For those who don't know, animal agriculture is the main reason that the Amazon rainforest is burning, soy farming is another factor for this, the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) has confirmed that 70 percent of soy produced goes to farmed animals. So when you consume animal products, you're putting your taste pleasure above the rainforest...
Nice video Mic. Also emissions are not the sole problem. Ocean dead zones over fishing, water usage and so much more when we could just eat plants. Keep up the good work man.
@@misakistalker come on lets be real. Animal agriculture is a massive industry that uses so much water. You can be dense and believe the only water used is for them to drink or you can look up the facts on it. Interesting to hear you dont have water in your toilet.
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated for obvious reasons....
JS the only “bad guys” are the Masonic devil worshippers that push this climate change hoax. Climate change is not a valid issue since we don’t even live on a ball and there is no outer space.
Leave it for the next generation. Each generation is seeing worse and worse climate change. It is a natural process climate change but not at this speed. Species are having a hard time adapting so wideworld exctinction.
The real point to be made here, is that this is not a US issue it is a global issue. If there is an extinction event for humanity in the future it's not just going to target whichever country had the highest emissions. Environmentalism is for the planet not for particular countries.
too bad sooooo many people in the US (almost 1/2 I would guess? you know the group of people that count more than the actual majority do) don't care about the rest of the world and can only think of themselves or putting their own self interest first instead of being informed/intelligent realizing if climate change/global warming destroys the human race then they won't exist to only worry about themselves...ugh!
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated...
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated for obvious reasons.
Yeah you're far less cynical than me. What has the Pruitt-Wheeler EPA done to deserve the benefit of the doubt? Really interesting point about the carbon sequestration, though. Do a video on monocrops!
Slightly off topic, but perhaps you'd be interested in a VERY LONG summary of the FAO vs Goodland and Anhang debate from last decade? That is the 8%, 14%, 18%, and 51% calculations... Vegans often claim that livestock is responsible for 51% of GHG emissions. Our apathetic critics prefer 18% or 14% or 8% or "the circle of life". The 18% number is from an 2006 FAO report, the 51% number comes from Goodland and Anhang (2009), and 14% from a more recent FAO report. Personally, I'm persuaded by Goodland and Anhang's approach although they clearly miscalculated. Most importantly, they recalculated livestock methane emissions on a 20-year timeframe without recalculating non-livestock emissions. That's a pretty big oops. Cuz, I've reviewed the literature too many times, I thought I should save some notes, and maybe y'all'd appreciate some snippets. "livestock.. accounts for 40% of agricultural GDP.. one-third of humanity's protein intake.. projected to more than double.. to 465 M tonnes in 2050, and that of milk from 580 to 1043 M tonnes... Extensive grazing.. degrades vast areas of land.. increasing trend towards intensification and industrialization.. direct competition for scarce land, water and other natural resources.. increasing inputs and wastes and.. pollution... livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land.. grazing is equivalent to 26% of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet.. feedcrop.. 33% of total arable land.. livestock production accounts for 70% of all agricultural land and 30% of the land surface of the planet... key factor in deforestation.. 70% of.. Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder... livestock.. responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent [GWP100].. higher share than transport.. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere.. 37% of anthropogenic methane.. from enteric fermentation by ruminants.. 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide.. from manure, 64% of anthropogenic ammonia.. acid rain and acidification of ecosystems... 64% of the world's population expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025.. livestock.. 8% of global human water use.. largest sectoral source of water pollution.. animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides... threats to biodiversity. The loss of species.. 50 to 500 times higher than.. fossil record." (Livestock's Long Shadow, Steinfeld et al, FAO, UN, 2006) www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf Energy generation contributes 26% of total global emissions, industries 19%, land use, land change and forestry 17%, agriculture 14%, residential and commercial buildings 8%, and waste and wastewater contribute 3% (IPCC, 2007) www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm "[FAO] estimates that 7516 M [tons/year CO2e], or 18% of annual worldwide GHG emissions, are attributable to [livestock].. But our analysis.. at least 32,564 M tons of CO2e per year, or 51% of annual worldwide GHG emissions... The FAO excludes livestock respiration from its estimate [which] accounts for 21% of anthropogenic GHGs... global shortage of grassland.. more livestock and feed.. destroying natural forest... 4.2% of annual GHG emissions worldwide... Methane warms the atmosphere much more strongly.. its half-life is only about 8 years, versus at least 100 years for CO2.. global warming potential of methane is 25 using a 100-year timeframe -- but it is 72 using a 20-year timeframe [supported by the IPCC].. raises.. 7.9% [Further work is needed to recalibrate other methane emissions using a 20-year timeframe].. additional categories.. 8.7% of GHGs emissions.. overlooked or undercounted by the FAO." (Goodland, Anhang, published without peer-review, 2009) www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf "Farm animal breath, Goodland and Anhang figure, contributes nearly 14% of worldwide greenhouse gases.. need to consider is not the absolute amount of CO2 breathed out [but] what would be pumped out if the land now used to feed the farm animals was allowed to return to nature..: 3.2%... methane as actually 72 times more potent.. additional 7.9%.. [G&A] fail to adjust the GHG total to include the remaining 63% of [other methane emissions].. works out to 6.5% in CO2 equivalents... [FAO estimates 21.7 B, G&A 50 B] world farm animal population.. amounts to about a 2.9% increase... conservative reanalysis of [Goodland and Anhang] animal agriculture contributes a minimum of 30.4% of worldwide greenhouse gases." (David Steele, 2009) www.vegan.com/articles/environment/a-sympathetic-but-skeptical-look-at-goodland-and-anhangs-livestock-and-climate-change/ "[omitting to recalculate non-livestock methane emissions].. wrote that this remained to be be done.. [FAO later] reported 56 B livestock worldwide in 2007.. outweighs whatever the increase would be in non-livestock methane. [imprecise estimates are used in the final set of GHG categories.. doesn't provide corresponding estimate for non-livestock alternatives] our intention was to provoke people to start thinking.. [livestock have multiple benefits, especially for poor smallholders] small fraction of the world's livestock raised by poor smallholders with the vast majority that have large adverse impacts.. less than 10% of meat is produced entirely on pasture, and the animals providing this meat yield up to three times as much methane.. second part of the life of pasture-raised livestock, most are raised intensively.. add significantly to the carbon intensity." (Critical Comments and Responses, Robert Goodland, 2010) awellfedworld.org/sites/awellfedworld.org/files/pdf/WWMLivestock-ClimateResponses.pdf Criteque of FAO (2006) and G&A (2009) (Herrero et al, 2011) www.agr.gc.ca/eng/abstract/?id=22434000000397 Response to Herreror et al (2011)'s critique of FAO (2016) and G&A (2009). Neither moves our understanding (Robert Goodland, Jeff Anhang, 2012) www.animalfeedscience.com/article/S0377-8401(11)00517-7/abstract Criteque of the FAO and ILRI agenda (Op-ed by Robert Goodland, NY Times, 2012) bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/fao-yields-to-meat-industry-pressure-on-climate-change/ "[livestock] represents 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions... beef [41%] and milk [19% and] inedible outputs like manure.. representing about 65% of the livestock sector's emissions" (FAO, 2013) www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated for obvious reasons.
yoooooo!!!!!!!! Ok, this video is way to awesome, Mic!!! Really neat collection and breakdown of data from literally all over the place. As an aspiring(student)-environmental scientist: This is EVERYTHING, haha! Amazingly captured so many key topics hitting home base! Love it!! Keep up the wicked videos!
great video and important topic :) I would add that vegan diet also improves health, there are massive gains for climate if people are healthier. just think about it, less pills, and medicine testing comes from animal abuse, sick people are a huge problem from lack of productivity to behavioural problems. staffing hospitals and diagnosing humans are a huge business costing the climate.
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated for obvious reasons... Ps less people sick without that trash too.
You included cheese and milk together ( I forget exactly how) but what about the fact that cows used for milk are also used for meat? Love the video btw!
The dairy industry and the beef industry use different cows, which are bred to produce either a lot of milk OR a lot of muscle i.e. meat. So while they will use the beef from dairy cows once their production starts to lower (after about 3 years) the majority of beef does not come from dairy cows because they produce a lot less and it is lower quality (becomes cheap ground beef normally). They are sold to slaughterhouses so likely their beef stats get included under meat? I don't know.
I think you did a great job on this video Mic. Thank you for bringing up carbon sequestration. I believe that industrial farming practices sterilizing soil can be plotted in direct proportion by acre to the increase in atmospheric carbon. I live in the Salad Bowl of the World. Google has a fairly recent satellite picture that shows what the entire land base looks like from now until March. Here it is. goo.gl/maps/gS3K67PS68XVyjFUA . If you follow Highway 101 up and down the valley you can see the sheer volume of land that is sterilized, and thus sequestering 0 carbon. We don't need to plant trees, we just need to plant winter cover crops and stop using chemicals on farm land. My point is that my research in greenhouse gases has led me to believe that emissions is the wrong hill to die on. It's poor land use, including what you talked about with animal agriculture that is preventing our atmospheric Co2 levels to ever go back down. Thanks for your work Mic.
Always so grateful to have you look at the science in a way that I and the average brained Brit could never manage. You help me make sense of things. I like your recipes too. When Brexit happens and we are forced through trade deals into even lower standards for our food and animal welfare, I am hoping there will be an even greater interest in home grown food and veganism. Love and peace from the UK
Could it be that the EPA subtracted the CO2 the land absorbs? So that a industry that uses a lot of land has a lower emission number in the EPA report?
But Mic mentioned in another video that animal agriculture accounts for 51% of global warming if you include the exponential growth in livestock production (now more than 60 billion land animals annually), deforestation & forest burning, and accelerating increases in volatilizataion of soil carbon, in addition to the usual factors considered, which only add up to 18%. We're including methane (cows belching, not farting, which is more than from fracking), as well, which is 35 times as bad as CO2,
@@rorylee3582 Of course meat eaters are going to dispute it, but . . . advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2009/10/livestock-emissions-account-for-51-percent-of-greenhouse-gases/
Thank you 🙏🏼 your videos are the best, my vegan 🌱 life would be awful with out your channel is my to go for the best inspiration, information and also every time some one comes with the must ridiculous comments about been vegan 🌱
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated for obvious reasons....
Does your math take into account that the dairy industry is also the beef industry ? The emission of Dairy could be lower because the cow is used for beef after it is done with milk production.
Hey Mic, I have a question about veggies/plastics/the environment. I buy a ton of greens (several times a week), I live in the city, and I'm taking great pains to eliminate plastic as much as I can. All the leaves seem to be packed in plastic containers or plastic bags. There are a couple of health food stores, which try to also be environmentally friendly whenever possible, and the one I go to uses compostable bags for product, except for my favorite greens. The really high quality/local greens are almost all in plastic containers (I love the Organic Girl brand, for example, because they're such tasty, clean, fresh mixes!). I've tried buying the greens on the other shelf that aren't in plastic, but they wilt or start rotting way sooner, and it's hard to get a nice variety without buying a whole ton of them and then wasting the ones I can't eat in time. I also grow some greens on my balcony, but other than my herbs, I can't grow nearly enough. SO... Long story long: How do we buy these products without going through a ton of plastic every week??? (Do you have a video on plastics that I haven't found yet?) THANKS!
Maybe look into a good delivery subscription. My friend does it and she gets everything in one giant box. Good luck. I understand the struggle. I use the plastic containers to make little greenhouses for my plants.
I used to work in a produce department where baby greens were also sold by the pound in bulk and then customers had the option of putting them in their own re-usable container and the cashier would use a tare to subtract out the container weight. If that’s not an option at any of your stores, you could buy the individual greens (a head of lettuce, bunch of spinach, a radicchio, etc) then chop them up and store in an empty Organic Girl tub. Way more of a pain in the ass of course. It would be nice if those companies could come up with better packaging.
Plant defenses can be classified generally as constitutive or induced. Constitutive defenses are always present in the plant, while induced defenses are produced or mobilized to the site where a plant is injured. There is wide variation in the composition and concentration of constitutive defenses and these range from mechanical defenses to digestibility reducers and toxins. Many external mechanical defenses and large quantitative defenses are constitutive, as they require large amounts of resources to produce and are difficult to mobilize.[14] A variety of molecular and biochemical approaches are used to determine the mechanism of constitutive and induced plant defenses responses against herbivory.[15][16][17][18] Induced defenses include secondary metabolic products, as well as morphological and physiological changes.[19] An advantage of inducible, as opposed to constitutive defenses, is that they are only produced when needed, and are therefore potentially less costly, especially when herbivory is variable.[19] Modes of induced defence include systemic acquired resistance[20] and plant-induced systemic resistance.[21] Chemical defensesEdit  Persimmon, genus Diospyros, has a high tannin content which gives immature fruit, seen above, an astringent and bitter flavor. Further information: Toxalbumin The evolution of chemical defenses in plants is linked to the emergence of chemical substances that are not involved in the essential photosynthetic and metabolic activities. These substances, secondary metabolites, are organic compounds that are not directly involved in the normal growth, development or reproduction of organisms,[22] and often produced as by-products during the synthesis of primary metabolic products.[23] Although these secondary metabolites have been thought to play a major role in defenses against herbivores,[4][22][24] a meta-analysis of recent relevant studies has suggested that they have either a more minimal (when compared to other non-secondary metabolites, such as primary chemistry and physiology) or more complex involvement in defense.[25] Qualitative and quantitative metabolitesEdit Secondary metabolites are often characterized as either qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative metabolites are defined as toxins that interfere with a herbivore's metabolism, often by blocking specific biochemical reactions. Qualitative chemicals are present in plants in relatively low concentrations (often less than 2% dry weight), and are not dosage dependent. They are usually small, water-soluble molecules, and therefore can be rapidly synthesized, transported and stored with relatively little energy cost to the plant. Qualitative allelochemicals are usually effective against non-adapted generalist herbivores. Quantitative chemicals are those that are present in high concentration in plants (5 - 40% dry weight) and are equally effective against all specialists and generalist herbivores. Most quantitative metabolites are digestibility reducers that make plant cell walls indigestible to animals. The effects of quantitative metabolites are dosage dependent and the higher these chemicals’ proportion in the herbivore’s diet, the less nutrition the herbivore can gain from ingesting plant tissues. Because they are typically large molecules, these defenses are energetically expensive to produce and maintain, and often take longer to synthesize and transport.[26] The geranium, for example, produces a unique chemical compound in its petals to defend itself from Japanese beetles. Within 30 minutes of ingestion the chemical paralyzes the herbivore. While the chemical usually wears off within a few hours, during this time the beetle is often consumed by its own predators.[27] Antiherbivory compoundsEdit Further information: Medicinal plants Plants have evolved many secondary metabolites involved in plant defense, which are collectively known as antiherbivory compounds and can be classified into three sub-groups: nitrogen compounds (including alkaloids, cyanogenic glycosides, glucosinolates and benzoxazinoids), terpenoids, and phenolics.[28] Alkaloids are derived from various amino acids. Over 3000 known alkaloids exist, examples include nicotine, caffeine, morphine, cocaine, colchicine, ergolines, strychnine, and quinine.[29] Alkaloids have pharmacological effects on humans and other animals. Some alkaloids can inhibit or activate enzymes, or alter carbohydrate and fat storage by inhibiting the formation phosphodiester bonds involved in their breakdown.[30] Certain alkaloids bind to nucleic acids and can inhibit synthesis of proteins and affect DNA repair mechanisms. Alkaloids can also affect cell membrane and cytoskeletal structure causing the cells to weaken, collapse, or leak, and can affect nerve transmission.[31] Although alkaloids act on a diversity of metabolic systems in humans and other animals, they almost uniformly invoke an aversively bitter taste.[32] Cyanogenic glycosides are stored in inactive forms in plant vacuoles. They become toxic when herbivores eat the plant and break cell membranes allowing the glycosides to come into contact with enzymes in the cytoplasm releasing hydrogen cyanide which blocks cellular respiration.[33] Glucosinolates are activated in much the same way as cyanogenic glucosides, and the products can cause gastroenteritis, salivation, diarrhea, and irritation of the mouth.[32] Benzoxazinoids, secondary defence metabolites, which are characteristic for grasses (Poaceae), are also stored as inactive glucosides in the plant vacuole.[34] Upon tissue disruption they get into contact with β-glucosidases from the chloroplasts, which enzymatically release the toxic aglucones. Whereas some benzoxazinoids are constitutively present, others are only synthesised following herbivore infestation, and thus, considered inducible plant defenses against herbivory.[35] The terpenoids, sometimes referred to as isoprenoids, are organic chemicals similar to terpenes, derived from five-carbon isoprene units. There are over 10,000 known types of terpenoids.[36] Most are multicyclic structures which differ from one another in both functional groups, and in basic carbon skeletons.[37] Monoterpenoids, continuing 2 isoprene units, are volatile essential oils such as citronella, limonene, menthol, camphor, and pinene. Diterpenoids, 4 isoprene units, are widely distributed in latex and resins, and can be quite toxic. Diterpenes are responsible for making Rhododendron leaves poisonous. Plant steroids and sterols are also produced from terpenoid precursors, including vitamin D, glycosides (such as digitalis) and saponins (which lyse red blood cells of herbivores).[38] Phenolics, sometimes called phenols, consist of an aromatic 6-carbon ring bonded to a hydroxy group. Some phenols have antiseptic properties, while others disrupt endocrine activity. Phenolics range from simple tannins to the more complex flavonoids that give plants much of their red, blue, yellow, and white pigments. Complex phenolics called polyphenols are capable of producing many different types of effects on humans, including antioxidant properties. Some examples of phenolics used for defense in plants are: lignin, silymarin and cannabinoids.[39] Condensed tannins, polymers composed of 2 to 50 (or more) flavonoid molecules, inhibit herbivore digestion by binding to consumed plant proteins and making them more difficult for animals to digest, and by interfering with protein absorption and digestive enzymes.[40] In addition, some plants use fatty acid derivates, amino acids and even peptides[41] as defenses. The cholinergic toxine, cicutoxin of water hemlock, is a polyyne derived from the fatty acid metabolism.[42] β-N-Oxalyl-L-α,β-diaminopropionic acid as simple amino acid is used by the sweet pea which leads also to intoxication in humans.[43] The synthesis of fluoroacetate in several plants is an example of the use of small molecules to disrupt the metabolism of herbivores, in this case the citric acid cycle.[44] In tropical Sargassum and Turbinaria species that are often preferentially consumed by herbivorous fishes and echinoids, there is a relatively low level of phenolics and tannins.[45]
6:38 Mic you used the 155 million acres of livestock feed crops by reading the table for 2002, not 2007 so livestock feed crops are actually 166 million acres of land in 2007 which then gives about 50% of land being used for livestock
The % of GHG from the agriculture sector is underestimated because it only accounts for the direct emission from animals (methane from farts and eructations) and the direct emissions from the fertilizers (chemical fertilizer and manure). So all the emissions from transportation is accounted elsewhere. We talk about the inputs (feed, animals, fertilizers); the outputs (hay, animals); the farming machinery. It also excludes the energy for drying the grains and refrigeration of the animal products. More over, the CO2 equivalent for the methane is also underestimated. It uses a time frame of 100 years, which makes one ton of methane equivalent to 34 tons of CO2. But a more realistic value is a time frame of 20 years, which brings 1 ton of methane equivalent to 86 tons of CO2. Agriculture being among the major source of methane, the percentage of US emissions for agriculture would be much higher.
A key factor you left out that would raise these numbers even higher is **exported** emissions - i.e. the emissions from all of the meat that Americans eat from fast food restaurants for which the meat (and/or the feed for the meat) are grown in foreign countries like Brazil. Also, why not use the same methodology of the Worldwatch Institute report, which would also increase the percentage.
Omega-3s and Health The potential health benefits of consuming omega-3s are the focus of a great deal of scientific research. By far, the majority of research has focused on EPA and DHA from foods (e.g., fish) and/or dietary supplements (e.g., fish oil) as opposed to ALA from plant-based foods. Many observational studies link higher intakes of fish and other seafood with improved health outcomes. However, it is difficult to ascertain whether the benefits are due to the omega-3 content of the seafood (which varies among species), other components in the seafood, the substitution of seafood for other less healthful foods, other healthful behaviors, or a combination of these factors. Data from randomized clinical trials are needed to shed light on these questions. This section focuses on areas of health in which omega-3s might be involved: cardiovascular disease and its risk factors; infant health and neurodevelopment; cancer prevention; Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and cognitive function; age-related macular degeneration; dry eye disease; rheumatoid arthritis; and other conditions. ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/#h5
Why do you use mmt? Why not just use Mt for Megatones or Tg for Teragramm? That would be the correct way to write it according to the BIPM (the guys that define the SI-units).
Please can you come to Extinction Rebellion in London and try to get the non-vegan ‘environmentalists’ here to grasp some simple concepts? Some of them are even animal farmers (and situated right next to Animal Rebellion)!
What about all the fossil fuels used in farming? Not only the animal ag industry directly, but the farming involved in growing plants we then feed to animals. It seems like those numbers should be included as well.
EPA pay receiving individuals should be extremely worried at the fact that they are collecting salaries but NOT doing their jobs correctly! Oh, sorry about those pulled by the mass events inside the EPA, or “follow the herd” attitude. We are talking about citizens who pay taxes that go to institutiones supposedly putting data together for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Make your own conclusions...
Actually, understanding how much does consuming meat impact than consuming plants is a question of basic thermodynamics. As Gretna Thinberg said: they're fighting against physics
Exactly. It's thermodynamically inefficient to the point that it's unsustainable. Human civilization really doesn't have a proper grasp of entropy and how massive of an impact our 'fast entropy' model of industrial civilization has. It's something that needs to fundamentally change about the way we are taught to understand the world.
@@SolarScion Very few people know that almost all of our energy (also food wise) comes from the sun and it's synthetized by plants. The further you get from the original source, the more energy you lose in the process and the more waste byproducts you get. So, if we see plants as a primary source of energy, you need a lot more primary sources of energy to produce the same energy from a secondary source or from its fossilized remains. And the resources and space on this planet are limited...
I love these videos you do as they speak the science of what's actually happening. I've recently gotten into activism, but trying to do it In a way that is conversational rather than arguing. Maybe you could do a video on how to do activism for animals and the environment (I've got the health part down!) That way I can reach more people in Hope of them either going plant based or at least really decrease their consumption. Your channel rocks!
You can never go vegan for the climate. Veganism is not only your food choices. It's an ethical issue. If you go vegan IS always for the animals. The rest is just plant based.
Except that major chronic diseases ramp up with increasing meat consumption--and meat consumption is one of the top 3 ways humans are killing the health of the planet.
Mike you are awesome. It’s so obvious you put an insane amount of work into your videos. Trust me, I’m grateful because I can pull up your channel for comebacks to people who shit on veganism 🤣
Great video yet again,completely objective and ruled by facts and stats. Thank you so much Mic for all the time and effort you put into making such flawless argumentations
Whatever stupid reasons people come up with to justify their filthy habits, the fact remains that in suffering other animals are our equals and killing for pleasure is wrong!
If there's one policy that vegans and environmentalists should be fighting for, it's ending meat and dairy subsidies. $38 billion per year goes to the meat and dairy industry, while only .04% of that ($17 Million) goes to fruits and vegetables. It's unfair. It's an outrage. It must end. Level 2 would be placing a tax on agricultural waste and pollution (carbon or methane tax, as well as fertilizer/pesticide runoff tax?). These policies would massively increase the price of animal products (esp. beef and dairy) and make people choose plant based over expensive meats. With cheap hamburgers, and grocery store chicken at $1.69 a pound and beef at $2.99 a pound, people are going to go with these options because they taste good and are cheap protein. We need a price change to make real environmental progress. We would see livestock production reduce massively with an end to subsidies and even more massively with a beginning of pollution taxes. Here is a good article on the top 10 things you should know about the meat industry: www.peta.org/living/food/10-things-wish-everyone-knew-meat-dairy-industries/
@@MictheVegan haha I meant recently, but who knows what vegan level time travel is 🤣 Seriously though, just the video I wanted to see. Good job 👍 Will be sending it to all the vegan haters 😂
@@sd200man it makes sense to me, I'll elaborate. If you're an abolitionist vegan then you oppose all forms of regenerative/sustainable agriculture: you can't call yourself an environmentalist if you advocate for policy that leads to land degradation and species extinction.
I just noticed that you did some of the math wrong. You said that the EPA total for emissions was 6400. Now these total emissions were from the percentages that they had, where they said that livestock is around 4%. So therefore, the 6400 emission total is taken from the graph with the 4% emissions from livestock. Mic, your calculation was 942. Now what you did was 942/6400 to get percentage emissions for livestock, but this is incorrect. This is what you were supposed to do. 4% is 256 and then do 6400-256=6144. Which gives us the total emissions but without the EPA's estimation of livestock emissions. Then you do 6144+942=7086, which gives us the total emissions with YOUR measurements of livestock not the EPA's. THEN you do 942 divide by the new total which is 942/7086. You were close, but the problem was, was that you need to understand that when a section of a pie chart is underestimated and that you want to increase that section, this means that the whole size of the pie chart will increase as well with that section. But you didn't take into account for that, so the math above is just a demonstration of how to account for that.
Going vegan will be more expensive for my family because certain member's aren't willing to switch over. The result would be paying two grocery bills every week and that's not feasible for us. I'll cut down on meat when I can and might suggest we freeze it if we buy bigger amounts etc.
Hey,I have decided to increase my weight on vegan diet, figured out how many calories and macros I need. When researching I came across term bioavailability in protein,plant based protein had low bioavailability does it mean that if I want to have a 30g of a plant protein which has bioavailability of 70 will I only get 70%of 30g?? How can I use all protein on the particular plant protein?
@@SaturatedCat Vegan ideology? Who made you the pope of veganism. Vegan ideology says nothing about losing or gaining weight. Veganism is concerned with refusing to exploit animals. Period.
Mic, still waiting for your video discussing the stance of the only presidential candidate that has acknowledged consumption of meat as a real threat to the environment----Andrew Yang, and what he said at the CNN Climate Change town hall.
I'm curious how effective it is for one individual to go vegan in the bigger picture. Can we can estimate how many people would have to switch to veganism for this positive model to take place?
We would probably be carbon negative simply by going vegan, since we would only produce 80 percent and then planting forest would sequester 90 percent, so we would be well within the negative. There nothing we need to think of for climate change more than veganism.
I would not trust this administration's EPA; kakistocracy. Thanks for breaking it down into more granular terms than my suspicious, math-averse mind was willing to calculate, Mic. : )
Meat industry is not a big deal to the environment. But I'm paleo atm, I eat seeds, fish and eggs (and baby-spinach). There are animals that increased LDL cholesterol which we can cut back down on but unless it's possible to live exclusively on seeds sustainable veganism for everyone is not achievable. Chia seeds seems to be the highest omega 3 seed. Avo and olives are healthy but since they are high in omega 6 and we already have can make 6 with our bodies its better to fill up on omega 3... unless of course we can find a decent source of omega 7 which I've heard clean the arteries. For someone with high levels of LDL cholesterol, any carbs is a risk. Any knowledgeable vegans can help me find my keto friendly low omega 6 high omega 7 source?
The solution is not just veganism it’s supporting small scale regenerative farming and not supporting the large agriculture mono crops that are depleting the soil of nutrients and not sequestering any carbon. Better yet is growing a majority of your own food it can be done using permaculture methods on the smallest of scales even on balconies in apartments this means almost no emissions connected to your food supply. Rob greenfield is proving this by going a year on only grown or foraged food for 100% of his calories in a suburban environment. I think the future depends on more self reliance and permaculture is a huge part of that
Regenerative agriculture is great where livestock are being raised, but the way the math of land use works out on a planet this size with 7.7 billion people, significant meat consumption needs to become a thing of the past. It's destroying the planet rapidly.
Karl Wheatley yeah totally agree and turning the land the live stock were on back into forest. I meant that vegans should also be aware of the negative impact that large scale non organic plant crops have on the environment. Estimates are that using permaculture food forest methods we could support over 10 billion people and be doing it sustainably
@@phakeonee I totally agree, integrated food production and mimicking natural ecosystems is what we need to do. But people like Mic are opposed to all forms of regenerative ag, they see any interaction between human and non human animals as "exploitation".
Rory Lee yeah I think a lot of vegans see things that way that’s why I think we really need to educate people about permaculture because it’s a fast and actionable solution to our climate problems. I don’t use animal products but when I eventually get some land I’m definitely going to have geese to eat weeds and fertilise beds and guinea fowl to eat pests and fertilise it’s what they naturally do. If people consider that exploitation I think they need to work on reintegrating themselves more into the natural world and see how everything works to be symbiotically beneficial
@@phakeonee yes yes yes. You're into it. I studied permaculture with David Holmgren years ago at The Food Forest in South Australia, they had geese and the bloke said they're kind of like tiny sheep, in that they graze grass so they're super easy. Where you at? I'm looking to buy some land with like-minded peeps, I got about 50k AUD.
show me one real vegan athlete that has not dropped out of veganism or is not a liar. I burn 10k cals a day and no way is it possible to get calories and protein from plants. I tried and my performance slowly diminished, and yes I prefer to be performing my best. if you had people that do not look like small women, that might help the movement. FYI Game Changers was not a Game Changer, I wish it was! I was literally counting on it it promote what I was going for but even Arnold is a vegetarian at most.
Mic is an ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST. His religion is not to use animals for anything. So he (and others) make up a load of bullshit. Like there are tons of vegan athletes. Or that cow farts are destroying the planet.
OF COURSE most successful athletes have been omnivores until recently because virtually all people and athletes were omnivores. It's a simple math problem, and even now, there's something like 100x as many omnivores as vegans, so you'd better be winning virtually all the events. But sprinter Carl Lewis says he ran at his very best when he was eating a vegan diet, the world record for carrying weight over distance was set by a vegan (1216 pounds carried 10 meters) ua-cam.com/video/7S1TQLuCv6I/v-deo.html And the only American man to make the Olympics in weightlifting during the last Olympics was a vegan. Of course, there are numerous vegan bodybuilders. OK, we've done speed and strength, how about endurance? There are multiple record-setting vegan ultramarathoners. Here are three of them: www.greatveganathletes.com/news_articles/vegan-ultrarunner-takes-another-record/ www.plantbasednews.org/post/vegan-runner-wins-ultra-race-smashes-course-record www.today.com/health/ultrarunner-breaks-record-2-168-mile-appalachian-trail-t43161 Hmm, setting the record for running the 2,168-mile Appalachian Trail, is that enough endurance-speed for you? So far, despite the fact vegans are a TINY fraction of the population, I've just handed you vegan records for the fastest man on Earth, strongest man on Earth, and multiple endurance running records. There's even media covering why so many ultramarathoners are vegan: blog.mapmyrun.com/why-are-so-many-ultrarunners-vegan/ Next question?
Karl Wheatley do you run ultra marathons? Do you weight lift? Do you hang out with pro athletes? Just asking because you seem to know a lot about the internet but wonder if you your self are an athlete? Everyone has an opinion but no experience. ??
Karl Wheatley also read about Metzler and his attempt. He used bacon and snickers and houses a pepperoni pizza after. I have watched some these attempts and I used to love on the side of Mt Pisgah. Lol. Good try though
The CO2 absorbed by the livestock feed is mostly then released by the animals during their growth/feedlot period. I.e. it takes 10 calories of feed to produce one calorie of beef, so 90% of that initially captured CO2 goes back to the atmosphere. Although cattle are the worst case. Pigs and chickens are more efficient at converting feed to meat. And the CO2 in the crop's stalks is mostly burned or left to rot, releasing that CO2 back into the air. The only CO2 captured is by the root systems, but plowing/tilling in the following year exposes that, and much of that also decays, releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.
What you're not saying, is that even if the US somehow managed to eliminate carbon emissions altogether, it would account for less than 15% of the total internationally. That's one of the reasons that the US didn't waste their time on it. If you want to live your life in fear, go ahead, but don't expect the rest of the country to go along with you.
Mike, have you analyzed the carbon sequestration of regenerated pastures from non synthetic and grass only raised ruminants. The reality is animals play an integral part in the regeneration of these land. Consider the American buffalo. They basically made the green pastures by roaming them. Point is, things arent black or white, different techniques are needed to be applied as stewards of different environments. Whether or not vegans consider this to be acceptable.
Yes, managed grazing is a fine strategy to attempt to rehabilitate damaged land, but just 1) don't eat those animals, and 2) there can't be too many of them. Raising livestock just uses too much land, so we need people to eat less meat so we can reforest vast swaths of land and sequester billions of tons of CO2.
Karl Wheatley If everyone went vegan you’d need huge amounts of land for all the extra crops needed, land that will be sprayed with pesticides and will be largely devoid of animals. You can raise live stock in woodland but you can’t grow crops
@@SC-yl5yd Thanks for your reply. "If everyone went vegan you’d need huge amounts of land for all the extra crops needed" That's not how the math works out: because meat is such an inefficient way to get nutrients, a typical omnivorous uses FIVE TIMES as much land as a vegan diet with the same number of calories. So we'd only need 20-25% of the land we are currently using for agriculture, and the rest could be reforested and be sequestering lots of CO2. Take care.
Karl Wheatley I’m very sceptical of the numbers though. When I was vegan I was living in Thailand for a while and I needed huge amounts of fruit and vegetables etc yet I still became malnourished. The Thai people I was living with had a lot of land where they grew fruit and vegetables but I still had to buy most of my food from the market to sustain myself. As compared to when I went back to an omnivorous diet I could easily sustain myself by eating the abundance of eggs they had from free range chickens running around their land eating insects etc. Also I cleared up my malnutrition issues in the process. I eat way less now but can put on weight easily. So from my own personal experience at least my vegan diet was far worse for the environment.
Karl Wheatley I could also go fishing and the Thai people I was living with ate all kinds of animals and insect they could hunt or catch. Rather than driving to the market and buying crates of fruit and vegetables grown on acres of farm land that’s sprayed with pesticides and cleared of wildlife. They wouldn’t of been able to survive off of a vegan diet anyway as they don’t have enough money to buy all the vegan food and supplements needed. Many of them are underweight as it is.
I dunno, for me the environmental argument is the second most compelling reason, after the ethical argument. It has a ethical component to it, too, as we'd be improving the state of the planet for everyone and being able to rewild so much land would allow us to give back yet another thing we've taken from the other species on this planet - their homes.
@@Galdethriel I agree entirely that there are overwhelming environmental benefits of veganism - more forest, more wild areas, a recovery of the ocean ecosystem, etc. It's safer to focus on those than rely too much on the idea of human-generated CO2 somehow affecting the climate. But anything which makes people vegan is a good thing.
There's a better reason than saving our planet's environment? Preventing catastrophic climate change would prevent many more animal deaths than just being vegan so that fewer livestock animals are killed.
We actually don't eat more animals than the rest of the world. Many developing countries are increasing the consumption of meat. Only places that are Vegan are first world countries. INTERESTING. So it isn't worth giving up animals but we can all ride bikes lol
hey if the solution is getting rid of animal products and planting trees, im all for you climate change people, but as long as carbon taxes and climate shaming are a thing I'm done, the vast majority of these peoples still eat meat and drive a car too
People see how beneficial is to follow a plant based diet but they just keep eating meat because they don’t want to get out of their comfort zone. People just see what they want to see, even if you give them facts that show the opposite.
Daniella Brenes No there’s thousands of ex vegans on UA-cam alone that quit because of health issues, I’m one of them. You’re a classic bigoted vegan that thinks the vegan diet works for everyone.
Samiad I’m sorry that it sounded that way, I understand completely that not everyone can follow a vegan lifestyle, but what I mean it’s just that people still consume tons of meat without cutting it down and stuff like that. I’m not even a vegan I just follow a plant based diet. Anyway I’m sorry if I offended you.
Misleading video. Guys, please read the below information if we wish to save our health. The data from EPA, estimating the pollution emission from US livestock as 4%, is actually true. How? In 2009, Worldwatch Institute estimated that 51% of global GHG emission was from livestock farming, which was more than that of the combined global transport emission. But, in 2016, the EPA (as mentioned above) estimated the US livestock emission as 4%, which is far less than that from transport sector. This makes no sense. Transport emission should've been higher, isn't? So, what caused this difference? The mistake was from FAO's side. How? In 2006, FAO published 'Livestock's LongShadow' report (one of which sir Mic mentioned at the start), which estimated that the livestock, at global level, contributed to 18% of GHG emission. This LongShadow'report was later declared as flawed by its main author named Henning Steinfeld. According to the author, the issue with that report was the difference in methodology used to assess the emission levels. For assessing the climate change impact of livestock, FAO considered every factor associated with producing meat- from fertilizer production to birth of animals to packaging milk. Whereas for assessing impact of transportation, only vehicular emission of finished cars was estimated. All the stages involved in making a vehicle- steel, tyre, paint, plastics, electronic and spare parts manufacturing were ignored. Hence, when the author later made a revised estimate, the actual global direct emission from transportation vs livestock can be compared and amount to 14% vs 5% respectively. Thus, according to the author, the estimations in the LongShadow report are all distorted. The FAO immediately acted but by that time, the flawed report caught the public's eye. Currently, most of the livestock pollution estimates from independent agencies depend on data and methodology from the LongShadow report. Even an FAO's 2013 report on livestock (that FAO's green colour report sir Mic shows) doesn't talk about transport emission. The author says that, if impact transportation emission on climate change had to be included, it would been alarmingly higher than the livestock's. The author in 2019 has again reiterated the above flaw in the website 'the conversation'. You can all read from it. Hence livestock doesn't pose any threat to the environment as highlighted by the vegans. So please proceed with care. theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968
Mic, if human activity isn't causing the climate to change, you've gone to an awful lot of trouble for nothing. You've created a solution in search of a problem. You might devote a little more thought and research to the original hypothesis because it's far from certain.
We are winning, and we are going to win. More vegans = more data = eventual acceptance. It took a long time for tobacco too, and there are still people out there who love it and embrace fatalism.
For those who don't know, animal agriculture is the main reason that the Amazon rainforest is burning, soy farming is another factor for this, the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) has confirmed that 70 percent of soy produced goes to farmed animals. So when you consume animal products, you're putting your taste pleasure above the rainforest...
@@punishedtom I'm sure everyone can join in on the hunting lifestyle! So realistic!
So I'm destroying the rainforest when I buy pastured beef from the farmer living 15min from me in Switzerland?
@@byReZio we are talking about averages based on unbiased statistics. Not really a point in arguing based on personal anecdotes right?
Milan van der Meer So « when you consume animal products, you’re putting your taste pleasure above the rainforest » is wrong. I was pointing out that
@@punishedtom But don't other countries export meat from the rainforest?
Nice video Mic. Also emissions are not the sole problem. Ocean dead zones over fishing, water usage and so much more when we could just eat plants. Keep up the good work man.
Plus habitat loss is a big one
vegan waste more water on frecuent toilet flushing than what animals drink
@@misakistalker come on lets be real. Animal agriculture is a massive industry that uses so much water. You can be dense and believe the only water used is for them to drink or you can look up the facts on it. Interesting to hear you dont have water in your toilet.
@@raydolo2530 i have to drink 8 liters of water on veganism bro
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated for obvious reasons....
Most people just want to keep their head in the sand, and think that change must begin "elsewhere." Thanks for covering this!
People dont want to see themselves as the bad guys
JS the only “bad guys” are the Masonic devil worshippers that push this climate change hoax. Climate change is not a valid issue since we don’t even live on a ball and there is no outer space.
@@kclark5382 do you eat animals?
JS I’m on a Mic the vegan video: of course I don’t eat animals
Leave it for the next generation. Each generation is seeing worse and worse climate change. It is a natural process climate change but not at this speed. Species are having a hard time adapting so wideworld exctinction.
The real point to be made here, is that this is not a US issue it is a global issue. If there is an extinction event for humanity in the future it's not just going to target whichever country had the highest emissions. Environmentalism is for the planet not for particular countries.
💯👏 👏👏 👏
too bad sooooo many people in the US (almost 1/2 I would guess? you know the group of people that count more than the actual majority do) don't care about the rest of the world and can only think of themselves or putting their own self interest first instead of being informed/intelligent realizing if climate change/global warming destroys the human race then they won't exist to only worry about themselves...ugh!
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated...
Not worth going vegan? Smells like some good news about bad habits being served eh? 😏🥦🍎
Exactly! I really hope that people watch this video and see how much came to his conclusions.
Eat or be eaten
Good news about bad habits
Appeal to fallacy
Appeal to authority
Appeal to nature
Cognitive dissonance
Ctrl c
Ctrl v
Ad infinitum
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated for obvious reasons.
VEGAN MOTIVATION: Went vegan at 13, not rich, non vegan family, and still vegan 5 years later. If I can do it, so can you!
Do you have to comment it on every fucking video? by the way nice fucking videos. fuck man.
Wow good job! Keep it up!
Jabari went vegan as soon as I turned 13. I’m 14 now and been vegan for a year and 1/2.
French blue8 he is referring to his ignorance and arrogance. He has been tamed by the hyenas of capitalism into believing that he is a Mufusa.
why would be the motivation though, looking unhealthy ageing early, no thanks
What a surprise: the Pruitt-Wheeler brigade underestimating in favor of Animal Agriculture. *Swamp draining Trump style.*
yep
Trump is vegan
@@Mr.Witness HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
Roger Nehring fact...
Vegan For The Animals Ⓥ He’s responsible for genocide in Yemen and now Syria - hardly vegan. Plus, the dude lives on McDonalds.
Glad you've done this, was arguing with the usually decent Kevin Bass MD on twitter regarding it
Yeah you're far less cynical than me. What has the Pruitt-Wheeler EPA done to deserve the benefit of the doubt? Really interesting point about the carbon sequestration, though. Do a video on monocrops!
I was wondering if land use was being factored into those official agricultural impact numbers. Thanks for addressing the land use impact too.
It was not. Neither EPA nor FAO.
Slightly off topic, but perhaps you'd be interested in a VERY LONG summary of the FAO vs Goodland and Anhang debate from last decade? That is the 8%, 14%, 18%, and 51% calculations...
Vegans often claim that livestock is responsible for 51% of GHG emissions. Our apathetic critics prefer 18% or 14% or 8% or "the circle of life". The 18% number is from an 2006 FAO report, the 51% number comes from Goodland and Anhang (2009), and 14% from a more recent FAO report. Personally, I'm persuaded by Goodland and Anhang's approach although they clearly miscalculated. Most importantly, they recalculated livestock methane emissions on a 20-year timeframe without recalculating non-livestock emissions. That's a pretty big oops. Cuz, I've reviewed the literature too many times, I thought I should save some notes, and maybe y'all'd appreciate some snippets.
"livestock.. accounts for 40% of agricultural GDP.. one-third of humanity's protein intake.. projected to more than double.. to 465 M tonnes in 2050, and that of milk from 580 to 1043 M tonnes... Extensive grazing.. degrades vast areas of land.. increasing trend towards intensification and industrialization.. direct competition for scarce land, water and other natural resources.. increasing inputs and wastes and.. pollution... livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land.. grazing is equivalent to 26% of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet.. feedcrop.. 33% of total arable land.. livestock production accounts for 70% of all agricultural land and 30% of the land surface of the planet... key factor in deforestation.. 70% of.. Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder... livestock.. responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent [GWP100].. higher share than transport.. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere.. 37% of anthropogenic methane.. from enteric fermentation by ruminants.. 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide.. from manure, 64% of anthropogenic ammonia.. acid rain and acidification of ecosystems... 64% of the world's population expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025.. livestock.. 8% of global human water use.. largest sectoral source of water pollution.. animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides... threats to biodiversity. The loss of species.. 50 to 500 times higher than.. fossil record." (Livestock's Long Shadow, Steinfeld et al, FAO, UN, 2006)
www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf
Energy generation contributes 26% of total global emissions, industries 19%, land use, land change and forestry 17%, agriculture 14%, residential and commercial buildings 8%, and waste and wastewater contribute 3% (IPCC, 2007)
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
"[FAO] estimates that 7516 M [tons/year CO2e], or 18% of annual worldwide GHG emissions, are attributable to [livestock].. But our analysis.. at least 32,564 M tons of CO2e per year, or 51% of annual worldwide GHG emissions... The FAO excludes livestock respiration from its estimate [which] accounts for 21% of anthropogenic GHGs... global shortage of grassland.. more livestock and feed.. destroying natural forest... 4.2% of annual GHG emissions worldwide... Methane warms the atmosphere much more strongly.. its half-life is only about 8 years, versus at least 100 years for CO2.. global warming potential of methane is 25 using a 100-year timeframe -- but it is 72 using a 20-year timeframe [supported by the IPCC].. raises.. 7.9% [Further work is needed to recalibrate other methane emissions using a 20-year timeframe].. additional categories.. 8.7% of GHGs emissions.. overlooked or undercounted by the FAO." (Goodland, Anhang, published without peer-review, 2009)
www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
"Farm animal breath, Goodland and Anhang figure, contributes nearly 14% of worldwide greenhouse gases.. need to consider is not the absolute amount of CO2 breathed out [but] what would be pumped out if the land now used to feed the farm animals was allowed to return to nature..: 3.2%... methane as actually 72 times more potent.. additional 7.9%.. [G&A] fail to adjust the GHG total to include the remaining 63% of [other methane emissions].. works out to 6.5% in CO2 equivalents... [FAO estimates 21.7 B, G&A 50 B] world farm animal population.. amounts to about a 2.9% increase... conservative reanalysis of [Goodland and Anhang] animal agriculture contributes a minimum of 30.4% of worldwide greenhouse gases." (David Steele, 2009)
www.vegan.com/articles/environment/a-sympathetic-but-skeptical-look-at-goodland-and-anhangs-livestock-and-climate-change/
"[omitting to recalculate non-livestock methane emissions].. wrote that this remained to be be done.. [FAO later] reported 56 B livestock worldwide in 2007.. outweighs whatever the increase would be in non-livestock methane. [imprecise estimates are used in the final set of GHG categories.. doesn't provide corresponding estimate for non-livestock alternatives] our intention was to provoke people to start thinking.. [livestock have multiple benefits, especially for poor smallholders] small fraction of the world's livestock raised by poor smallholders with the vast majority that have large adverse impacts.. less than 10% of meat is produced entirely on pasture, and the animals providing this meat yield up to three times as much methane.. second part of the life of pasture-raised livestock, most are raised intensively.. add significantly to the carbon intensity." (Critical Comments and Responses, Robert Goodland, 2010)
awellfedworld.org/sites/awellfedworld.org/files/pdf/WWMLivestock-ClimateResponses.pdf
Criteque of FAO (2006) and G&A (2009) (Herrero et al, 2011)
www.agr.gc.ca/eng/abstract/?id=22434000000397
Response to Herreror et al (2011)'s critique of FAO (2016) and G&A (2009). Neither moves our understanding (Robert Goodland, Jeff Anhang, 2012)
www.animalfeedscience.com/article/S0377-8401(11)00517-7/abstract
Criteque of the FAO and ILRI agenda (Op-ed by Robert Goodland, NY Times, 2012)
bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/fao-yields-to-meat-industry-pressure-on-climate-change/
"[livestock] represents 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions... beef [41%] and milk [19% and] inedible outputs like manure.. representing about 65% of the livestock sector's emissions" (FAO, 2013)
www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
@@vegahimsa3057 Thank you. The Goodland and Anhang report is the most comprehensive and accurate study.
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated for obvious reasons.
I hope this goes viral.
yoooooo!!!!!!!! Ok, this video is way to awesome, Mic!!!
Really neat collection and breakdown of data from literally all over the place.
As an aspiring(student)-environmental scientist: This is EVERYTHING, haha!
Amazingly captured so many key topics hitting home base! Love it!! Keep up the wicked videos!
Well done, AGAIN!!! Thx! Sharing!!
Who heads up the EPA? That explains it all.....
i really wish i understood all of this!!! but 13 year vegan here so it is all good.
Awesome video Mike! Referencing this in a recent video 👍
great video and important topic :)
I would add that vegan diet also improves health, there are massive gains for climate if people are healthier.
just think about it, less pills, and medicine testing comes from animal abuse, sick people are a huge problem from lack of productivity to behavioural problems. staffing hospitals and diagnosing humans are a huge business costing the climate.
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated for obvious reasons... Ps less people sick without that trash too.
You included cheese and milk together ( I forget exactly how) but what about the fact that cows used for milk are also used for meat? Love the video btw!
The dairy industry and the beef industry use different cows, which are bred to produce either a lot of milk OR a lot of muscle i.e. meat. So while they will use the beef from dairy cows once their production starts to lower (after about 3 years) the majority of beef does not come from dairy cows because they produce a lot less and it is lower quality (becomes cheap ground beef normally). They are sold to slaughterhouses so likely their beef stats get included under meat? I don't know.
I think you did a great job on this video Mic. Thank you for bringing up carbon sequestration. I believe that industrial farming practices sterilizing soil can be plotted in direct proportion by acre to the increase in atmospheric carbon. I live in the Salad Bowl of the World. Google has a fairly recent satellite picture that shows what the entire land base looks like from now until March. Here it is. goo.gl/maps/gS3K67PS68XVyjFUA . If you follow Highway 101 up and down the valley you can see the sheer volume of land that is sterilized, and thus sequestering 0 carbon. We don't need to plant trees, we just need to plant winter cover crops and stop using chemicals on farm land. My point is that my research in greenhouse gases has led me to believe that emissions is the wrong hill to die on. It's poor land use, including what you talked about with animal agriculture that is preventing our atmospheric Co2 levels to ever go back down. Thanks for your work Mic.
Always so grateful to have you look at the science in a way that I and the average brained Brit could never manage. You help me make sense of things. I like your recipes too. When Brexit happens and we are forced through trade deals into even lower standards for our food and animal welfare, I am hoping there will be an even greater interest in home grown food and veganism. Love and peace from the UK
Could it be that the EPA subtracted the CO2 the land absorbs?
So that a industry that uses a lot of land has a lower emission number in the EPA report?
I'm glad someone has the time to figure this shit out
But Mic mentioned in another video that animal agriculture accounts for 51% of global warming if you include the exponential growth in livestock production (now more than 60 billion land animals annually), deforestation & forest burning, and accelerating increases in volatilizataion of soil carbon, in addition to the usual factors considered, which only add up to 18%. We're including methane (cows belching, not farting, which is more than from fracking), as well, which is 35 times as bad as CO2,
This is US specific.
Do you have any sources for all those numbers? I'm interested.
@@rorylee3582 Of course meat eaters are going to dispute it, but . . .
advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2009/10/livestock-emissions-account-for-51-percent-of-greenhouse-gases/
Great video Mic it’s well documented as always and it’s great to use as reference. Cheers!
Thank you 🙏🏼 your videos are the best, my vegan 🌱 life would be awful with out your channel is my to go for the best inspiration, information and also every time some one comes with the must ridiculous comments about been vegan 🌱
Smellier than cow fart, the elephant fart in the room, the military industrial complex ua-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/v-deo.html numbers still underestimated for obvious reasons....
Does your math take into account that the dairy industry is also the beef industry ? The emission of Dairy could be lower because the cow is used for beef after it is done with milk production.
Another great video. Thanks Mic.
My energy science professor keeps using that pie graph by the EPA, I was confused till I saw this video. Thanks.
Hey Mic, I have a question about veggies/plastics/the environment. I buy a ton of greens (several times a week), I live in the city, and I'm taking great pains to eliminate plastic as much as I can. All the leaves seem to be packed in plastic containers or plastic bags. There are a couple of health food stores, which try to also be environmentally friendly whenever possible, and the one I go to uses compostable bags for product, except for my favorite greens. The really high quality/local greens are almost all in plastic containers (I love the Organic Girl brand, for example, because they're such tasty, clean, fresh mixes!). I've tried buying the greens on the other shelf that aren't in plastic, but they wilt or start rotting way sooner, and it's hard to get a nice variety without buying a whole ton of them and then wasting the ones I can't eat in time. I also grow some greens on my balcony, but other than my herbs, I can't grow nearly enough. SO... Long story long: How do we buy these products without going through a ton of plastic every week??? (Do you have a video on plastics that I haven't found yet?) THANKS!
Maybe look into a good delivery subscription. My friend does it and she gets everything in one giant box. Good luck. I understand the struggle. I use the plastic containers to make little greenhouses for my plants.
I used to work in a produce department where baby greens were also sold by the pound in bulk and then customers had the option of putting them in their own re-usable container and the cashier would use a tare to subtract out the container weight. If that’s not an option at any of your stores, you could buy the individual greens (a head of lettuce, bunch of spinach, a radicchio, etc) then chop them up and store in an empty Organic Girl tub. Way more of a pain in the ass of course. It would be nice if those companies could come up with better packaging.
Plant defenses can be classified generally as constitutive or induced. Constitutive defenses are always present in the plant, while induced defenses are produced or mobilized to the site where a plant is injured. There is wide variation in the composition and concentration of constitutive defenses and these range from mechanical defenses to digestibility reducers and toxins. Many external mechanical defenses and large quantitative defenses are constitutive, as they require large amounts of resources to produce and are difficult to mobilize.[14] A variety of molecular and biochemical approaches are used to determine the mechanism of constitutive and induced plant defenses responses against herbivory.[15][16][17][18]
Induced defenses include secondary metabolic products, as well as morphological and physiological changes.[19] An advantage of inducible, as opposed to constitutive defenses, is that they are only produced when needed, and are therefore potentially less costly, especially when herbivory is variable.[19] Modes of induced defence include systemic acquired resistance[20] and plant-induced systemic resistance.[21]
Chemical defensesEdit

Persimmon, genus Diospyros, has a high tannin content which gives immature fruit, seen above, an astringent and bitter flavor.
Further information: Toxalbumin
The evolution of chemical defenses in plants is linked to the emergence of chemical substances that are not involved in the essential photosynthetic and metabolic activities. These substances, secondary metabolites, are organic compounds that are not directly involved in the normal growth, development or reproduction of organisms,[22] and often produced as by-products during the synthesis of primary metabolic products.[23] Although these secondary metabolites have been thought to play a major role in defenses against herbivores,[4][22][24] a meta-analysis of recent relevant studies has suggested that they have either a more minimal (when compared to other non-secondary metabolites, such as primary chemistry and physiology) or more complex involvement in defense.[25]
Qualitative and quantitative metabolitesEdit
Secondary metabolites are often characterized as either qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative metabolites are defined as toxins that interfere with a herbivore's metabolism, often by blocking specific biochemical reactions. Qualitative chemicals are present in plants in relatively low concentrations (often less than 2% dry weight), and are not dosage dependent. They are usually small, water-soluble molecules, and therefore can be rapidly synthesized, transported and stored with relatively little energy cost to the plant. Qualitative allelochemicals are usually effective against non-adapted generalist herbivores.
Quantitative chemicals are those that are present in high concentration in plants (5 - 40% dry weight) and are equally effective against all specialists and generalist herbivores. Most quantitative metabolites are digestibility reducers that make plant cell walls indigestible to animals. The effects of quantitative metabolites are dosage dependent and the higher these chemicals’ proportion in the herbivore’s diet, the less nutrition the herbivore can gain from ingesting plant tissues. Because they are typically large molecules, these defenses are energetically expensive to produce and maintain, and often take longer to synthesize and transport.[26]
The geranium, for example, produces a unique chemical compound in its petals to defend itself from Japanese beetles. Within 30 minutes of ingestion the chemical paralyzes the herbivore. While the chemical usually wears off within a few hours, during this time the beetle is often consumed by its own predators.[27]
Antiherbivory compoundsEdit
Further information: Medicinal plants
Plants have evolved many secondary metabolites involved in plant defense, which are collectively known as antiherbivory compounds and can be classified into three sub-groups: nitrogen compounds (including alkaloids, cyanogenic glycosides, glucosinolates and benzoxazinoids), terpenoids, and phenolics.[28]
Alkaloids are derived from various amino acids. Over 3000 known alkaloids exist, examples include nicotine, caffeine, morphine, cocaine, colchicine, ergolines, strychnine, and quinine.[29] Alkaloids have pharmacological effects on humans and other animals. Some alkaloids can inhibit or activate enzymes, or alter carbohydrate and fat storage by inhibiting the formation phosphodiester bonds involved in their breakdown.[30] Certain alkaloids bind to nucleic acids and can inhibit synthesis of proteins and affect DNA repair mechanisms. Alkaloids can also affect cell membrane and cytoskeletal structure causing the cells to weaken, collapse, or leak, and can affect nerve transmission.[31] Although alkaloids act on a diversity of metabolic systems in humans and other animals, they almost uniformly invoke an aversively bitter taste.[32]
Cyanogenic glycosides are stored in inactive forms in plant vacuoles. They become toxic when herbivores eat the plant and break cell membranes allowing the glycosides to come into contact with enzymes in the cytoplasm releasing hydrogen cyanide which blocks cellular respiration.[33] Glucosinolates are activated in much the same way as cyanogenic glucosides, and the products can cause gastroenteritis, salivation, diarrhea, and irritation of the mouth.[32] Benzoxazinoids, secondary defence metabolites, which are characteristic for grasses (Poaceae), are also stored as inactive glucosides in the plant vacuole.[34] Upon tissue disruption they get into contact with β-glucosidases from the chloroplasts, which enzymatically release the toxic aglucones. Whereas some benzoxazinoids are constitutively present, others are only synthesised following herbivore infestation, and thus, considered inducible plant defenses against herbivory.[35]
The terpenoids, sometimes referred to as isoprenoids, are organic chemicals similar to terpenes, derived from five-carbon isoprene units. There are over 10,000 known types of terpenoids.[36] Most are multicyclic structures which differ from one another in both functional groups, and in basic carbon skeletons.[37] Monoterpenoids, continuing 2 isoprene units, are volatile essential oils such as citronella, limonene, menthol, camphor, and pinene. Diterpenoids, 4 isoprene units, are widely distributed in latex and resins, and can be quite toxic. Diterpenes are responsible for making Rhododendron leaves poisonous. Plant steroids and sterols are also produced from terpenoid precursors, including vitamin D, glycosides (such as digitalis) and saponins (which lyse red blood cells of herbivores).[38]
Phenolics, sometimes called phenols, consist of an aromatic 6-carbon ring bonded to a hydroxy group. Some phenols have antiseptic properties, while others disrupt endocrine activity. Phenolics range from simple tannins to the more complex flavonoids that give plants much of their red, blue, yellow, and white pigments. Complex phenolics called polyphenols are capable of producing many different types of effects on humans, including antioxidant properties. Some examples of phenolics used for defense in plants are: lignin, silymarin and cannabinoids.[39] Condensed tannins, polymers composed of 2 to 50 (or more) flavonoid molecules, inhibit herbivore digestion by binding to consumed plant proteins and making them more difficult for animals to digest, and by interfering with protein absorption and digestive enzymes.[40]
In addition, some plants use fatty acid derivates, amino acids and even peptides[41] as defenses. The cholinergic toxine, cicutoxin of water hemlock, is a polyyne derived from the fatty acid metabolism.[42] β-N-Oxalyl-L-α,β-diaminopropionic acid as simple amino acid is used by the sweet pea which leads also to intoxication in humans.[43] The synthesis of fluoroacetate in several plants is an example of the use of small molecules to disrupt the metabolism of herbivores, in this case the citric acid cycle.[44]
In tropical Sargassum and Turbinaria species that are often preferentially consumed by herbivorous fishes and echinoids, there is a relatively low level of phenolics and tannins.[45]
6:38 Mic you used the 155 million acres of livestock feed crops by reading the table for 2002, not 2007 so livestock feed crops are actually 166 million acres of land in 2007 which then gives about 50% of land being used for livestock
The % of GHG from the agriculture sector is underestimated because it only accounts for the direct emission from animals (methane from farts and eructations) and the direct emissions from the fertilizers (chemical fertilizer and manure).
So all the emissions from transportation is accounted elsewhere. We talk about the inputs (feed, animals, fertilizers); the outputs (hay, animals); the farming machinery. It also excludes the energy for drying the grains and refrigeration of the animal products.
More over, the CO2 equivalent for the methane is also underestimated. It uses a time frame of 100 years, which makes one ton of methane equivalent to 34 tons of CO2. But a more realistic value is a time frame of 20 years, which brings 1 ton of methane equivalent to 86 tons of CO2. Agriculture being among the major source of methane, the percentage of US emissions for agriculture would be much higher.
Thank you for your work!
A key factor you left out that would raise these numbers even higher is **exported** emissions - i.e. the emissions from all of the meat that Americans eat from fast food restaurants for which the meat (and/or the feed for the meat) are grown in foreign countries like Brazil. Also, why not use the same methodology of the Worldwatch Institute report, which would also increase the percentage.
Thanks for these great videos!
Very informative as always, thank you!
Really appreciate this video.
Omega-3s and Health
The potential health benefits of consuming omega-3s are the focus of a great deal of scientific research. By far, the majority of research has focused on EPA and DHA from foods (e.g., fish) and/or dietary supplements (e.g., fish oil) as opposed to ALA from plant-based foods.
Many observational studies link higher intakes of fish and other seafood with improved health outcomes. However, it is difficult to ascertain whether the benefits are due to the omega-3 content of the seafood (which varies among species), other components in the seafood, the substitution of seafood for other less healthful foods, other healthful behaviors, or a combination of these factors. Data from randomized clinical trials are needed to shed light on these questions.
This section focuses on areas of health in which omega-3s might be involved: cardiovascular disease and its risk factors; infant health and neurodevelopment; cancer prevention; Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and cognitive function; age-related macular degeneration; dry eye disease; rheumatoid arthritis; and other conditions.
ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/#h5
Wow Mic! I'm doing a paper for Comp 2 about animal agriculture and climate change!
Why do you use mmt? Why not just use Mt for Megatones or Tg for Teragramm? That would be the correct way to write it according to the BIPM (the guys that define the SI-units).
Please can you come to Extinction Rebellion in London and try to get the non-vegan ‘environmentalists’ here to grasp some simple concepts? Some of them are even animal farmers (and situated right next to Animal Rebellion)!
it seem like your EPA full report link does not work. i only get "Sorry, but this web page does not exist."
What about all the fossil fuels used in farming? Not only the animal ag industry directly, but the farming involved in growing plants we then feed to animals. It seems like those numbers should be included as well.
What about that thing about omega 3 that was written on that source? What do you guys know about it?
EPA pay receiving individuals should be extremely worried at the fact that they are collecting salaries but NOT doing their jobs correctly! Oh, sorry about those pulled by the mass events inside the EPA, or “follow the herd” attitude. We are talking about citizens who pay taxes that go to institutiones supposedly putting data together for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Make your own conclusions...
Great video Mikey !
Actually, understanding how much does consuming meat impact than consuming plants is a question of basic thermodynamics. As Gretna Thinberg said: they're fighting against physics
Exactly. It's thermodynamically inefficient to the point that it's unsustainable. Human civilization really doesn't have a proper grasp of entropy and how massive of an impact our 'fast entropy' model of industrial civilization has. It's something that needs to fundamentally change about the way we are taught to understand the world.
@@SolarScion Very few people know that almost all of our energy (also food wise) comes from the sun and it's synthetized by plants. The further you get from the original source, the more energy you lose in the process and the more waste byproducts you get. So, if we see plants as a primary source of energy, you need a lot more primary sources of energy to produce the same energy from a secondary source or from its fossilized remains. And the resources and space on this planet are limited...
I love these videos you do as they speak the science of what's actually happening. I've recently gotten into activism, but trying to do it In a way that is conversational rather than arguing. Maybe you could do a video on how to do activism for animals and the environment (I've got the health part down!) That way I can reach more people in Hope of them either going plant based or at least really decrease their consumption. Your channel rocks!
Thanks again for your excellently researched videos 🙏 You need to get an interview with Piers Morgan and shut him up once and for all!
It is a ridiculous statement to say it is not worth going vegan for climate change it is worth going vegan for climate change.
You can never go vegan for the climate. Veganism is not only your food choices. It's an ethical issue. If you go vegan IS always for the animals. The rest is just plant based.
Meat,meat,meat,meat,it's what you should eat. If you care about good health.
Except that major chronic diseases ramp up with increasing meat consumption--and meat consumption is one of the top 3 ways humans are killing the health of the planet.
It's very nice for you do this, Mic. Thank you! I'm very proud I help the world be cleaner eating whole food-plant based.
Mike you are awesome. It’s so obvious you put an insane amount of work into your videos. Trust me, I’m grateful because I can pull up your channel for comebacks to people who shit on veganism 🤣
Great video yet again,completely objective and ruled by facts and stats. Thank you so much Mic for all the time and effort you put into making such flawless argumentations
Mic for President!
Whatever stupid reasons people come up with to justify their filthy habits, the fact remains that in suffering other animals are our equals and killing for pleasure is wrong!
Hi Mic! .... how can we know or convince others that the researches in the video are true and reliable????
If there's one policy that vegans and environmentalists should be fighting for, it's ending meat and dairy subsidies. $38 billion per year goes to the meat and dairy industry, while only .04% of that ($17 Million) goes to fruits and vegetables. It's unfair. It's an outrage. It must end. Level 2 would be placing a tax on agricultural waste and pollution (carbon or methane tax, as well as fertilizer/pesticide runoff tax?). These policies would massively increase the price of animal products (esp. beef and dairy) and make people choose plant based over expensive meats. With cheap hamburgers, and grocery store chicken at $1.69 a pound and beef at $2.99 a pound, people are going to go with these options because they taste good and are cheap protein. We need a price change to make real environmental progress. We would see livestock production reduce massively with an end to subsidies and even more massively with a beginning of pollution taxes.
Here is a good article on the top 10 things you should know about the meat industry: www.peta.org/living/food/10-things-wish-everyone-knew-meat-dairy-industries/
Yes, I was just thinking about this, vegan hive mind strikes again 😂
Thanks for brain-lasering the idea back in time to me!
@@MictheVegan haha I meant recently, but who knows what vegan level time travel is 🤣 Seriously though, just the video I wanted to see. Good job 👍 Will be sending it to all the vegan haters 😂
@@MictheVegan you're keep twitching more and more Mic are you on drugs?
Thanks!
You simply cannot be an environmentalist and an abolitionist vegan.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Did you leave something out?
@@sd200man it makes sense to me, I'll elaborate. If you're an abolitionist vegan then you oppose all forms of regenerative/sustainable agriculture: you can't call yourself an environmentalist if you advocate for policy that leads to land degradation and species extinction.
I just noticed that you did some of the math wrong. You said that the EPA total for emissions was 6400. Now these total emissions were from the percentages that they had, where they said that livestock is around 4%. So therefore, the 6400 emission total is taken from the graph with the 4% emissions from livestock.
Mic, your calculation was 942. Now what you did was 942/6400 to get percentage emissions for livestock, but this is incorrect.
This is what you were supposed to do. 4% is 256 and then do 6400-256=6144. Which gives us the total emissions but without the EPA's estimation of livestock emissions. Then you do 6144+942=7086, which gives us the total emissions with YOUR measurements of livestock not the EPA's. THEN you do 942 divide by the new total which is 942/7086.
You were close, but the problem was, was that you need to understand that when a section of a pie chart is underestimated and that you want to increase that section, this means that the whole size of the pie chart will increase as well with that section. But you didn't take into account for that, so the math above is just a demonstration of how to account for that.
Going vegan will be more expensive for my family because certain member's aren't willing to switch over. The result would be paying two grocery bills every week and that's not feasible for us. I'll cut down on meat when I can and might suggest we freeze it if we buy bigger amounts etc.
America could be carbon negative? Unbelieveable how powerfull a vegan diet is!
Mickey, you been sneekin steak?
Hey,I have decided to increase my weight on vegan diet, figured out how many calories and macros I need. When researching I came across term bioavailability in protein,plant based protein had low bioavailability does it mean that if I want to have a 30g of a plant protein which has bioavailability of 70 will I only get 70%of 30g?? How can I use all protein on the particular plant protein?
That answer is one of the reasons so many people scorn vegans.
@@SaturatedCat Vegan ideology? Who made you the pope of veganism. Vegan ideology says nothing about losing or gaining weight. Veganism is concerned with refusing to exploit animals. Period.
This is a crap estimate. A few months ago I hear 15% on the JRE show he said 9% about a week ago... now it's what 4.5%????
Ahhh. You went wrong when you started listening to a literal grunting caveman for hours at a time
It's so hard to read all thees names: beef, chiken, lamb, eggs, milk....How this bullshit happend whit us, humans....
Don't we import a shittonne of beef too?
Well researched Mic, you're the man!!!
Mic, still waiting for your video discussing the stance of the only presidential candidate that has acknowledged consumption of meat as a real threat to the environment----Andrew Yang, and what he said at the CNN Climate Change town hall.
I'm curious how effective it is for one individual to go vegan in the bigger picture. Can we can estimate how many people would have to switch to veganism for this positive model to take place?
5/6ths of an acre can be reforested because YOU went vegan + maybe 200 fewer animals a year are slaughtered.
We would probably be carbon negative simply by going vegan, since we would only produce 80 percent and then planting forest would sequester 90 percent, so we would be well within the negative. There nothing we need to think of for climate change more than veganism.
Some people are really desperate!! It’s sad really.
I would not trust this administration's EPA; kakistocracy. Thanks for breaking it down into more granular terms than my suspicious, math-averse mind was willing to calculate, Mic. : )
Awesome video Mike.
Meat industry is not a big deal to the environment. But I'm paleo atm, I eat seeds, fish and eggs (and baby-spinach). There are animals that increased LDL cholesterol which we can cut back down on but unless it's possible to live exclusively on seeds sustainable veganism for everyone is not achievable. Chia seeds seems to be the highest omega 3 seed. Avo and olives are healthy but since they are high in omega 6 and we already have can make 6 with our bodies its better to fill up on omega 3... unless of course we can find a decent source of omega 7 which I've heard clean the arteries. For someone with high levels of LDL cholesterol, any carbs is a risk. Any knowledgeable vegans can help me find my keto friendly low omega 6 high omega 7 source?
Why do you dye your hair? Hiding hair loss?
The solution is not just veganism it’s supporting small scale regenerative farming and not supporting the large agriculture mono crops that are depleting the soil of nutrients and not sequestering any carbon. Better yet is growing a majority of your own food it can be done using permaculture methods on the smallest of scales even on balconies in apartments this means almost no emissions connected to your food supply. Rob greenfield is proving this by going a year on only grown or foraged food for 100% of his calories in a suburban environment. I think the future depends on more self reliance and permaculture is a huge part of that
Regenerative agriculture is great where livestock are being raised, but the way the math of land use works out on a planet this size with 7.7 billion people, significant meat consumption needs to become a thing of the past. It's destroying the planet rapidly.
Karl Wheatley yeah totally agree and turning the land the live stock were on back into forest. I meant that vegans should also be aware of the negative impact that large scale non organic plant crops have on the environment. Estimates are that using permaculture food forest methods we could support over 10 billion people and be doing it sustainably
@@phakeonee I totally agree, integrated food production and mimicking natural ecosystems is what we need to do. But people like Mic are opposed to all forms of regenerative ag, they see any interaction between human and non human animals as "exploitation".
Rory Lee yeah I think a lot of vegans see things that way that’s why I think we really need to educate people about permaculture because it’s a fast and actionable solution to our climate problems. I don’t use animal products but when I eventually get some land I’m definitely going to have geese to eat weeds and fertilise beds and guinea fowl to eat pests and fertilise it’s what they naturally do. If people consider that exploitation I think they need to work on reintegrating themselves more into the natural world and see how everything works to be symbiotically beneficial
@@phakeonee yes yes yes. You're into it. I studied permaculture with David Holmgren years ago at The Food Forest in South Australia, they had geese and the bloke said they're kind of like tiny sheep, in that they graze grass so they're super easy. Where you at? I'm looking to buy some land with like-minded peeps, I got about 50k AUD.
show me one real vegan athlete that has not dropped out of veganism or is not a liar. I burn 10k cals a day and no way is it possible to get calories and protein from plants. I tried and my performance slowly diminished, and yes I prefer to be performing my best. if you had people that do not look like small women, that might help the movement. FYI Game Changers was not a Game Changer, I wish it was! I was literally counting on it it promote what I was going for but even Arnold is a vegetarian at most.
Mic is an ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST. His religion is not to use animals for anything. So he (and others) make up a load of bullshit. Like there are tons of vegan athletes. Or that cow farts are destroying the planet.
OF COURSE most successful athletes have been omnivores until recently because virtually all people and athletes were omnivores. It's a simple math problem, and even now, there's something like 100x as many omnivores as vegans, so you'd better be winning virtually all the events. But sprinter Carl Lewis says he ran at his very best when he was eating a vegan diet, the world record for carrying weight over distance was set by a vegan (1216 pounds carried 10 meters)
ua-cam.com/video/7S1TQLuCv6I/v-deo.html
And the only American man to make the Olympics in weightlifting during the last Olympics was a vegan.
Of course, there are numerous vegan bodybuilders.
OK, we've done speed and strength, how about endurance? There are multiple record-setting vegan ultramarathoners. Here are three of them:
www.greatveganathletes.com/news_articles/vegan-ultrarunner-takes-another-record/
www.plantbasednews.org/post/vegan-runner-wins-ultra-race-smashes-course-record
www.today.com/health/ultrarunner-breaks-record-2-168-mile-appalachian-trail-t43161
Hmm, setting the record for running the 2,168-mile Appalachian Trail, is that enough endurance-speed for you?
So far, despite the fact vegans are a TINY fraction of the population, I've just handed you vegan records for the fastest man on Earth, strongest man on Earth, and multiple endurance running records.
There's even media covering why so many ultramarathoners are vegan:
blog.mapmyrun.com/why-are-so-many-ultrarunners-vegan/
Next question?
Karl Wheatley lol. Patrick is not a world champion. Metzler eats none vegan, I am in the world of sports and trust me your grasping at straws!
Karl Wheatley do you run ultra marathons? Do you weight lift? Do you hang out with pro athletes? Just asking because you seem to know a lot about the internet but wonder if you your self are an athlete? Everyone has an opinion but no experience. ??
Karl Wheatley also read about Metzler and his attempt. He used bacon and snickers and houses a pepperoni pizza after. I have watched some these attempts and I used to love on the side of Mt Pisgah. Lol. Good try though
do these figures include the amount of co2 absorbed by the corn, soybeans, oats, and hay that's fed to animals? that would be quite a lot.
The CO2 absorbed by the livestock feed is mostly then released by the animals during their growth/feedlot period. I.e. it takes 10 calories of feed to produce one calorie of beef, so 90% of that initially captured CO2 goes back to the atmosphere. Although cattle are the worst case. Pigs and chickens are more efficient at converting feed to meat.
And the CO2 in the crop's stalks is mostly burned or left to rot, releasing that CO2 back into the air. The only CO2 captured is by the root systems, but plowing/tilling in the following year exposes that, and much of that also decays, releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.
@@broddr makes sense. thanks
PLEASE DO A REVIEW OF THOMAS DELEAUR HE IS A LOW CARB ACTIVIST AND GIVE 0 EVIDENCE TO HIS CLAIMS AND RECENTLY WENT CARNIVORE
What you're not saying, is that even if the US somehow managed to eliminate carbon emissions altogether, it would account for less than 15% of the total internationally. That's one of the reasons that the US didn't waste their time on it. If you want to live your life in fear, go ahead, but don't expect the rest of the country to go along with you.
I’m trying to share this video on instagram- anyone, help? Thanks!!
loving the softcore porno music at the end of the video
Mike, have you analyzed the carbon sequestration of regenerated pastures from non synthetic and grass only raised ruminants. The reality is animals play an integral part in the regeneration of these land. Consider the American buffalo. They basically made the green pastures by roaming them.
Point is, things arent black or white, different techniques are needed to be applied as stewards of different environments. Whether or not vegans consider this to be acceptable.
Yes, managed grazing is a fine strategy to attempt to rehabilitate damaged land, but just 1) don't eat those animals, and 2) there can't be too many of them. Raising livestock just uses too much land, so we need people to eat less meat so we can reforest vast swaths of land and sequester billions of tons of CO2.
Karl Wheatley If everyone went vegan you’d need huge amounts of land for all the extra crops needed, land that will be sprayed with pesticides and will be largely devoid of animals.
You can raise live stock in woodland but you can’t grow crops
@@SC-yl5yd Thanks for your reply.
"If everyone went vegan you’d need huge amounts of land for all the extra crops needed" That's not how the math works out: because meat is such an inefficient way to get nutrients, a typical omnivorous uses FIVE TIMES as much land as a vegan diet with the same number of calories. So we'd only need 20-25% of the land we are currently using for agriculture, and the rest could be reforested and be sequestering lots of CO2.
Take care.
Karl Wheatley I’m very sceptical of the numbers though. When I was vegan I was living in Thailand for a while and I needed huge amounts of fruit and vegetables etc yet I still became malnourished. The Thai people I was living with had a lot of land where they grew fruit and vegetables but I still had to buy most of my food from the market to sustain myself. As compared to when I went back to an omnivorous diet I could easily sustain myself by eating the abundance of eggs they had from free range chickens running around their land eating insects etc. Also I cleared up my malnutrition issues in the process. I eat way less now but can put on weight easily.
So from my own personal experience at least my vegan diet was far worse for the environment.
Karl Wheatley I could also go fishing and the Thai people I was living with ate all kinds of animals and insect they could hunt or catch. Rather than driving to the market and buying crates of fruit and vegetables grown on acres of farm land that’s sprayed with pesticides and cleared of wildlife. They wouldn’t of been able to survive off of a vegan diet anyway as they don’t have enough money to buy all the vegan food and supplements needed. Many of them are underweight as it is.
There are vastly better reasons for being vegan.
I dunno, for me the environmental argument is the second most compelling reason, after the ethical argument.
It has a ethical component to it, too, as we'd be improving the state of the planet for everyone and being able to rewild so much land would allow us to give back yet another thing we've taken from the other species on this planet - their homes.
@@Galdethriel I agree entirely that there are overwhelming environmental benefits of veganism - more forest, more wild areas, a recovery of the ocean ecosystem, etc. It's safer to focus on those than rely too much on the idea of human-generated CO2 somehow affecting the climate. But anything which makes people vegan is a good thing.
Vegan is for the animals. They're enough of a reason.
@@ASMRyouVEGANyet Exactly!
There's a better reason than saving our planet's environment? Preventing catastrophic climate change would prevent many more animal deaths than just being vegan so that fewer livestock animals are killed.
WOW.
We actually don't eat more animals than the rest of the world. Many developing countries are increasing the consumption of meat. Only places that are Vegan are first world countries. INTERESTING. So it isn't worth giving up animals but we can all ride bikes lol
Yes, we actually are one of the highest meat-consuming countries in the world and we eat more meat than ever before in our history.
Is the EPA right? Or is the UA-cam guy right? Hmmm
Some places meat is you can't plant trees 😂
hey if the solution is getting rid of animal products and planting trees, im all for you climate change people, but as long as carbon taxes and climate shaming are a thing I'm done, the vast majority of these peoples still eat meat and drive a car too
People see how beneficial is to follow a plant based diet but they just keep eating meat because they don’t want to get out of their comfort zone. People just see what they want to see, even if you give them facts that show the opposite.
Daniella Brenes No there’s thousands of ex vegans on UA-cam alone that quit because of health issues, I’m one of them. You’re a classic bigoted vegan that thinks the vegan diet works for everyone.
Samiad I’m sorry that it sounded that way, I understand completely that not everyone can follow a vegan lifestyle, but what I mean it’s just that people still consume tons of meat without cutting it down and stuff like that. I’m not even a vegan I just follow a plant based diet. Anyway I’m sorry if I offended you.
Well- fed westerners argue about what to eat.
Agrarian Revolution As a westerner, these vegans embarrass me
Meat is my favorite food !!
Misleading video.
Guys, please read the below information if we wish to save our health.
The data from EPA, estimating the pollution emission from US livestock as 4%, is actually true. How?
In 2009, Worldwatch Institute estimated that 51% of global GHG emission was from livestock farming, which was more than that of the combined global transport emission.
But, in 2016, the EPA (as mentioned above) estimated the US livestock emission as 4%, which is far less than that from transport sector.
This makes no sense.
Transport emission should've been higher, isn't?
So, what caused this difference?
The mistake was from FAO's side. How?
In 2006, FAO published 'Livestock's LongShadow' report (one of which sir Mic mentioned at the start), which estimated that the livestock, at global level, contributed to 18% of GHG emission.
This LongShadow'report was later declared as flawed by its main author named Henning Steinfeld.
According to the author, the issue with that report was the difference in methodology used to assess the emission levels.
For assessing the climate change impact of livestock, FAO considered every factor associated with producing meat- from fertilizer production to birth of animals to packaging milk.
Whereas for assessing impact of transportation, only vehicular emission of finished cars was estimated.
All the stages involved in making a vehicle- steel, tyre, paint, plastics, electronic and spare parts manufacturing were ignored.
Hence, when the author later made a revised estimate, the actual global direct emission from transportation vs livestock can be compared and amount to 14% vs 5% respectively.
Thus, according to the author, the estimations in the LongShadow report are all distorted.
The FAO immediately acted but by that time, the flawed report caught the public's eye.
Currently, most of the livestock pollution estimates from independent agencies depend on data and methodology from the LongShadow report.
Even an FAO's 2013 report on livestock (that FAO's green colour report sir Mic shows) doesn't talk about transport emission.
The author says that, if impact transportation emission on climate change had to be included, it would been alarmingly higher than the livestock's.
The author in 2019 has again reiterated the above flaw in the website 'the conversation'.
You can all read from it.
Hence livestock doesn't pose any threat to the environment as highlighted by the vegans.
So please proceed with care.
theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968
Mic, if human activity isn't causing the climate to change, you've gone to an awful lot of trouble for nothing. You've created a solution in search of a problem. You might devote a little more thought and research to the original hypothesis because it's far from certain.
We are winning, and we are going to win. More vegans = more data = eventual acceptance. It took a long time for tobacco too, and there are still people out there who love it and embrace fatalism.
Obviously you never listened to Frank Mitloehner.