@@imluvinyourmum Which climate warriors say that? . . . the ones that aren't in jail . . I would be more worried about governments removing our right to protest. . .
@@imluvinyourmum A midwife, nurse, or a doctor gluing themselves to a building is non-violent, and nothing like being mugged. We are all being mugged of our collective home (earth) right now by big oil. Climate change will lead to violence eventually one way or the other.
@@DorkyThorpy The world is rejoicing as he UK goes down the tube and will go back into a potato famine, you deserve every chip. You even offed the old lady because she had a 90’s opinion, 96 yr old opinion to be exact, she knew her daughter was taken out by you sheep as well though, she saw it coming:
While I would disagree on the existence of God, and the relevance that has to our lives; I absolutely agree that it's completely unacceptable to go from denying any damage we've done, to simply throwing up our hands in surrender. It isn't just humanity at risk; we're sacrificing countless other life forms in our treatment of the world as both a 'golden goose' and a trash-can. But, our lives, and those of future generations, very much do depend on our ending unsustainable practices in water and land usage, and to adopting more environmentally-friendly means of feeding ourselves, and to producing cleaner energy sources. We either act proactively and responsibly - or we perish, and take what is not ours' to take, with us.
George would argue that we are effectively in Heaven right now. Life could not be richer and more diverse and full of beauty and love. And we ought to treat it as such. Religious people would argue that Man is made in God’s form - i.e. Man is the centre of the universe. And as long as Man worships this imaginary being he has no evidence for, he might go somewhere better than planet earth when he dies.
5:47 exactly! I’ve noticed that as well and it’s so frustrating and somewhere even ridiculous. It seems like a delay tactic. Be careful and critical with subscribing to such a belief.
Monbiot decreases our mental wellbeing. Pets increase it. Live in the perpetual fear he attaches to or realise its selective information designed to promote his brand of propagandist journalism. Perhaps we can train George to behave and walk on lead but he doesn’t look or sound like a lap dog. Humans as pets? I’m sure Gates already considers them so, as does George.
By slowing or/and blocking the run off of rain from land ground water has been increased so the year long flow of water in many parts of the world. In general it is best to not or to reduce meat eating.
As someone who lives over the Edwards aquifer and works in its spring systems and generally follows groundwater use, I’d say that groundwater absolutely is not going to become more prevalent and many major systems are being overdrawn and/or don’t practically recharge at all. Groundwater is not going to solve the problem.
@@FL3MZA I keep on telling that to those bloody lions, cheetahs, and other carnivores, but the buggers won’t listen. Humans are omnivores who chanced upon meat. It’s our mass production of this food source that’s to blame not the consumption of meat in a moderate way.
@@brynleytalbot778 lions, cheetahs and other carnivores eat through necessity. Humans on the other hand can live and thrive on a whole foods plant-based diet. Eating animals in "moderate way" is never going to work for this planet.
Really big and important questions. The situation with that river in Asia seems concerning. Remember to order his new book (see video description and video endcard)!!!
The commercial food supply is the greatest culprit, extra food being thrown away as trash. When they throw away food their not thinking of the hungry or the poor animals that were slaughtered for that food. We know now what a bad system we've been living in, how crazy modern lifestyles are, how dreadfully consumerist we are. We have to change to live our lives more consciously and alway's keep in mind Mother Earth, who is the provider of our needs.
I’m afraid such common sense ideals won’t perpetuate environmentalists crusades or Monbiot’s, both seeking power through propaganda. Ceasing both consumerism and lifestyle choices, or adopting reduced sustainable ones, won’t sell products (for instance, books) and the perpetuation of debate that results, driving the cause, which, like every cause run by zealots, needs new targets to sustain them. The solutions they promote as as crazy as the problems they identify. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. Sadly there no asylum for the rest of us, perhaps explaining why Musk seeks to colonise Mars.
Just a varient of Malthusianism, that the world's resources aren't enough for us. This was said way back in 1798. This lastest 'crisis' is just rifting of the same themes, apocalypticism and scaremongering.
That’s what a public school education and Oxford cultivates. The impression that the great unwashed and pseudo intellectuals are too uneducated to identify that you’re touting old ideologies as new. He really does loathe his fellow human as beneath contempt.
04:58 Playing devil's advocate a little bit here, the Camembert argument could be applied similarly to novel alternative protein-fat sources in that we have no idea - by definition of unknown unknowns - what the negative long-term consequences of producing and consuming these could be.
The negative damage doesn’t seem to have as much of a destructive impact on the planet as the current. Though understand the the concept, the method would require substantial testing and regulations which is ongoing now. Singapore is at the best position along with multiple other smaller nations
My guess is that George's experience/knowledge about UK/EU farming is based on decade old PETA videos of american & asian farms, he's spouting more fertilizer than a 100 cows do.
He stated the reason for beginning the new book was finding a dairy farmer had killed 2 miles of wild river and habitat and when he reported it the authorities didn't prosecute because of the money dairy farmers bring in
@@michaelrch So Monbiot has advanced research degrees in all the fields he read. To comprehend primary scientific papers you need to have studied the terminology employed within them. It’s easy to read the brief abstract explaining the generalised analysis of the papers findings but to truly understand it, and the caveats regarding the findings, in addition to methodological ambiguities, you need more than a journalists mind honed to take findings out of their context and blithely apply them to whatever propagandist messaging you want to support.
@@TheWaveGoodbye-Music The authorities would have sought a chain of influencing factors and thereby determined that the dairy farmer wasn’t the primary catalyst for the destruction of the habitat. Monbiot selects his information sources then strips them of context to blame the targets he wants to ‘expose’. It’s a simplistic reductionism. Sloppy journalism by a propagandist.
@@brynleytalbot778 have you read many papers? I have a masters in engineering and I can understand most papers on climate and agriculture that I read. Once you understand how the statistics work, the results are understandable. He got a scholarship to study at Oxford so it's fair to assume he's smarter than the average bear..
It’s about restricting the supply of resources to thereby give the illusion of their deficits. If the food supply was distributed evenly the whole world would be adequately sustained. We have the ability to do this. But commercial interests don’t want it because it will harm their profits in markets they dominate and prevent expansion of their wasteful methods into markets they haven’t entered, and will dominate, in time. The war is a fiction created to sustain the activities of those who benefit, financially, the most, and thereby exert the most power in maintaining imbalances.
definitely don't agree that we need to completely put an end to animal farming or eating animal products, just that it needs to be much more carefully managed and limited, as well as much stricter oversight for animal well-being and treatment.
The basic physics of the atmosphere demonstrates that it has to be reduced dramatically- by about 70-80% - to be remotely sustainable. Have you read much of the science about the climate effects of animal agriculture? How are you forming your beliefs about this?
@@michaelrch There are facts and there is propaganda. Everything in a harmonious balance matches facts. Everything in disharmony to promote ideologies matches propaganda which drives further propaganda. Zealots and bigots fixate on propagandist messaging for self promotion. Rational reasonable people follow the facts to reach sustainable outcomes.
@@brynleytalbot778 so in your worldview is there anyway for humans to upset this supposed "balance"? If so, what would that look like? Maybe extinctions at a rate 1000x the background rate? Or maybe rapid melting of the ice caps? Or maybe a series of storms and droughts that should only happen once in a thousand years? Do you use empirical evidence to understand the world of just a gut feeling that you know what's going on?
Actually it’s a myth that the population is too big. The planet can sustain far more people but not within highly Westernised diets and consumerist lifestyles. Few politicians want to challenge the entitlement culture that emerges from the successful integration of Westernisation on a formerly sustainable culture based on indigenous produce not relying on importing Western products.
I follow George avidly but, this WW3 Water click bait thing just undermines his message. I agree with every thing he said but, the majority of what he was talking about was vegi/veganism stuff not WW3 water stuff. If anything WW3 will be political madman oil,gas,Putin crap and Russia aint short of water or gas.
And they argue, “There is nothing beyond our worldly life. We die; others are born. And nothing destroys us but ˹the passage of˺ time.” Yet they have no knowledge ˹in support˺ of this ˹claim˺. They only speculate.. And whenever Our clear revelations are recited to them, their only argument is to say: “Bring our forefathers back, if what you say is true!” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “˹It is˺ Allah ˹Who˺ gives you life, then causes you to die, then will gather you ˹all˺ on the Day of Judgment, about which there is no doubt. But most people do not know. To Allah ˹alone˺ belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. On the Day the Hour will be established, the people of falsehood will then be in ˹total˺ loss. Suratul Jathiya
Documentary or propagandist messaging? Even Hollywood fantasies frequently depict ideologies over where our world is heading priming the viewers to accept solutions that investors want to push. The innocence of cinema has gone, if it ever existed.
It causes 2/3 carbon emissions of the whole food system but produces less than 20% of calories. It uses 83% of farmland. It causes more deforestation than anything else. It causes pandemics. It causes antibiotic resistance. It causes immeasurable pain and suffering to billions of sentient animals. It causes cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes. It sucks up billions in huge taxpayer subsidies. It causes widespread destruction of natural systems, especially maribe ecosystems. Shall I go on? It's needless. It's destructive and cruel. It needs to end.
Do you deny that animal agriculture uses 83% of all farmland while producing less than 20% of calories? Or that it's the biggest cause of deforestation in the planet? Or that it produces nearly 2/3 of carbon emissions from the food system?
@@michaelrch I agree with those facts. I am not bothered by the carbo emissions because the CO@ has added so much vegetation to the earth. ua-cam.com/video/jmTiL7JQSDA/v-deo.html
@@michaelrch “Heretic!”, I hear you cry. You use the term ‘farmland’ when Monbiot focuses on the planet, which is oddly more sea than land, meaning water is more prolific than soil. Wood burning for power generation in sustainable solutions causes vast deforestation. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Deforestation for animal husbandry or deforestation for sustainable energy production creating land for animal husbandry? It’s whatever perspective you favour to promote whatever view you wish to support and the example I give is precisely why environmentalists love to have their cake and eat it because it supports their cause in both instances.
@@brynleytalbot778 the land used for sustainable energy is insignificant compared to what is used for animal ag. Onshore wind doesn't really use land as it can coexist with other land use. Solar can mostly exist on buildings but even where it does use land, this can again coexist with other forms of farming if necessary. Animal ag consumes the land it occupies almost completely. It excludes all other forms of life. It prevents development of complex ecosystems. Pastures for cows and sheep might look pretty as you pass them in your car but they are biodiversity deserts. The most sustainable thing to do with land if you want to sequester carbon long term is just leave it to nature. Nature will build complex sustainable and carbon intensive ecosystems 100x better than any farmer. Because nature isn't looking to extract anything from the land.
George Monbiot you have no right to makes demands such as ending all livestock farming. Get stuffed (with insects for your diner). Look at those mad wide-open-eyes 0:18 !!
Aren’t insects livestock or has Monbiot reclassified smaller living creatures as expendable to sustain meat eating without that inconvenient visual of factory farming and slaughter houses. Virtue signalling at its best. If we can’t see it’s impact because it’s too small then it’s fine. Monbiot proposes processed foods as solutions, often chemical cocktails, or bugs, no doubt mass bred, factory farming, and grown faster to meet demand, through chemical additives to maintain the ‘health’ of this mass production method. His idiocy knows no limits.
Don't grazing animals help green areas? Look out "holistic grazing" and go down that rabbit hole. You're worried about "land efficiency" but not all land is created equal. All of that land used for gazing is very very cheap
Allan Savory and regenerative agriculture has been debunked many, many times. Go look at his TED talk, there's a misinformation warning on it. Regenerative grazing is fraud. There's no science behind it. Mostly fraudulent and made up statistics in the unfinished studies he claims as fact. Start with the report "Grazed and confused" from Oxford. The only ones promoting it, are animal agriculture.
@@Flobb1t I'll go down the rabbit hole again I guess but last time I did I saw videos debunking the debunking videos. Also I don't see any misinformation warning on the TED talk, not like I would care about Silicon Valley's opinion anyway. I'll look into the grazed and confused report as well 👍
Not really, not at the levels required for providing meat for 8 billion people, Many of the current "grasslands" of the world used to be forests hundreds or thousands of years ago, but human management has transformed those areas
Amazon forest is being burned and cut to make space for soy production, which is then fed to animals. So, no, it's really not as good as you could imagine.
Monbiot, besides being a loathsome warmonger is also a climate denier, but of that rarefied kind who assert that there is still time, if we just start now, by taking these actions and abandoning these old practises, etc. Whereas he must know very well that no combination of action or abstention from present action has the slightest chance of averting our thoroughly foreseeable, eminently well deserved and sadly overdue collective fate: imminent extinction. Not only of human life but of nearly all complex life on this no longer habitable planet. What inhibits him from saying this, apart from natural existential dread, is his desire to continue profiting from book sales, newspaper articles and endless you tube appearances, the same imperative desire shared by the ruling class as a whole. Why would they choose to acknowledge the ineluctable gravity of a situation for which they are principally to blame? They will have people scurrying around in hamster wheels for the upkeep of their social betters to the last synapse of this species' miserable term. Dr Guy McPherson is the authority on this subject.
Life won’t be extinguished. Forms of life exist in the most inhospitable environments which would sustain should vast changes occur. If the fish crawling out of the ocean to turn into a land dwelling creature then eventually evolving to the human form is true, then our planet is cyclical regarding ‘intelligent’ life. However without a genetic inheritance of the follies of the past we’re consigned to repeating the cycle.
One of my heroes 💛
Monbiot for Prime Minister! Hard listening, but then the truth does hurt. (Perhaps why the truth has become so unpopular)
The climate warriors have made it very clear they don’t play democracy, apparently ‘we don’t have time’, quote. They are the definition of fascists.
@@imluvinyourmum Which climate warriors say that? . . . the ones that aren't in jail . . I would be more worried about governments removing our right to protest. . .
@@DorkyThorpy Breaking the law isn’t protesting, if I mug you and say I’m protesting will you be OK with it and not report it to the cops?
@@imluvinyourmum A midwife, nurse, or a doctor gluing themselves to a building is non-violent, and nothing like being mugged. We are all being mugged of our collective home (earth) right now by big oil. Climate change will lead to violence eventually one way or the other.
@@DorkyThorpy The world is rejoicing as he UK goes down the tube and will go back into a potato famine, you deserve every chip. You even offed the old lady because she had a 90’s opinion, 96 yr old opinion to be exact, she knew her daughter was taken out by you sheep as well though, she saw it coming:
George is the best! Such an inspirational guy.
Bless all compassionate truth teller's. What a gift to humanity they are. 💚💚💛💛💛
George bears a strong resemblance to peter aellers here- both great actors too!😊👍
While I would disagree on the existence of God, and the relevance that has to our lives; I absolutely agree that it's completely unacceptable to go from denying any damage we've done, to simply throwing up our hands in surrender. It isn't just humanity at risk; we're sacrificing countless other life forms in our treatment of the world as both a 'golden goose' and a trash-can. But, our lives, and those of future generations, very much do depend on our ending unsustainable practices in water and land usage, and to adopting more environmentally-friendly means of feeding ourselves, and to producing cleaner energy sources. We either act proactively and responsibly - or we perish, and take what is not ours' to take, with us.
Well put.
George would argue that we are effectively in Heaven right now. Life could not be richer and more diverse and full of beauty and love. And we ought to treat it as such.
Religious people would argue that Man is made in God’s form - i.e. Man is the centre of the universe. And as long as Man worships this imaginary being he has no evidence for, he might go somewhere better than planet earth when he dies.
Let's just hope there won't ever be another world war 🤞
Big questions indeed, and well answered by George.
5:47 exactly! I’ve noticed that as well and it’s so frustrating and somewhere even ridiculous. It seems like a delay tactic. Be careful and critical with subscribing to such a belief.
Hopefully they can use sea water in the future!
The technology is a work in progress.
Vegan is the way, the truth, the life.
What are George's thoughts on the environmental impact of pets?
is that a rhetorical question? If pets require farmed food to survive then surely you have your answer.
Monbiot decreases our mental wellbeing. Pets increase it. Live in the perpetual fear he attaches to or realise its selective information designed to promote his brand of propagandist journalism. Perhaps we can train George to behave and walk on lead but he doesn’t look or sound like a lap dog. Humans as pets? I’m sure Gates already considers them so, as does George.
Ban pet breeders! Plus for pets and humans. Government won't though because they are a 'business'.
By slowing or/and blocking the run off of rain from land ground water has been increased so the year long flow of water in many parts of the world. In general it is best to not or to reduce meat eating.
It is best to stop eating animals full stop.
As someone who lives over the Edwards aquifer and works in its spring systems and generally follows groundwater use, I’d say that groundwater absolutely is not going to become more prevalent and many major systems are being overdrawn and/or don’t practically recharge at all. Groundwater is not going to solve the problem.
@@FL3MZA I keep on telling that to those bloody lions, cheetahs, and other carnivores, but the buggers won’t listen. Humans are omnivores who chanced upon meat. It’s our mass production of this food source that’s to blame not the consumption of meat in a moderate way.
@@brynleytalbot778 lions, cheetahs and other carnivores eat through necessity. Humans on the other hand can live and thrive on a whole foods plant-based diet. Eating animals in "moderate way" is never going to work for this planet.
@@brynleytalbot778 Lions and Cheetahs are all famously concerned and actively seeking out sustainable forms of living...
Do the 14 percent of crops count the ones fed to livestock??
Really big and important questions. The situation with that river in Asia seems concerning. Remember to order his new book (see video description and video endcard)!!!
The commercial food supply is the greatest culprit, extra food being thrown away as trash. When they throw away food their not thinking of the hungry or the poor animals that were slaughtered for that food. We know now what a bad system we've been living in, how crazy modern lifestyles are, how dreadfully consumerist we are. We have to change to live our lives more consciously and alway's keep in mind Mother Earth, who is the provider of our needs.
I’m afraid such common sense ideals won’t perpetuate environmentalists crusades or Monbiot’s, both seeking power through propaganda. Ceasing both consumerism and lifestyle choices, or adopting reduced sustainable ones, won’t sell products (for instance, books) and the perpetuation of debate that results, driving the cause, which, like every cause run by zealots, needs new targets to sustain them. The solutions they promote as as crazy as the problems they identify. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. Sadly there no asylum for the rest of us, perhaps explaining why Musk seeks to colonise Mars.
So Basically This Is It.. Collapse Is Inevitable
Yes the chips used up too much water, pls change the formulas before production.
The illuminati hidden in plain sight😂👏👏👏👌nice one george
Just a varient of Malthusianism, that the world's resources aren't enough for us.
This was said way back in 1798. This lastest 'crisis' is just rifting of the same themes, apocalypticism and scaremongering.
That’s what a public school education and Oxford cultivates. The impression that the great unwashed and pseudo intellectuals are too uneducated to identify that you’re touting old ideologies as new. He really does loathe his fellow human as beneath contempt.
Prevent WWIII by eating less meat? OK. Does chicken count?
04:58 Playing devil's advocate a little bit here, the Camembert argument could be applied similarly to novel alternative protein-fat sources in that we have no idea - by definition of unknown unknowns - what the negative long-term consequences of producing and consuming these could be.
The negative damage doesn’t seem to have as much of a destructive impact on the planet as the current. Though understand the the concept, the method would require substantial testing and regulations which is ongoing now. Singapore is at the best position along with multiple other smaller nations
Who said the world is three meals away from anarchy?
That was great, thanks.
9:17 hit the nail on the head there: even if God exists, it's irrelevant
My guess is that George's experience/knowledge about UK/EU farming is based on decade old PETA videos of american & asian farms, he's spouting more fertilizer than a 100 cows do.
He stated the reason for beginning the new book was finding a dairy farmer had killed 2 miles of wild river and habitat and when he reported it the authorities didn't prosecute because of the money dairy farmers bring in
No, it's based on the 5000+ scientific papers he read as research for his recent book Regenesis.
@@michaelrch So Monbiot has advanced research degrees in all the fields he read. To comprehend primary scientific papers you need to have studied the terminology employed within them. It’s easy to read the brief abstract explaining the generalised analysis of the papers findings but to truly understand it, and the caveats regarding the findings, in addition to methodological ambiguities, you need more than a journalists mind honed to take findings out of their context and blithely apply them to whatever propagandist messaging you want to support.
@@TheWaveGoodbye-Music The authorities would have sought a chain of influencing factors and thereby determined that the dairy farmer wasn’t the primary catalyst for the destruction of the habitat. Monbiot selects his information sources then strips them of context to blame the targets he wants to ‘expose’. It’s a simplistic reductionism. Sloppy journalism by a propagandist.
@@brynleytalbot778 have you read many papers? I have a masters in engineering and I can understand most papers on climate and agriculture that I read. Once you understand how the statistics work, the results are understandable. He got a scholarship to study at Oxford so it's fair to assume he's smarter than the average bear..
Could you please add the date to the interview and video?
No
No. WW3 is about all resources and has already started. Good luck to us all.
It’s about restricting the supply of resources to thereby give the illusion of their deficits. If the food supply was distributed evenly the whole world would be adequately sustained. We have the ability to do this. But commercial interests don’t want it because it will harm their profits in markets they dominate and prevent expansion of their wasteful methods into markets they haven’t entered, and will dominate, in time. The war is a fiction created to sustain the activities of those who benefit, financially, the most, and thereby exert the most power in maintaining imbalances.
definitely don't agree that we need to completely put an end to animal farming or eating animal products, just that it needs to be much more carefully managed and limited, as well as much stricter oversight for animal well-being and treatment.
The basic physics of the atmosphere demonstrates that it has to be reduced dramatically- by about 70-80% - to be remotely sustainable.
Have you read much of the science about the climate effects of animal agriculture? How are you forming your beliefs about this?
@@michaelrch There are facts and there is propaganda. Everything in a harmonious balance matches facts. Everything in disharmony to promote ideologies matches propaganda which drives further propaganda. Zealots and bigots fixate on propagandist messaging for self promotion. Rational reasonable people follow the facts to reach sustainable outcomes.
@@brynleytalbot778 so in your worldview is there anyway for humans to upset this supposed "balance"?
If so, what would that look like?
Maybe extinctions at a rate 1000x the background rate?
Or maybe rapid melting of the ice caps?
Or maybe a series of storms and droughts that should only happen once in a thousand years?
Do you use empirical evidence to understand the world of just a gut feeling that you know what's going on?
Are you wearing a wig and if so, is it ecologically friendly? We love you George and we need more like you.
🤔
Eight billion people.
What was that about grass fed livestock being “not morally justifiable “?
Population - Way too big, what politician is going to touch that one!
Actually it’s a myth that the population is too big. The planet can sustain far more people but not within highly Westernised diets and consumerist lifestyles. Few politicians want to challenge the entitlement culture that emerges from the successful integration of Westernisation on a formerly sustainable culture based on indigenous produce not relying on importing Western products.
I follow George avidly but, this WW3 Water click bait thing just undermines his message. I agree with every thing he said but, the majority of what he was talking about was vegi/veganism stuff not WW3 water stuff. If anything WW3 will be political madman oil,gas,Putin crap and Russia aint short of water or gas.
Is this man joking? Really? Water is flowing at various depths, just under our feet! Tap into it ANYWHERE!
And they argue, “There is nothing beyond our worldly life. We die; others are born. And nothing destroys us but ˹the passage of˺ time.” Yet they have no knowledge ˹in support˺ of this ˹claim˺. They only speculate..
And whenever Our clear revelations are recited to them, their only argument is to say: “Bring our forefathers back, if what you say is true!”
Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “˹It is˺ Allah ˹Who˺ gives you life, then causes you to die, then will gather you ˹all˺ on the Day of Judgment, about which there is no doubt. But most people do not know.
To Allah ˹alone˺ belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. On the Day the Hour will be established, the people of falsehood will then be in ˹total˺ loss.
Suratul Jathiya
Just watch Waterworld. Or read The Drought
Or mad max. Or inception.
@@orangewarm1 yup Mad Max too. I thought of that too but in a more general sense not necessarily bc of drought.
Documentary or propagandist messaging? Even Hollywood fantasies frequently depict ideologies over where our world is heading priming the viewers to accept solutions that investors want to push. The innocence of cinema has gone, if it ever existed.
Livestock farming is not justifiable?
How much crack did this guy have?
It causes 2/3 carbon emissions of the whole food system but produces less than 20% of calories.
It uses 83% of farmland.
It causes more deforestation than anything else.
It causes pandemics.
It causes antibiotic resistance.
It causes immeasurable pain and suffering to billions of sentient animals.
It causes cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes.
It sucks up billions in huge taxpayer subsidies.
It causes widespread destruction of natural systems, especially maribe ecosystems.
Shall I go on?
It's needless. It's destructive and cruel. It needs to end.
What are these foods George is talking about, is it Bill Gates bug burgers?
He is totally off the planet on this. A real fanatic with the wrong cause.
Do you deny that animal agriculture uses 83% of all farmland while producing less than 20% of calories?
Or that it's the biggest cause of deforestation in the planet?
Or that it produces nearly 2/3 of carbon emissions from the food system?
@@michaelrch I agree with those facts.
I am not bothered by the carbo emissions because the CO@ has added so much vegetation to the earth.
ua-cam.com/video/jmTiL7JQSDA/v-deo.html
@@michaelrch “Heretic!”, I hear you cry. You use the term ‘farmland’ when Monbiot focuses on the planet, which is oddly more sea than land, meaning water is more prolific than soil. Wood burning for power generation in sustainable solutions causes vast deforestation. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Deforestation for animal husbandry or deforestation for sustainable energy production creating land for animal husbandry? It’s whatever perspective you favour to promote whatever view you wish to support and the example I give is precisely why environmentalists love to have their cake and eat it because it supports their cause in both instances.
@@brynleytalbot778 the land used for sustainable energy is insignificant compared to what is used for animal ag. Onshore wind doesn't really use land as it can coexist with other land use. Solar can mostly exist on buildings but even where it does use land, this can again coexist with other forms of farming if necessary.
Animal ag consumes the land it occupies almost completely. It excludes all other forms of life. It prevents development of complex ecosystems. Pastures for cows and sheep might look pretty as you pass them in your car but they are biodiversity deserts.
The most sustainable thing to do with land if you want to sequester carbon long term is just leave it to nature. Nature will build complex sustainable and carbon intensive ecosystems 100x better than any farmer. Because nature isn't looking to extract anything from the land.
Is he a vegetarian or just a meat eater posturing for the love of the audience?
When he mentions meat and uses “we” and “I” to relate to consuming it I immediately thought, hypocrite.
He used to be a vegetarian, but switched to vegan diet...was quite a while ago
George Monbiot you have no right to makes demands such as ending all livestock farming. Get stuffed (with insects for your diner). Look at those mad wide-open-eyes 0:18 !!
Aren’t insects livestock or has Monbiot reclassified smaller living creatures as expendable to sustain meat eating without that inconvenient visual of factory farming and slaughter houses. Virtue signalling at its best. If we can’t see it’s impact because it’s too small then it’s fine. Monbiot proposes processed foods as solutions, often chemical cocktails, or bugs, no doubt mass bred, factory farming, and grown faster to meet demand, through chemical additives to maintain the ‘health’ of this mass production method. His idiocy knows no limits.
Tuck into your steaks and enjoy a man made god
Sorry George but you're an unbeliever. Agriculture is sacred.
Don't grazing animals help green areas? Look out "holistic grazing" and go down that rabbit hole. You're worried about "land efficiency" but not all land is created equal. All of that land used for gazing is very very cheap
Allan Savory and regenerative agriculture has been debunked many, many times. Go look at his TED talk, there's a misinformation warning on it. Regenerative grazing is fraud. There's no science behind it. Mostly fraudulent and made up statistics in the unfinished studies he claims as fact.
Start with the report "Grazed and confused" from Oxford. The only ones promoting it, are animal agriculture.
@@Flobb1t I'll go down the rabbit hole again I guess but last time I did I saw videos debunking the debunking videos. Also I don't see any misinformation warning on the TED talk, not like I would care about Silicon Valley's opinion anyway.
I'll look into the grazed and confused report as well 👍
Not really, not at the levels required for providing meat for 8 billion people,
Many of the current "grasslands" of the world used to be forests hundreds or thousands of years ago, but human management has transformed those areas
Amazon forest is being burned and cut to make space for soy production, which is then fed to animals. So, no, it's really not as good as you could imagine.
@@nicolascortesbe Yes and even if there were always grasslands, they would still have had higher bio diversity and carbon storage as wild grassland.
He lost me with ending animal agriculture.
This guy is totally clueless
About what?
@@tevbuff pretty much everything he's rabbiting on about he's no scientist just a bad journalist
@@alwoo5645 and you know what about China, India, Pakistan or Ethiopia and Egypt when it comes to wars over water
@@raquetdude I know none of these countries or any other at war over water.
@@raquetdude Which countries are at war over water then?
Monbiot, besides being a loathsome warmonger is also a climate denier, but of that rarefied kind who assert that there is still time, if we just start now, by taking these actions and abandoning these old practises, etc. Whereas he must know very well that no combination of action or abstention from present action has the slightest chance of averting our thoroughly foreseeable, eminently well deserved and sadly overdue collective fate: imminent extinction. Not only of human life but of nearly all complex life on this no longer habitable planet. What inhibits him from saying this, apart from natural existential dread, is his desire to continue profiting from book sales, newspaper articles and endless you tube appearances, the same imperative desire shared by the ruling class as a whole. Why would they choose to acknowledge the ineluctable gravity of a situation for which they are principally to blame? They will have people scurrying around in hamster wheels for the upkeep of their social betters to the last synapse of this species' miserable term.
Dr Guy McPherson is the authority on this subject.
Life won’t be extinguished. Forms of life exist in the most inhospitable environments which would sustain should vast changes occur. If the fish crawling out of the ocean to turn into a land dwelling creature then eventually evolving to the human form is true, then our planet is cyclical regarding ‘intelligent’ life. However without a genetic inheritance of the follies of the past we’re consigned to repeating the cycle.