There will be some chaos, but what change that is worth it, will come without some chaos? LET GO.
People eat far too much meat these days. I ate well in the 50s and 60s but we didnt eat meat or fish at every meal as many people seem to these days. I stopped eating meat 40 years ago and dont miss it . I do still eat fish though sometimes. I like Quorn but too much of it upsets my stomach.
Genius George has all the answers to slow down the degradation of our poor old planet. Why doesn’t the government ask this gentleman to head up an action team to make the urgent changes needed?
Just imagine that humanity was planted here by an alien species, to see what our race would accomplish on this unique paradise of a planet. What a complete feckin disappointment we must be.
I like George. He makes A LOT of sense across a variety of topics but he has, for me got this wrong. I agree with a lot of his sentiments e.g. intensive farming is bad, as is our over reliance on cheap, unsustainable meat. However, before we release the next silver bullet can we please consider the long term impacts. We don't know the long term impacts on our health of this huge dietary shift. We can't, because we haven't tested it over a sustained period of time. Lets not do what ee always do and leap in to find horrific consequences when it's too late. I also believe extensive, sustainable and woodland farming are all valid and indeed beneficial ways forward for our planet. I base this on solid daya, built up over generations of experience - not some new fashionable idea
PoliticsJOE, ditch the stupid title guys. You are misrepresenting him horribly as you know. This message is too important to poison with a click bait title. C'mon.
Thank you a sensible statement
He does a good job of misrepresenting the Ruth, and he will be held to account.
Well put.
I understand the need for Clickbait in our degraded media ecology but ... yeah, that title ain't helping is it.
Yea, destroying and anointing Lorax are very different things. Although he is probably doing it intentionally to draw in the ejits that actually need to hear this.
I don't think it's fair to misrepresent his argument to get a clickbait title. You can't be against all farming because we need to eat. My understanding is he is against animal agriculture and practices in arable farming which lead to pollution which is why he discusses organic farming methods Regenesis.
Yeah, this was a stupid title and thumbnail that undermines Monbiot's very sensible message about opening our eyes to the lies about the sustainability and environmental viability of modern 'eco-farming', greenwashing in other words. And will set people up to disagree before hearing a word.
At least Russell brand isn't on the thumbnail to this video... lol they Don't need to resort to click bait tactics when you've got george monbiot doing an interview surly... just giving talk TV ammunition with titles like this .
Totally agree. @PoliticsJoe needs to stop engaging in the culture war click bait BS if it wants to be taken seriously.
No one cares about your petty whining. The notion that you nebbish types can issue commands really shows how far adrift from reality Karenville is.
Yeah good shout. Destroy is the bait for the algorithm too.
The title is not helpful for the cause. It just gives more fuel to the nutters.
Yeah, lost a few points of respect for this channel with this presentation. Monbiot is saying something important here and not at all what this bullshit clickbait implies.
not only that but it makes this dude sound like a nutter when he clearly isnt
So if you don't agree with this, you're a nutter ?
Actually .. yes.
Good point.
In a world in which 'Get. Brexit. Done.' and 'Make. America. Great. Again'. are vote-winners, slogans are important.
i thought so too. microbe farming will require a lot of plant experts
This is an excellent interview. Please stop using polarizing language such as "destroy". Progressive politics needs to use constructive, solution focused language that promotes dialogue and opt out of this kind of destructive and divisive discourse that plays into the hands of the same regressive political forces you are trying to critique.
They're terrible for this. They want to be taken seriously but upload content titles like a 12 year old uploading Fortnite footage.
James im a self made farmer plenty of us are willing to talk and work with people. Then you get this ? Thank you for your commonsense response.
I’m afraid that George and excellent are not aligned. He has a vested interest in us all rejecting rural life and farming practices to eat some manufactured gloop. He peddles the same old sound bites and bitches openly about farmers and farming. I’ve must attended a Monbiot v Batters session at Hay and there are no lengths to which he will stop to denigrate UK farmers so please don speak of constructive, solution focused, non-divisive discourse, George Monbiot does none of that.
Well said, what was the point of that? Moronic
Came here to say this. I would encourage Politics Joe to consider editing the title of this video. It deserves better.
Change this title to something that accurately represents what he is saying. You’re not the bloody Daily Mail.
Couldn't agree more with this. You lose your credibility when every title is emotional clickbait.
It’s a pretty fair title
@@willieclark2256 I think he'd like to destroy animal farming. Not all of farming. He seems keen on us eating well! ;-)
Vertical farming in Germany of wheat has found that they can grow 10 times the amount of wheat with 80% less resources. So we need to fundamentally reform the way we produce food. Argophotovoltaics are another method for producing up to 300% more yield from a crop.
The British government is too occupied on looking back to a time when we ruled an empire, than building a Britain for the 21st century..
agrisolar does not, on the whole produce 300pc of comparable yields in the vast majority of circumstances, certainly not in the UK.
It's disingenuous to suggest such being possible in the UK, but I'd place it to enthusiasm for future tech than anything else.
I have recently done some googly-research on vertical wheat farms (because it's considered one of the "impossible" species), and I noticed that for Germany there's 1 company that keeps popping up called Infarm, and I also noticed that aside from their very bold claims, they never post any research results, or even a description of their process. No photo's, no videos, nothing. No statement on the costs, on the energy consumption and on the price compared to field grown wheat, and that made me quite suspicious. It wouldn't be the first time that people pushed their hopeless projects and walked away with tens of millions in funding.
Did you find out more than I did? Some specifics maybe?
Actually a lot vertical farms just don't work. I mean there litterally using Leds rather than the sun which is free. This energy exchange doesn't work.
@@TheBushdoctor68 yeah I only see highly dubious claims.
Destroy all farmers? Definitely not he’s promoting the idea of a new type of farming. Wrong title
From the different clips Politics Joe have created of the same interview, this has the most clickbait-y title of the lot. It was a really interesting discussion, or at least what George had to say was interesting, but that title is undermining it.
It's Daily Express worthy, it's so bad. Content as usual is very interesting, why stoop so low? (The algorithm will be the doom us all!)
Im a self made livestock farmer, My dad was a herdsman and ive done it without any state or private funding and its damn hard. Mr Monbiot doesnt live in the real world an ex Stowe public school/ Oxford University. He has never had any real hands on experience of farming. I get no subsides and neither do a good few others of any description as Bliar changed the rules and subsidies go to the landowners.
That is why hedge fund managers, bankers and the rich buy farms and land. Its money for nothing and they then rent the land out again!
A total cock up by Bliar looking after the city, This country needs to produce food we do it but with a urban population that is now totally separated from its food production.
This is a bad thing and sows the seeds misinformation. The supermarket strangle hold is killing farmers and yet people flock to them.
People talk about animal welfare and fruit and vegetables grown sustainably yet buy the cheapest battery eggs, 6 week chickens and fruit and veg from the continent with countless air miles and cheap milk sold as a loss leader.
We need to eat seasonally and sensibly we waste far too much food look at supermarket waste and home waste its disgraceful and a national disgrace.
Until Mr Monbiot and the rest of the urban anti farming movement sit down and speak to real farmers not the NFU that represents 18% of farmers the big boys. But small and medium tenant /rent/owners.
We might start getting somewhere, Mr Monbiot was offered the chance to speak to the NSA membership " National sheep Association " but refused?
We have to work together but it takes two to tango but if this continues the misinformation about us how do you expect us to trust you?
I suggest our critics try our to produce food and do it as a business its damn hard and the subsidies myth is just that it goes to the land owner not the person who farms it.
Lets try and get some common ground and start respecting food and its production.
We need to sit down and talk,listen and respect each other. Thats not happening its all anti farming and thats wrong.
He once lived in Machynlleth town, right in the centre of one of the most rural and sheep raising areas in the UK. He couldn’t hack it and some farmer must have told him some home truths for which he has never forgiven farmers in general. He makes no attempt to show how food would be produced for the masses when about 70% of all UK farmland is not suitable for anything other than grazed grass.
He is right that people are very far removed from where their food is produced, however his one skill is in convincing the gullible that he is even half sane and to actually waste their money buying his fantasy books.
@Huw Williams to the original comment: your point about subsidies doesn't change the fact that we need to change the way we interact with the planet to survive in the long run.
Business point: if more people were vegan it would be easier to sell vegan products. The problem here is that people currently aren't living their lives in a sustainable way but they have to change.
To your comment about land usage:
Did you know that 95% of the soy grown in Brazil is used to feed cattle.
If we no longer need to feed cattle etc (who eat more crops than us) we could actually save on space used to grow crops as well.
The fact that 70% of UK farmland isn't suitable for anything other than grass doesn't suggest that we don't have enough space to grow food (not meat etc). It actually shows how inefficient our current food production system is.
Do you know anyone where 70% of the food they eat is meat? 🧐
@@jackdiamond931
Absolute rubbish. The planet is doing very well and barring a catastrophic event unrelated to humans, such as the inevitable advance of the next ice age peaking [we are still in an ice age but in a relatively short semi=melt] the planet will continue to balance itself. You have been indoctrinated by the doom-mongers in the grand religious tradition, hook, line and sinker.
Sense at last. George will never sit down with sheep farmers, he is on record and again yesterday at Hay festival, for saying that sheep have rendered the hillsides of Wales a barren wasteland. Which is utter nonsense, but he want us all eating manufactured gloop to line the pockets of investors who want to control our lives through food. He is n a mission and his open attacks on farmers and farming us unedifying. Minette Batters did put up a good fight tho.
@Jack Diamond jack then come and join the farming industry ? Im self made never given a penny by anyone if i can you can.
Then buy or rent arable land and have a go its hard work for little money. You will need phosphate fertiliser unless you can get muck of livestock farmers.
The best way is mixed farming sadly nearly destroyed by the EU. Their is nothing stopping you having a go?
Try eating seasonally and stop eating imported out of season foods something vegans forget food milage , phosphate ferilizers etc
This guy is a real breath of fresh air. On point, knowledgeable, sceptical and as unbiased as humanly possible.
He also misrepresents facts to make his point. A recent Guardian article had us as one of the top water using nations in Europe. We're most definitely mid-table on that count, something a cursory Google proved. The way we view food needs changing, then the change to how we farm will come. There's no place for manufactured animal protein in this, we need to de-centralise the whole industry.
@@johnflanagan9382 no place for animal protein ? its down to peoples personal choices this isnt 1984 or animal farm Napoleon
Unbiased aka has the same biases as me so I don’t notice. Everyone has biases. It’s a fundamental human trait.
@@stephenholmes1036 I think that he meant the manufactured animal protein such as protein using animal culture to ferment more animal protein.
He is not knowledgeable. He has a vested interest. He does not stand up,to scrutiny by those in the know.
After watching this is think I’m going to stop eating meat.
It's super cheap and easy to eat a protein rich and nutritious vegan diet 🎉🎉🎉
Muppet
There is a guy in Minnesota who has a completely different version of farming -- not vertical, not high tech, and most importantly (?) not amenable to corporate takeover. He practices relentless indifference, where he tries many many varieties of perennials and self-seeders, and keeps the ones that are tough enough to live without intervention. He integrates animals for weeding and pruning, and has nearly constant output of *something* -- nuts, and fruits, and grains, and veggies, milks and meats. The productivity is small compared to standard practices, but his input is practically zero, so the income is almost all profit. Nearly zero fossil fuel input, zero chemical use, zero predator control other than a dog or a burro. The animals fertilize and till and eat pests. It's pretty great, actually.
Mark Shepard ua-cam.com/video/gRu7ESUOJTE/v-deo.html
Terrible title for a brilliantly informative video.
We, as a species, are JUST learning what it means to be human after bumbling through 100,000 (+/-) years.
But some (multinational corporations, multimillionaires and billionaires) have done so badly that we may not live long enough to benefit from what we’ve learned.
blaming is easier than solving.
@@lorrainegatanianhits8331 You do have to properly identify the problem before it can be solved.
Though ... most major religions have a part of their Holy Books describing how to avoid this sort of catastrophe ...
But...
That didn't stop us turning Africa from forest to tundra, the 'Fertile crescent' (the middle east) into desert, or the American Midwest into dustbowl.
It's not farmers that are responsible. It's bankers and the ruling rich - who can always squeeze that little bit more ouit of their subjects.
Sure, but saying that doesn't change anything. It needs people to see that buying a cheap Tesco chicken has a further consequence. At the moment the causal link isn't there for most, that buying that chicken 3 times a week conflates with pollution and climate change.
Please substitute your own choice of value led supermarket brand and your own farmyard animal. If we can eat it, then at some point we'll shove it in a box no bigger than itself and force feed it rubbish
The conundrum is, if we want to grow crops for food without the use of chemical fertilizers, we would likely need to make use of the ample quantities of manure that livestock produce.
I see the use of live stock waste used every year on food crops, My wood chip and green waste is also used as a soil improver, where do you live?
It's typical that a Guardian journalist favours a food system in which all our food is controlled by a small number of super massive companies, in secret. He fails to recognise that if one of those super massive labs were to fail, or have a disease outbreak, that would cause mass extinction
I agree. Even though I usually find George Monbiot to present fine arguments for his case, this does not square. He wants high intensive food production of perennials without using artificial fertilizer or animal dung from livestock. He cannot feed the world population and be at odds with the fossil fuel and fertilizer industry at the same time. And then your point exactly, if he is for a increased democratization of our political and social systems (which he clearly presents as a desirable alternative in other talks) then why he is lobbying for a greater concentration of power in the hands of industry when it comes to food? Government is never ever going to accept ordinary people using fermentation process to produce food in their own privately made labs for human consumption. Just think of all the expensive licenses and bureaucracy needed for anyone to get that kind of business up and running. Ordinary people can own livestock and recycle that dung into fertility for their market and kitchen gardens. It’s a more democratic way of producing our food. Just like Mark Lynas I’ve had much respect for their opinions and arguments regarding other topics, but when it comes to food and feeding the world I cannot see how their visions present a fairer, more just and ecologically sound food system.
Redistribution of farmland, to enthusiastic small scale farmers should have been the first thing we did after Brexit.
Re-distribution of farmland and the borrowing secured on them ? Farmers are the biggest subsidisers of food in the country. Shall E re-distribute your assets? No, thought not.
Funnily enough this is what every successful Asian country did. Japan, SK, and Taiwan all had extreme land redistribution policies. It caused a huge boom in food production and massive economic growth. Source: How Asia Works - Joe Studwell
Alas, the removal of public benefit regulation from this island was funded by offshore tax-avoiding finance as a means to remove all regulation and asset-astrip the country all the quicker.
Most UK property is now passing into the hands of offshore finance - as are the ownership of most of the island-born workforce.
We were sold.
The rumours of it being a unicorn-sale were exaggerated.
@@mowilliams2517most farmland isn't owned by farmers. It's owned by billionaires like Dyson or The Crown. The former are only interested in maximum returns for minimal investment. The latter keep their land because they're better than all of us because someone said so
We need vegetables, herbs, berry bushes and fruit trees planted on every estate in Britain, so we are not reliant on profit-hungry supermarkets and can source natural organic food locally. It isn't difficult as this was the case in the 70s when I grew up. Both sets of grandparents had gardens full of food and we used to forage for a plethora of edibles on our doorstep... Now we have food banks?
It's always good to grow food for yourself, but it's entirely unrealistic to shake your reliance on "supermarkets" that way. It would take way more than a small back yard to even get close to sustaining yourself (and an enormous amount of people don't even have one), not to mention an expert knowledge of preservation solutions. The only reason we have access to most greens through winter and spring for example is importation, are you going to be handling that individually too?
@@Arbaaltheundefeated We already import 46% of our food. We have thousands of miles of roads and council estates filled with decorative trees and bushes. Preservation including salt pickling, fermentation and pickling in vinegar has provided seasonal foods all year around for centuries. Modern farming methods such as hydroponics, aquaponics and verticle gardens provide many multiples of food per square meter.
@@steveparker8065 Oh, right, so in your world it's really simple and cheap for just anyone to farm pounds and pounds of greens *per day* and store it all to cover the year, maybe we should all be making our own vinegar and salt, grow our own sugar and breed our own yeast cultures to preserve it with since it's all so easy? Get your head out of your neo-primitivist clouds and listen to Monbiot, these are pipedreams fit for a world with a fraction of the population we have to contend with, and incompatible with our entire model of civilization.
Sure sounds nice but that'd have basically no impact. Not against it, though.
@@tisFrancesfault Yeah, by all means people should definitely endeavor to grow food for themselves as and where they can. A nice vegetable garden is both an environmental boon and a great hobby that can bring a lot of mental wellness.
But thinking backyard parcel agriculture is a solution to the future of feeding humanity is nothing short of delusional.
7.04: “just animal farming produces more GHG than all global transport.” Can anyone tell me where he’s getting his math from?
A quick image search (global greenhouse gas emissions by sector 2020 ipcc) seems to me to suggest that while agriculture accounts for more than transport, livestock is a fraction of this and no where near transport…
Any suggestions greatly appreciated..
Greenpeace said this a few years ago:
It was called farming for failure
Yes he’s peddling the same old stuff having been taken to task on the data time and again. Agri emissions in U.K. are about 1per cent of total emissions whilst in USA 4%. It’s fashionable to cite agriculture because of competing interests n terms of what George is peddling and Beyond Meat etc the fact is that the consumer has rejected al lot of the processed vegan foods and the investors are after them for misrepresenting projected returns. It’s a money game.
On Wiki you can get some data: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_agriculture On this counting it is ca. 25%, and it is still somewhat underestimated. I saw somewhere other, more minute calculations, which estimated it into more than 30%. Anyway, half of that is animal production, and that' how you get at Monbiot's thesis.
@@OgrodLesnyOstatnieWzgorze Thanks.
There;'s always a difference between those who deny facts and those who simply look 'em up.
The ones who look for information are campaigning to save our world. The ones who can't be *rsed to look up anything are complaining about laws that put childrens lives above more dangerous cars.
Livestock includes the massive use of land and resources used in the production of animal feed
This nonsense about not farming animals has got to stop. The first vegan boom occurred concurrently with the lion's share of deforestation in the Amazon and Indonesia. Vegans rabidly try and protest that the majority of the deforestation has been to clear rainforest for pasture-based beef farming; how would that work then with the jaguars, anacondas and other predatory animals native to rainforests who are going to gobble up the farmer's cattle as soon as their backs are turned? Also, if you leave the land on which we currently graze livestock, it'll get overgrown, the grass will grow over one season and begin decaying in the next; that will emit as much methane as would be released if you grazed cattle on it. This scapegoating of livestock farming is a smokescreen for shale gas drilling (which provides the majority of novel methane emissions), and vegans are its gullible supporters.
Farmers are not nearly so resistant to specific changes of practice in principle. There tends to be a curiosity to future tech.
The idea of a more hyper industrial concentration of food production is likely the future. This includes synthetic meat production.
But the issue is, naturally farmers don't want to be fucked over, nor really would likely be involved in such changes. Everything will, as ever, be dictated, and that naturally pisses people off.
Its not that they want to save the planet, they dont eat meat so they think no one else should eat meat too.
Since the Tories rewrote the way our country works in 1979, the thing that decides everything is no longer public good, but private progfit...
THAT is killing independent everything to be replaced by ever-l;artgers corporations ... including farming.
I agree - there are huge vested interests in animal skin, flesh and secretion industries.
While we eat bugs , the rich will always have their organic livestock farms .
And it's thumbnails and clickbait titles like this which is why you can't take "JOE" seriously as a media source. In this interview he discusses the turn Russel Brand's account has taken with sensationalism and clickbait in order to gain views and how it loses him credibility and makes him look silly, and here's you, doing the exact same thing. Be better.
Email them!!
What an idealogue.
"Pay farmers to restore the land". Im still trying to figure out his realistic plan to feed us all.
He says we should focus on concentrating farming in fertile soils etc....and removing it from infertile locations. Firstly, this sounds very much like superfarms, and secondly, thats exactly what we are already doing.
And then finally, he d rather we just ate some soup of stinking bacteria....
I'm all for perennials
Even idealogues can accidentally come across 1 or 2 good ideas without completely destroying them.
Conpletely agree with him regarding the very final bit.
The vast vast proportion of crops grown are fed to animals - we would have no problem whatsoever feeding us all if we were not feeding animals
"Conspiracy merchants..." he proceeds to obliquely elaborate on a conspiracy after having already elaborated on yet another conspiracy. It's a conspiracy sandwich with Monbiot's hypocritical bullshit wedged in between.
Corruption is the ideology that has always created wealth in Britain.
What i dont understand is the conflation between places which already seem to be naturally growing beef on pasture like the uk and ireland which seems quite low impact, vs brasil or america where either massive deforestation is happening or the beef are fed corn
Exactly. Eradicate the fast food industry and we'll be fine. Also, having worked in hospitality for 35 years, restaurants and corporate events could take a look at themselves.
Yet we make our UK farmers lives impossible to then Import meat from these places doing real harm to the environment.
All little farms and abattoirs going under, meaning more imports from places that don't have our standards and treat animals in a very cruel way.
Exactly, “seems quite low impact” that’s what they want you to think. The point is these animals diets are supplemented, even the grass in their fields is fertilised with ammonia, this is why much of our countryside is the same colour as a golf course. This is not good for our native species, even the dung is so full of pesticides from various preventative treatments nothing can live off it. We’ve already got rid of most of the trees here to make way for animal ag, Brazil is just doing the same now. Should we judge them?
there's nothing natural about the land used for agriculture in the UK. UK went through massive deforestation and wetland draining to create all our agricultural land. Also most grass fed cattle in the UK are also fed supplementary livestock feed, which are man-made dry pellets, usually containing a high proportion of soy grown in countries like Brazil which cut down large areas of rainforest for this purpose (to grow soy for livestock feed), as well as other crops like corn and wheat. And the pasture which cows are grazed on in the UK usually predominantly comprises Italian ryegrass, a non-native species which outcompetes most other species, essentially creating a monoculture. Almost all modern livestock pasture is very low in biodiversity, contributing very little in terms of ecosystem services beyond feeding livestock. Compare that to a woodland, which contributes to flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, air purification, water purification, crop pollination, pest control, recreation and wellbeing etc.
Climate change is NOT caused or cured by zero carbon! Silvo pastures have restored and regreened arid desert lands. North Africa was once lush and green until the Roman empire deforested and culled the wild animals there, sowed wheat and other crops causing it to turn to desert. Many other examples of 'rested' land that over time became barren without animals. So animals are a must!, part of a balanced system so vitall, not to be removed especially in arid lands. Science must observe real life and learn from history not just accept controlled tests and studies from people of institutions in lovely buildings.
Poor George.,i bet he feels he is in a minority of a fraction of a percent of truly conscious and intelligent beings.He is a legend,he has been banging his head against a brick wall for years.Hopefully the tide will turn soon due to his efforts and others like him.We owe him a huge debt of gratitude for bringing these issues into the public realm.Thank you George
Such a generalistic argument. Yes aspects such as mega dairy farms (in UK up to 2500 cows) have a huge negative impact on the environment. But on a smaller scale, this is both sustainable, animal friendly and environmentally friendly. Blame America for the large scale farming that parts of the UK have adopted!
It is all of those things, but crucially it is also inefficient to the point of irrelevancy, when it comes to the real question of feeding humanity. You don't need more than basic math skills to work that out. Sure, pasture fed beef and dairy can continue to exist... but it really would have to do so as luxury goods along the lines of single malt whiskey and caviar, if we're to do it in a non-destructive way.
@@Arbaaltheundefeated sorry but we already produce so much food that it has to be destroyed in vast quantities, the biggest problem is unfair distribution of food, and the market theory which keeps the food prices high. The UN recognise the benefits of small farms that practice rotational farming methods but people like Monbiot with his profile and platform use selective arguments to further their hidden agenda of supporting chemical based farming and food corporations with patents for plant based gloop protein.
Can't hold America accountable for decisions taken by our own representatives. I mean, we just can't. What you gonna do, write to your congressman?
@Aid this may be your experience but it certainly isn't my experience of being around farms, admittedly not factory farms but smallish farms, on speaking to the farmers they have all been devoted to their animals wellbeing and welfare. The IPCC believes that small farms are the future of farming, and regenerative farming is essential to restore soil biodiversity and stop desertification which increases land temperatures, it isn't simply about food. I am against industrial agriculture for many reasons including the belief that animals are not machines and monocrops are unsustainable, there are much better alternatives. Also the amount of food wastage that is allowed needs to be addressed.
@Aid People can be friendly to animals that they raise for food. It's a darn site easier than trying to get friendly with your future McNugget.
Awful title. I'm of the left politically and live and work in a rural area. Sensationalist clickbait 'headlines' like this do absolutely nothing to engage with farmers and there are certainly those that are completely fed up with the tories, this will just alienate them.
It's an unhelpful nonsense and I say that as someone who greatly enjoys your usual content.
Appreciate you've got to feed the algorithm but this just feeds the Daily Mail.
That title is going to tick off some people. Interesting interview JOE, thank you.
One thing has become clear from the diets of the rich world - industrialised food production does not have good health outcomes. Medicine still does not understand well how different foods are digested or exactly how the microbiome works. What is clear is that unprocessed meat is far healthier than processed meat, fermented food is great and humans cannot live healthy lives on powdered food. His plan for us to eat this protein sludge is extreme when you think that we have no idea how our bodies will handle it.
At the end of the day governments are most likely to introduce a form of GHG tax which if properly accounted for will make meat very expensive. At that point people will be forced to shift to other sources of protein and George will probably get his way. Sad as it is for everyone's taste buds - at least the UK doesn't have far to fall in that respect.
I'd like to hear George debate this condemnation of farming with a much bigger, broader societal audience. His is one perspective.
He does understand organised agriculture is the base for modern human civilisation?
Vegan for the animals FIRST.
Vegan for the PLANET.
Vegan for my health.
Vegan for mitigating future pandemics caused by zoonotic diseases that flourish in factory farming.
Vegan for antibiotic resistant bacteria that flourish in animal farming.
Thank you, George, for speaking the truth.
This is just a reposting of some of another video with an exaggerated clickbait title that doesn't reflect the content or what the interviewee said. Poor stuff.
I think it's important to point out that when you're eating animal products, you're contributing to deforestation, because animals are mostly fed soya beans and corn. We hear people saying that you shouldn't eat soya because it is being grown on deforested land, but a very small proportion of soya is for direct human consumption.
Really not on board with the clickbait title guys, George gets enough misdirected hate already.
George is tge master of click-bait. Have you not followed him? He is ruthless
Awful headline. Change it.
This guy is actually deluded.
We need more animal farming not less. We as a species are eating foods meant for birds, herbivores, ruminants etc. The move towards eating various forms of grasses was the means to build up cities but it was also one of the greatest nutritional mistakes of our species. We have been sick, to varying degrees, ever since. Those parts of the world where people eat just meat - the Inuit, the Masai, have practically no heart disease, cancer or stroke, and our brains and various other organs need cholesterol to be built and maintained. Animal farming consists of letting things like cows (which procured only a fraction of a percentage of global methane levels compared to transport and energy production and whose bowel movements act as natures greater fertiliser) ruminate on grass fields and natural meadows would reduce our pollution levels. Wheat needs massive amounts of water, constant fertiliser from chemicals, massive transport systems, and has close to no nutrition so you have to eat lots of it resulting in all sorts of diseases of the digestion. If every human on this plant lived off one cow needing 3-4 acres of grass land to be healthy we would have no pollution, no significant health issues, and the environment would not need to be ‘managed’ to this degree. I really am tired, after 60 years of people telling us we needed to be eating more seed oils, carbs, sugar and fibre and experimenting on us and our children to now be lying to us about the environmental impact of a form of farming that is 1% of the damage we are doing to our world. It’s disingenuous, it’s ideological and it’s wrong. Politics Joe apparently being sponsored by Monsanto, Unilever, Tate and Lyle, Centrica and the seed oil lobby. By the way - answer me this - and spend more than 8 seconds on it: the human race has gone, all the power stations have gone, there are no more cars, there are no more plastics and somehow cows have taken over the earth and their 7 billion cows are the dominant species. You are telling me that as a result the world is a devastated mad max wasteland? Or is it, just maybe, all the other interests we have that have decided to point the finger at the industry with the least influence. Stellar reporting there Joes - really cutting through the messaging.
Absolutely 100%
That's load of nonsense
Humans evolved eating some meat, some fruit, some vegetables, some cereals, some etc.
Beef farming produces a disproportionately high amount of greenhouse gas, which isn't ok because we can't wreck the planet so some rich farmers can buy new 4x4s this year.
I'm laughing at the idea that 32 BILLION acres of grassland is your solution to the worlds calorie requirement! 😅 (we have 4 BILLION acres of arable land worldwide at the moment)
You need to learn to be reasonable.
Saying mad rabbit-hole-right-wing, conspiracy theory stuff makes people think you're a bit bonkers.
Ps. Life expectancy at age 1 for the Inuit household population was 70.0 years for Inuit males and 76.1 years for Inuit females, which is 11.4 (95% CI 9.2; 13.6) and 11.2 (95% CI 8.3; 14.2) years shorter than for the non-Indigenous population. www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2019012/article/00001-eng.pdf
Great, I'm definitely going to take your random youtube commenter's word that Monbiot is straight up lying to us and just assume you know better. It's not like everything you say is a massive misrepresentation of reality.
"If every human on this planet lived off one cow needing 3-4 acres of grass land to be healthy"
What magical makebelieve world does your mind exist in where you can allow yourself to think stupid thoughts like that, let alone communicate them to others?
Comment for reminder.
@@Silver_Knight. ?
I watch a lot of this channels content, and I think the way the title frames George's argument is egregious and unfair, you don't need to resort to this, be the change in journalism we all want to see, not fall victim to media hype bullshit.
George Monbiot is a journalist. His willingness to talk about subjects he has no real knowledge about shows his level of arrogance. Industrial agriculture is the problem. But it’s not the only type of agriculture. What about regenerative agriculture?
Regenerative ranching, for instance?
Agree about the click bait title.....But it looks like the film "Soylent Green" wasn't too far from the truth. How many dystopian views of the future peddled in the 1970's are actually emerging now........Good comment on the state of reality.
Industry loves to misdirect - take avgas, 100 LL (the LL stands for Low Lead), yet had more lead in it than the 'high lead' fuel it replaced...
PROTECT ANIMALS FROM EXPLOITATION 🕊💚🕊💚🕊💚🕊
Feed the wold with nutrient dense food. No choice or die,
You're all doing EXACTLY what that title was meant to make you do :)
I said to someone several years ago that we need to break away from the modern system of farming which is a very uneconomical use of the land available and more often than not results in commercialised countryside with little or no biodiversity and causes untold other environmental problems.
They said I should stop reading so much science fiction 🤷♂
The environment isn't a weird, detached word, it's western culture that is detached from their surrounding environment which make it so.
Regenerative agriculture and Permaculture.
Oh you mean "neo peasant bullshit". Did you actually watch?
I would like to know what George thinks of things like the Chinampas of Mexico, that land is incredibly diverse and incredibly productive. I am not saying he is wrong, just building on his points. However, the scientists of yesteryear were all solving problems by further distancing humans from nature, with unforeseen consequences. However, maybe an EVEN deeper change of slowly reintegrating humans with nature is the key. Of course, urban centres will always require the kinds of intensive factory farming he talks about, thus requiring another land to produce a surplus to support them. But his system further requires the concentration of humans in small areas. If we simultaneously focus on the economic (and ecological) development of developing nations to help slow the birth rate of humans, while also starting permaculture agriculture in less dense areas, adopting vertical farming methods outside urban centres, and creating a protein-rich food solution by fermentation and perennial plants would also be a part of this as well (although I remain reserved on the nutritional consequences of those).
Then I believe there is a solution in there somewhere. I think any solution that posits a uniliteral description of the solution is suspect (Vegan vs Carnivore both seem equally as silly for example). The truth is in the nuance; humans require resources, and the way society is currently structured is a one-way damage to the planet for the resources, but to say there are no other options is a tad presumptuous.
Also, the title is degenerate and really devalues this important conversion and the interview, this guy is a legend in the game. @PoliticsJOE
Absolutely loved this interview, listened to it on Spotify. I was however shocked that a podcast decrying green washing oligarchy and corporate fossil fuel lobby ran a green-washing ad from ARAMCO of all companies!!???!!! Would be worth looking into who is sponsoring your content.
The elephant in the room is the world population and it’s explosive growth in the past century.
Like others, I feel the title and thumbnail is inaccurate and silly.
I'm a farmer's wife. I personally do not eat meat. One thing no one has ever explained to me is this: what would we do with all those animals. People do not keep pet cows, which is a shame. They are very affectionate. Would George Monbiot, etc, rather see them all slaughtered? Does he have a pet cow? If you have pet cattle (cow, bull, steer, etc), drop a 🐄 in response & and give the name of the breed. Also, what would we feed our pets? What about the ecological benefits of grazing?
Yes the argument is that 95+% of all the animals will be killed.
Over the production cycle most of the meat production animals are killed anyway, only breeders live a couple of years past their production time.
So the only functional difference is that breeding would be drastically reduced until there there is only a fraction of domesticated animals left, which would make ecological space for wild animals.
For multiple reasons, I do not think this will happen to anywhere near 95+%, but that is the argument.
Are you suggesting that all those farmed animals bred into existence on farms aren't already going to be slaughtered?
The solution is very obvious. As demand ramps down the need to breed animals to supply that demand ramps down. Just stop breeding them into existence.
If your concern is more about the potential of making these farmed animals extinct then you should know that animal agriculture is the number one leading cause of biodiversity loss and extinction on the planet.
Lovely click bait title. Upload a video of Paul O'Grady just after he has passed away for views. I don't think I need to see this channel any more.
I chose extinction over giving up meat.
meat for supper tonight and this george guy can go eat bugs or whatever he wants
Cows get their CO2 from the grass.. the grass gets it from the atmosphere... It's a cycle!
while there is a cycle involving carbon dioxide, it is not a direct transfer from grass to cows. Rather, the cycle involves plants like grass absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, using it to produce glucose, which is consumed by cows as part of their diet. The cows, in turn, contribute to the release of CO2 through respiration and waste decomposition.
However it seems like your comment is intended to imply that cows have no negative impact on the environment?... If this was the implication... it's false: Factory farming of cows often involves intensive livestock operations where large numbers of animals are confined in small spaces. These operations can lead to various environmental issues, including:
Greenhouse gas emissions: Cows in factory farms produce significant amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Methane is primarily released through cow belching and the decomposition of their waste.
Deforestation: To meet the demand for feed, factory farming often relies on clearing forests and converting them into agricultural land. This leads to habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity.
Water pollution: The concentrated waste generated by large-scale livestock operations can contaminate water sources, including rivers and groundwater, with excess nutrients and pathogens, which can harm aquatic ecosystems and human health.
Water usage: Factory farming requires significant amounts of water for animal hydration, cleaning, and crop irrigation for feed production, contributing to water scarcity concerns in some regions.
Antibiotic use and resistance: Intensive livestock operations often rely on the routine use of antibiotics to promote growth and prevent diseases in crowded conditions. This practice contributes to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which poses risks to human health.
These factors, along with others, contribute to the argument that factory farming practices have detrimental environmental effects. It is important to consider the overall impact of industrial-scale animal agriculture when discussing the environmental sustainability of livestock production systems.
What’s doubly sad about this topic is that it’s very hard to discern what data from what study is not aimed at ‘proving a point’ and is just the data presented in an unbiased way. There are studies that prove either way the effect of agriculture on the environment. There is huge money backing everything he’s saying which was also a criticism he had about the FF industry! What makes him not see the hypocrisy in that?
"George Monbiot breaks down why we need to destroy farming"
Well, we did Brexit...
Yeah and now because of the new bloc we're joing Canada have strong armed us into unbanning cow hormone supplements used in factory farming 😅
It's very easy to get your proteins if you eat the amount of calories your need, whatsoever your diet is relaying on, even on a plant based diet. Do the maths and you will see. As a vegan, and doing so for ecological reasons, I was a bit worried not to get the right amount of proteins required. But when I did the maths I realised I was eating 100g of protein per day and it's a bit to much. So I reduced the amount of leguminous and cereals. And i'm still eating around 75g of protein per day. It's almost impossible to fall under 50g. No need of these fake meats or proteins produced in an industrial way! Just eat the cereals, grains leguminous ,and so on , which are given to the cattle, pigs, chickens , and cut the middle man. And it's even healthier, if you don't forget to take a vitamine b12 supplement.
But , in another way , it's difficult to produce all the food we need without animals, because of the manure which helps to improve the soil, unless we use our own manure, which is possible on a personal level ( c.f the book of joe jenkins: 'Humanure') but a bit difficult for a farmer 😅
Better using the cattle to feed the fields than using the fields to feed the cattle.
Sorry for my poor English writing.
Yesterday You must use our methods of farming or else ! Today You must be punished for using the method we instead you use because it damaging the environment .
it is to late to bring them back because the power of greed is far greater
Excellent interview, misleading title, more "revolutionise farming" than "destroy farming" ?
Great interview, but a very "sheety" title...
People complaining about the title are intentionally mis-hearing the words spoken in the video. Denial.
I watched to hear Monbiot's point , the rest of the title was ignored
Crops that can stay in the ground for a long time? If only we had a plant like that, maybe one that doesn't completely fail in a drought. Oh yes, we do... grass
Monbiot plugging his new SoylentGreen business.
He has a business? What's it called?
You guys need to change the title asap or you may cause more harm than good
Not at all it is spot on.
If we rewild what will have
To go besides fsrms?
People. He believes de-population is also essential
Just a very minor point: he says that livestock farming causes pretty much all wild organisms "except those that eat cow dung" to lose out, actually thanks to avermectins (wormicides routinely given to cattle and other livestock to prevent them developing parasitic worms) even animals which eat cow dung (such as dung beetles) lose out, as they tend to die from eating the toxic avermectins excreted in the dung
change the thumbnail and title u clowns. making george look bad to the random people
Was George discussing the adverse effect of large-scale livestock farming in a global, USA, or a UK stats context?
If your reason for asking is you think that is that livestock farming isn’t bad in one of those contexts then I have some bad news for you about what actually goes on at your uncles farm…
@@ij184 My reason for asking is I deal with stats in my job. I was just looking for context to understand. I've enjoyed a couple of vegan Christmases with dear friends who very much care for the wellbeing of our planet, not just animals.
He chooses what to describe when it suits him. False comparisons between two totally different things constantly
I think he did it for all 3?
Is burning fossil fuels in the USA worse than burning them in the UK? 🧐In other words does it matter? If you deal with stats in your day job I'm sure you wouldn't struggle to find studies etc with documented stats online. They're all there.
Good point, he won’t tell you, but is a avid attacker of U.K. farmers and far,until
A triumph of supposition over fact 😂😂😂
I work in coal mining, I'm this 🤏 close to getting out and becoming a farmer.
Yay, there's been no point to any of it.
Why aren't we talking about the elephant in the room which is out of control human population. The answer to our woes is simple but no government will touch it ,we have to drastically decrease our population.
Problem with natural carbon capture is that as the natural organisms die and degrade they release back the carbon dioxide - admittedly over a longer term but that just kicks the can down the road. Better that Carbon capture is into rock (CaCO3).
The problem is you can't feed 8 billion people without the use of fossil fuels
And his did. you work that out?
I had a cow which I was training to live on just air. Unfortunately it died just before my experiment was completed
This guy is delusional .
Oli keeps hopefully trying to reintroduce some small-scale touchy-feely eco-hippy agenda which Monbiot has already demonstrated is inadequate and unworkable.
It would if 70% of the world starved first. I have been meat free for 40 years and still working in the woods every day.
Hate the title, love the interview
Love the interview? Unchallenged load of absolute tripe
@@mowilliams2517 what part of it specifically was tripe?
"Yer let's destroy all the poor people, sell their land to the wealthy and let them look after it properly" said no sane man ever.
Including no men featured in this video 😂
You should get a job with the daily mail with quoting skills like that.
The guy has impressive total clarity. He must be very unpopular.
HOW MUCH FOOD IS JUST THROWN AWAY IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, THE EXPIRY DATE WAS PROBABLY MADE COMMON JUST TO KEEP THE FOOD PRODUCTION WORKING OVERTIME. WHILE THE POOR LIVE OFF THE GARBAGE.
HOW DISGUSTING CAN HUMAN SOCIETY GET? HOW GREEDY CAN BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN GET?
Love the clickbait title. Draw the idiots in with something fantastical like “eat the babies” then force them to sit there and listen to a reasonable argument.
It sadly sounds like he’s never been on a regenerative farm yet lumps all types of agricultural together.
I agree with him that we really need to get out of industrial monocultures. But he seems to not grasp that non-domesticated herbivores exist. Bison and zebras still impact their environments, allowing for grasslands to exist. Regenerative farming follows nature’s methods in this way. Feedlots and conventional farming goes against nature. I really want him to spend time on a few regenerative farms. While they are all different based in their places and contexts, I think he would see that these types of farms really do heal the soil and ecosystems.
Also, as for his slagging off this so-called neo-peasant "bullshit", actually there's quite a lot we could accomplish if everyone took to doing a bit of farming. If you've got a problem with factory farming chickens, anyone with a garden can keep laying hens and, with even a few, you'd end up with more eggs than you know what to do with. No one said you to eat the eggs. And I've never heard vegans keeping chickens. Doing it on that scale would be far better for the animals, better for the environment, and it'd be a pretty effective way of utilising the large areas of space currently given over to people's gardens and public areas for agriculture.
I watched a film called "Mr Jones" last night. It was about the 1930s welsh journalist Gareth Jones. Let's just say the political apple doesn't fall far from the marxist tree.
Agriculture is the number one cause of civilisation
Wasn’t it so obvious when you look around. Leave a city, go into what we call nature, take a good look around, or drive around like I have done in my camper for 7 years, and all you can see is farms farms farms. Would you trust the water around farms? NOPE. That already tells you enough. But it’s not just the water, it’s the soil, the air, all the ecosystems around farming that go against the balance of nature. Also, why is everyone SO OK about them putting poison in the very food that goes into your children. It baffles me how people can be so docile into thinking farmers are good. Like, it’s mental. If it weren’t for farmers, you’d look around today and see forests as far as the eye can see. Look how much forests they have destroyed to grow some poisoned crops or torture thousands of animals. Also the natural animals have nowhere to go. Deers are constantly in fear. And if it weren’t enough destruction for these farmers, the very same people go out hunting anything that moves!! …I know the agenda of WEF isnt for our good, but I really dont mind the indirect good they are doing making many go bankrupt. They’re ok with ending lives everyday, but as soon as the table is turned a fraction, they get so upset! We need a whole revolution, and the very vegans you tormented are the ones driving it from the beginning. There will be some chaos, but what change that is worth it, will come without some chaos? LET GO.
LIVING WEBS FARMS ARE GOOD TO WATCH VERY EDUCATIONAL.
People eat far too much meat these days. I ate well in the 50s and 60s but we didnt eat meat or fish at every meal as many people seem to these days. I stopped eating meat 40 years ago and dont miss it . I do still eat fish though sometimes. I like Quorn but too much of it upsets my stomach.
Genius George has all the answers to slow down the degradation of our poor old planet. Why doesn’t the government ask this gentleman to head up an action team to make the urgent changes needed?
We’d all be doomed that’s why.
Just imagine that humanity was planted here by an alien species, to see what our race would accomplish on this unique paradise of a planet.
What a complete feckin disappointment we must be.
We are doomed because Yanks will not stop driving trucks and eating huge amounts of meat.
I like George. He makes A LOT of sense across a variety of topics but he has, for me got this wrong.
I agree with a lot of his sentiments e.g. intensive farming is bad, as is our over reliance on cheap, unsustainable meat.
However, before we release the next silver bullet can we please consider the long term impacts. We don't know the long term impacts on our health of this huge dietary shift. We can't, because we haven't tested it over a sustained period of time. Lets not do what ee always do and leap in to find horrific consequences when it's too late.
I also believe extensive, sustainable and woodland farming are all valid and indeed beneficial ways forward for our planet. I base this on solid daya, built up over generations of experience - not some new fashionable idea
sigh! I can't even be bothered to try and understand the stupidity of this youtube video....
Stop eating nutritional food to help man kind, really. These vegans are pretty crazy.