The most important message from the video: "The perfect is the enemy of the good". Doing something positive and recognizing it is better than doing nothing, because doing the perfect thing is too hard (or for some people even not possible). Thanks for the video!
@eAdam Though I actually find this statement is also weaponised against doing better, used as a trope against people wanting better in policy. Mediocrity, laziness and vested interests can also the enemy of better policy and practice, the real enemy of the good. There really are powerful wealthy interests who actively attack or campaign against doing better and want to keep on doing business as usual, and this particular statement is something trotted out against doing any better when it could easily be done
The belief of going to veganism does more harm than good environmentally as all the emissions have been pushed onto diet and doesn't account for the whole animal to be replaced. Added : Along with a new study just come out that 50% of chemical damage is done to the body is done from crops, also another that per gram of food, microplastics in foods can be in the hundreds of thousands from crops, apples being the worst and carrots the largest pieces, the perception of doing something good can be doing more harm than good.
@@antonyjh1234 That seems pretty ridiculous generalisation, there's plenty of research of meat, particularly beef, being massively more impactful in terms of emissions and land clearing including impacts on biodiversity. Don't think many climate conscious ppl are so ignorant to dismiss all the other emissions or factors. Just understanding of how food production is significant and people can make choices directly on what they eat. Seems another example of how tropes about doing more harm than good can be used without any actual qualification or actual analysis, often to argue just for more of the same
I'm not generalising, I'm being pointed. I understand the issue as an ex vegan, you are giving insults as a way of discussion and yes I do think other people ignore the other issues as I did, of growing a crop to replace collagen that holds together toilet paper, the asphalt that has fats in it, the plastics to make then shiny, activated carbon to filter water, all these things need a grown replacement. I can argue all day with facts if you want but on youtube they don't allow links. An understanding of how food is produced is needed, 30% of one crop, corn, in the USa goes towards animals, 9% beef and 6% dairy, this can be found by your own research, 30% of corn is not going to replace all that we get and the only paper that you will be able to find that takes animals out of the system in USA, not from where I am from but that study raised the crop side of emissions 2.6%, from the 5% that it currently is. Animals account for 5%, so for diet alone it raised the emissions by half of what animals emit, for around half of what we get, food, so the other half of the animal still needs to be replaced, parts that are more energy dense than food. The issue is we all believed in data and believed it was just about food and this is of course incorrect. Added ; as far as crops, we feed more of our waste from things like seed oils to animals than we do farmed food, so wouldn't that mean the more crops we eat the cheaper meat is and then is more sustainable/ better for the environment than growing a crop to replace it?@@peter1448
I'm vegan for ethical reasons, but I agree with everything you said. Thanks for being impartial and showing a complete picture. Love your channel! Just subbed 💚
I really enjoy your nuanced takes. The whole "local doesn't always mean less CO2" part blew my mind. I never considered how much more resources it took to grow things in a greenhouse than just shipping them over!
@@ClimateAdam That part did sound a bit dubious to me, to be honest. I don't know how greenhouses are usually done in Germany, but I'm used to see the typical spanish solution, which is pretty low cost and basically consists on rised translucent tarps, usually, and maybe a closed nursery for seedlings. That doesn't sound that much material or energy intensive to me. I'm pretty sure under "greenhouse" falls a whole spectrum of solutions, and some can be pretty good, even saving water in the process (those tarps will function as wind traps during the night) Kris de Deker has covered a lot of those solutions in his Low Tech Magazine, btw
@@drillerdev4624 I cant talk for Germany or Spain but in the Netherlands a greenhouse is made of glass which is then heated by burning gas. Or sometimes the gas is just burned to create co2 to feed to the plants in the greenhouse. It is the burning of the gas that is the big issue here.
The unsustainable commoditisation of food (of everything) for the sake of bigger profots YoY in spite of the inflation that it causes is a core component. Especially when we know that there's enough food produced every year to feed +10 billion people; but we live in a world of food poverty, famines and artificial scarcity (waste, incineration). Fun fact, since the 2000s Irish farmers have been effectively forced to specialise (and de-diversify) toward beef, dairy, pork and sheep in that's how the incentivisation of not just market demand from processing factories, commodity brokers and supermarkets; but also by how the EU's CAP is disigned towards those commercial interests "for the economy". And farners suffer, the light at the end of the tubnel is vanishing, unseasonal weather from climate change making things worse suicides are rampant, and no surprise there's so much anger and desperation being cultivated by fascist "anti-eco/woke" politics funded by Monsanto. So after a decade or so, Ireland exports up to 98% of its dairy and meat produce while importing +80% of our vegetables from Spain, Netherlands. The size of cattle herds owned by the largest landowners (+700 cows) particularly in west Cork and the midlands have caused more record mass die offs in rivers and streams as well as Ecoli and algae infestation of fields from the manure of overherding. We cannot kid ourselves with how precariously dire biodiversity collapse is from how ruthlessly the land has been exploited . And overshoot, can't forget that.
Oh ya. This is very true. Commodification of things like food, water, base materials in general, and housing leads to market incentives to produce the lowest quality, highest volume products people will buy as well as provides an incentive to hoard basic human needs at expense of the enviroment, overproduction of higher profit margin items "just in case" and underproduction of basic items for "just in time" models that heavily depend on high speed transport, and instant gratification rather then proper planning and consumer paitence and long term product statisfaction. An example of the overal quality degreading activley harming the enviroment and everyones poket book; I would sound like a crazy person if I talked about how my cheap bluejeans used to last two decades and I could throw a 20 in and get them fitted and hemmed to fit; and I's sound crazy if my blue jeans ONLY lasted two decades and had to pay for extra fitting in the 1920's. Likewise, it would seem crazy today and for the past several hundred years for raw crops and even (some) cattle and fish to be free, farmers paid for fulfilling the cities needs directly. Coins minted for food, coins and gold having value because of food. Yet that was the normal for most of written history.
One prerequisite before anyone can say being vegan is too hard for them: Try it. Honestly, however hard you think it is, it's about 40% that hard at first, and about 2% that hard after you really figure out what you're doing. When you ask someone to be vegan, you're not giving them an all-or-nothing ultimatum. You're setting a standard. They can still choose to do just a bit better, and better is marvelous compared to not trying at all.
I've tried it so many times and always ended up back at vegetarian. But every time you try it you figure out some new ways to reduce your animal consumption so let's all keep trying and trying
@@therabbithat I agree; I was that way for a long time. I'd go weeks or months eating 100% plant based, have a craving for dairy, and reset the clock to Day 1. But instead of throwing in the towel that "well veganism is just too hard/impossible," one day I was finally able to just say "no" to whatever animal product craving, enjoy a decent alternative option for what it was, and I have now been vegan for almost 3 whole years. :) I don't even think about it anymore.
@@miz4535Lots of people come from areas where meat is an integral part of every meal. It is hard to go from meat at every meal, to no meat ever. Imagine how hard it would be for a vegan to switch to eating meat at every meal. Even if they have the will power, it takes a lot of learning to figure out how to find and prepare new foods. It also takes time for the gut to adjust to the change in diet.
@@miz4535my EDS means I need to consume animal collagen or my colon literally breaks down. Yeah. I am biologically weak. But I’m here and I’m alive and I’m not going to just roll over and die because I’m disabled.
The eat less meat messaging has really helped for me. I’ve always been a picky eater, and it’s hard for me to make drastic changes, but I’ve slowly been trying to reduce my meat intake. I have a few meat-free meals a week, and I eat beef and lamb much less frequently than I used to. Also, by eating meat less often, I’m able to afford free range options. I can’t say it’s been easy, but by taking it slowly I’ve made more progress than I thought I would have.
@@bramvanduijn8086 I have as well, it seemed to be making me sick! That's not something most people have a problem with, and I'm just glad there's chicken, fish, and pork.
People often have the perception that grass fed beef must be better for the environment, yet it's a system in which cattle grow more slowly and are slaughtered at a lower live weight . Normal cows are injected with drugs and hormones and supplements. .. to grow faster .. and their flesh is highly processed before its served on the plate.. For example ,If we switched to all grass fed beef in the us , it would require an additional 64.6 million cows cows, 131 million acres more land , and 135 million more tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. . We'd have the same amount of beef , but with a huge environmental cost.. When we take into account everything that's inolved with producing a pound of corn fed or grass fed beef , from the manufacture of pesticides , herbicides, and ferrilizers to the transport of animals to the slaughterhouse door , we see that the reduced productivity in the grass fef systems results in significant increase in land use , water use and greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef compared to cornfed beefs..
I discovered this fact about the impact of food on our planet some years ago running the Ecological Footprint calculator. The simplest way to personally contribute to carbon emissions overshoot reduction would be to simply eat differently. So many options.
The issue is all emissions pushed onto the edible portion, while we use all the fats, rendered meat, bones, the inedible, and needs a grown replacement, is not a fair way of looking at the issue.
Another great reason to go vegan or just reduce meat consumption is that it's way cheaper. My mom's family is vegan and my dad's eats a standard diet both healthy and both in New York City and the vegan one is a bit less than 2/3 the price per person per week. Granted, it's in New York City, so the scale won't be the same everywhere, but the point stands that vegan saves a few thousand dollars per year per person. I've found the easiest way to make good vegan food without trying too hard is to add some seaweed flakes (I tend to like Dulse) as seasoning since it's a really easy way to add a lot of Umami to anything and it's really healthy. And seaweed, especially Kombu, is the secret to good vegan broth because it's how you get all the savory umami flavors without meat. The only caution is that you need to take a B12 supplement if you reduce your meat intake a lot (eggs and diary don't have much B12), but those cost pennies, so it's not a big deal.
My wife and I have been vegan for over 24 years and friends are shocked to find out how little we spend on food. Granted, we prepare all our meals, reserving convenient packaged vegan foods for rare occasions. But I'd guess our savings falls in the 2/3 of friends as well. And yep to the B12 supplement. I have a medical condition (that I had even before going vegan), and I get detailed blood draws twice a year. Results are always great, and my doctors think it's cool and encourage me to keep doing what I'm doing. In time, it all becomes everyday habit 😀
You are also getting less nutrition per kg, veganism has the ability to reduce weight because more kg's are needed for the same amount of nutrition, overconsumption of meat shouldn't be the comparison and it's only cheaper because you aren't paying the external costs of extra transport or fertiliser use. Crops can be over 20 times the emission factor per kg and this isn't nutrition and new forms of carbon being emitted in the form of fossil fuels, is the driver of global warming. I also spend very little by buying meat that still has fat/poorer cuts, as they are better for the human diet than eye fillet. Ex vegan.
Great points about cost savings and umami. Let me know if you want the details for a study that found that about a third of the cost of food could be saved by switching to a whole food plant based diet. Other sources of umami include mushrooms, nutritional yeast, miso paste, soy sauce, kimchi, tomato products, msg, and other fermented products like Korean gochujang sauce. Most people outside Asia get umami from meat and dairy, but they are not the only source of the savory flavor of umami. Since buying miso paste, I haven't been without it in my refrigerator.
B12 is given to farm animals, so most people get their B12 second hand. Many meat eaters, especially those over 50, would benefit from a B12 supplement since people tend to absorb less as they get older.
@@antonyjh1234 Whole plant foods tend to be lower in calorie density, but are higher in micro-nutrient density than animal products. Most people in developed countries would benefit from lower calorie density since excessively high BMI is the norm here. In the Adventist Health Studies, the only dietary group with an average BMI in the recommended range was the vegan group. This was among a large population of SDA's in the developed world who tend to exercise, abstain from drinking and smoking, and put a priority on health.
I don't eat meat (can't stand the texture), lactose intolerant so not much dairy, eat seasonally and mostly locally, and I meal plan (would starve otherwise😂). Glad my preferences help the planet!
And the innocent baby animals❤ please live vegan and not wear animals either. Get cruelty free(not tested on animals) products 🙏💗 see Challenge 22 if you have any more questions about living vegan😊
Concerning food waste, supermarkets should not be allowed to chuck out food, especially when there are hungry people out there. IMHO, eating fresh, whole foods (for those with the time and money) over processed foods, also lowers your food footprint. As an ecologist who has studied this, I can say the biodiversity gains from organic agriculture outweigh the marginal land use - we are in an insect apocalypse at the moment, with pesticides forming a major, but not a single, pressure (climate change, habitat loss and invasive species also factoring in). As Adam noted, organic farms are more porous for insects, allowing them to pass through. Lowering or eliminating meat impact makes the biggest difference to total land use.
To add to the supermarket food waste issue. I remember a time when low income people could skip dive behind a supermarket and so reduce the food waste, but now food waste is kept under lock and key and monitored by CCTV.
A lot of grocery stores, at least around here, have arrangements with food shelves and other food security charities to handle at least some waste. Of course they’d rather give it to the hungry rather than simply throw it out, whenever that’s possible and practical.
@agner I disagree that supermarkets will make the right choice when possible. The area I grew up in had a main grocery store that did donate some products, but another store I worked at in the same area used some excuse that even perfectly good food is "unfit" for donation because of a blanket corporate policy.
@@TimHills526I've noticed a couple of supermarkets no longer seem to put any reduced items on their shelves like they used to, while another major chain makes reductions that are so small as to be not worthwhile. To be honest, the reduced price sections are where I head for 'first' on any shopping trip (there is one shop that does decent reductions nearly every time). I can't bear the idea that at closing time this will all be binned, while so much of it can be frozen. Such a waste. If they can't sell it, it beats me why they can't send it away for composting.
The moral argument for veganism isn't hard to understand: 1. we can thrive on a plant based diet 2. animals don't want to be meals on our dinner plates 3. our taste pleasure is not worth more than an animal's desire to live
@@ClimateAdam Always intend your puns! I particularly enjoyed this video because of some well placed puns. Playing word games with language makes language more fun, and we can all use more fun in our lives these days.
To clarify a common misconception, 'Veganism' and 'Plant Based diets' are two different concepts. Veganism advocates for affording basic rights to life and bodily autonomy for a non-human sentient being, but a Plant based diet, one might still knowingly or unknowingly pay for animal abuse through clothing or cosmetic products.
Absolutely. ...& therefore, veganism is not a diet; a vegan eats plant-based foods as a result of their philosophy (& avoids animal cruelty & exploitation 'as far as possible & practical"). I think it'd be far easier & accurate to refer to plant-based foods, diets etc.
Like collagen to hold together toilet paper, fats in plastics to make them shiny, in asphalt, activated carbon for water filters? Vegans use animal products every day unknowingly.
The biggest issue of food waste isn't the stuff we buy and let go bad, but the stuff the food industry throws out before it ever makes it into households or restaurants. That's really a big oversight in this video.
Briefly mentioned at 14:16 :) I guess this video focusses more on personal food choices we can make, and also focuses purely on the climate impact, which is the same at any point in the chain. Food waste in industry also has a lot of other implications though, so that probably deserves its own video!
I haven't watched the whole video yet but around 2:02, you mentioned what we can afford.. Well, as an indian, growing up i didn't eat a lot of meat.. why? Becuz we couldn't afford it.. It was like 300-400 rupees per kg (I'm talking about chicken or something.. but beans and lentils on other hand were like 50-60 rupees(probably even lower) per kg which was really really cheap.. I'm 6 feet tall girl (trust me.. it's really tall for an 18 year old indian girl).. so mum would buy a lot of local veggies and seasonal fruits and beans and lentils (fruits were my favourite...i craved for mangoes..) ... It's true for a lot of africans(i just watched this documentary about a single african mother..who was struggling but still her children a nutritious diet (she especially pointed at the bean curry) and asians as well.. We did eat aome dairy but it was mostly milk/cottage cheese/curd(kinda like yogurt)
What about dried versus canned beans? Canned beans, extra transport costs, plus the packaging cost. But isn’t cooking during the canning process a lot more energy efficient than everyone home cooking in small amounts? I just don’t know? Lentils are different, the short cooking time makes home cooking from dried an easy energy win. Pre soaked lentils often take the same cooking time as other ingredients of the meal, so there is zero added energy footprint by doing the lentil cooking yourself. Beans are different, they often need a long pre cook.
I don't know an absolute answer to your question, which is a very good question. It could be quite tricky to fully answer, as obviously there are more & less efficient ways to cook at home. I use dried beans. I leave the beans to soak, e.g. overnight if I remember, then cook them in a pressure cooker; sometimes when the pressure cooker gets up to pressure, I then dump it into a 'hay box' (any insulated container). The pre-soaking definitely speeds up cooking. Using a hay box vastly reduces, I'd estimate by more than 50%, maybe 70%, pan time on the heat source. (One "hay box" I made is just off-cuts of waste rigid insulation board, & I stuff old towels, under, over, & around the pan. The pan does loose heat, but can stay warm for ages. At some point when the pressure has dropped, I open the pan to check if more cooking is needed. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on type of bean, age etc.)
Again, it's complicated. Canada is one of the world's major producers of pulses. My understanding (sources might not be correct) is that most of that production gets bulk shipped to India for processing. It's impossible to find lentils packaged in Canada in Canadian stores; they've been packaged in India and shipped back. The world is strange.
Personally I think dried beans just taste better. Pressure cooking them is better, faster, and more energy efficient. If you make as big of a batch of bean curry, the leftovers keep well in the fridge, so just make as much of the stuff you can with one go in the pressure cooker.
When it comes to fruit and vegetables, what do you think about the impact of fresh vs. frozen/canned? My own opinion is that folks overvalue fresh produce because they believe it to be healthier, when in fact it may be less nutritious than frozen, because the freezing process slows down degradation. I don't know about canned in this aspect. Meanwhile, and more to the point, I think but don't know that frozen and canned fruits have a lower carbon footprint than fresh: they last longer, meaning they can spend more time in transit or storage before they spoil (which creates supply chain efficiencies), and also meaning they are less likely to go bad in your house before you can eat them. Curious to know what you think. Thanks for making this video!
Industrial, quick freezing (not the one made with home freezers) is one of the best ways to store food without nutrient depletion. Main problem from a health perspective is that many of the frozen foods are ultraprocessed. But whole fish, meat and vegetables, for those freezing is great.
I think cans (which being metal are fairly easy to recycle), are a good way to keep foods for later. Glass jars are probably even better. Keeping foods "fresh", probably means less waste and that's a bonus. Packaging is important though. Canned/Jarred foods come in the container they are sold in. Many other foods are packaged in plastic to keep them fresh, and that is a bit more of a problem in my opinion.
@@jimthain8777The problem with glass is that it is heavy and in impractical shapes. Which reduces logistics efficiencies. Reduced consumption would also be a solution as would be local production. For example, I really should get a carbonation machine so I can stop buying sparkling water.
@@bramvanduijn8086 I definitely agree with a lot of what you're saying. Reduced consumption is hard, especially in a world that's always telling you to consume more. People who can reduce their consumption are pretty amazing. As to the sparkling water, that's probably a good idea. Buy one glass bottle and keep refilling it as needed.
I just wanna send a huge 'thank you' for posting such high quality content with no sponsors whatsoever. That's really awesome, hope it helps people realize how much of a difference it makes, on many levels. Thank you, thank you very much indeed.
well veganism isn't just about food, but also animals products elsewhere in a person's life, which in the large part are by-products of the animal husbandry industry (exclusions granted), hence limiting animal products by removing them from a person's lifestyle reduces C footprint in addition to reducing or eliminating them from the plate.
If most people went vegan, I wonder how that would change things like the leather trade? Do you actually believe they’d continue to raise expensive, climate unfriendly cattle just for their skin? Of course not. Same with the other items people buy containing animal parts. Sometimes encouraging people to go vegan without being a vegan-gatekeeper will still bring the results you are looking for
Great vid. I've been veggie for over 36 years, but over the past 10 or more have become more and more towards vegan - except I'm a freegan and 'find' lots of cheese, yoghurts and sometimes eggs, and things with dairy in them like coleslaw and chocolate. So I consider myself 'fiscally vegan' since I now never buy any meat or dairy - but do eat dairy which has past it's sell-by date but is still extremely edible. This seems like a good solution for me to be low carbon and still have some yummy stuff like cheese. 'Perfect is the enemy of the good' is a perfectly good mantra to live by, in my opinion.
It is a blatant LIE that it takes more land to grow organic food. Crop yield records were broken with organic produce. Organic ANIMAL PRODUCTS? Yes. But not organic plant foods. Crop yield records have been broken with organic crops in recent years, especially with rice in India. That’s some good Monsanto/Bayer propaganda though.
Smallholder non-mechanized farms have an advantage over large farms (in calories per acre)... and smallholder farms tend to be organic. But aren't smallholder farms not much more labour-intensive? So there could be a trade-off there.
I became vegetarian for multiple reasons; climate, health, and ethics regarding animals. I don't regret it one bit. I won't personally push individuals to go vegetarian or vegan but agricultural emissions are ridiculously high and switching to a vegan or vegan adjacent diet us by far the most impactful action any individual person can take
I think another interesting thing is how some people are looking into cultivating a greater diversity of food, and more of the food/edible plants that are native species to an area, and thus better adapted to it. Genetic engineering to make crops more hardy, require less resources, etc. too is really neat, but I think it's also cool to know some smart people out there are researching some of plants we've neglected or haven't been making use of as much. It's also interesting just purely from a culinary perspective, and the possibility of enriching dishes with flavors we have perhaps left aside forgotten for awhile due to just how for lack of a better word or term.... homogenized? some of our crop growing and food has become in a way? Kind of like how commercially we only grow one specific species of cloned bananas, when there are hundreds of under-utilized wild varieties that just haven't been explored as much. I just find the idea that there are so many 'hidden' (not necessarily hidden to people who live and cultivate some of these more niche plants on a small scale integrated into local culture of course) or just lesser known to most people. It's fascinating.
Damn! This is the best, and funniest, video about the topic I've seen. Very well done. I love a good hamburger, but the thrust of the video is, you don't have to go from one extreme to the other to help. People love to think in black and white, but the world is shades of gray. Personally, I'd love to have an environmentally friendly plant based "meat" that tastes good and has a good texture. I promise to give a plant-based meat alternative a go on my next outing. Hopefully it won't be horrible! Though plenty of people seem against plant-based meat alternatives as a matter of principle. "We are omnivores, get over it!". We are also supposed to be sentient and sapient...
That sounds very reasonable. Thanks for joining the effort on this front. If you don't like plant based meat, on your first try, ask which brand they use. They are all different. If none of them suit you, just try again in a few years ❤
when people say "humans always ate meat, even the neanderthals!" i usually reply with "then go eat your neighbor; humans have always been cannibals, too!"
People have a need for collagen, having a hamburger or poorer cuts of meat/sausages, consuming the fats instead of having them cut off, are a better addition to peoples lives over eye fillet every single time..
Interesting as always. On the subject of food waste from restaurants and shops, there are many ways this food can be donated, such as bread from the bakery going to Meals on Wheels, SecondBite food charity and many others. But here’s one you didn’t mention (yes, I know you couldn’t mention everything) in Australia the wastage of food on farms for ‘not meeting the grade’ required by Supermarkets etc is half as much again as household food waste. Of that a quarter is composted on site and the remainder falls under the heading of ‘on farm disposal’. Finding ways to get better use of the ‘not making the grade’ produce is not insignificant in reducing food waste, at least in Australia.
I loved this video. Thank you very much for posting. I do try to eat organic, local, sustainably and I am vegan. This year, I am trying the square foot method of companion planting a veg/herb/flower garden. I have learned to dehydrate and can food for preservation if my garden is successful. I know I'm just one person but living life this way makes me happier than I have ever been plus it helps with the rising costs of groceries 🤗 Keep those videos coming ❤️
Regarding food waste: Food must be wasted. We need a surplus production in order to have a stable supply of food. To me the interesting question therefore is: how much waste do we need?
Does that follow? Surely we can have a surplus of food production without wasting it. We’re pretty good at preserving food through freezing, canning, drying, pickling. We can have stockpiles of food that don’t go bad, so stable food supplies shouldn’t be too hard to maintain.
@@scaredyfish yes. But what you store origins from a surplus production. Without, there is nothing you can store. And I don't think, that we are able to be so efficient in a very distributed system of planning and production and distribution.
We could waste a lot less food if consumers stopped buying according to the appearance of the food. As an avocado producer, I can say its ridiculous how much we must waste because the retailer's want every piece of fruit to look perfect because that's what consumers prefer.
This is a good example of a narrowly correct statement which misses the reality of pricing, marketing, food equity, composting, silly supermarket standards, consumer behaviour, farming systems, taxes and incentives - ie the entire food system! This is a system which is incompatible with a liveable planet, so we should reform it top to bottom. Start with eating less meat, target 1-2 times per week or less.
Food is biodegradable, so as long as you compost it you're not wasting the food, you're wasting efficiency. And efficiency isn't important anyway, efficiency just makes your system more fragile.
I dunno. I disagree with the part at roughly 4:40. It does make sense to create categories if you can categorize one item as "looses calories during trophic level pass through".
Do you mean at 4:07? "All the foods we eat have an impact on the climate, and there's no sharp cutoff where we can say, 'these foods are fine and these foods are terrible.'" Well, if there was a good/bad ecological impact line drawn somewhere, it would be near sustainably farmed mussels and rice. It's only so useful to say that there is "no sharp cutoff" when the real challenge is that beef consumption, whether it's raised in confinement or grass fed, is EMBARRASSINGLY BAD. The truth is still there, even when so many are politically bound to ignore it and deeply fund technofixes (feed additives?) that do NOT project cow flesh anywhere near that "cutoff." When the conversation loses courage in the face of human privilege we have @Scaredyfish, who commented above, finding some pride in eating less lamb for the environment. Nobody NEEDS to eat lamb, but and when we say "all foods have impact" and "no sharp cutoff" it disempowers their commitment to irrelevance and erases solutions in plant-based proteins and fats.
Perhaps you're right about organic produce however the latest trend in Regenerative agriculture according to research is that more food can be grown on less land which allows Regenerative farms and rewilded areas to fix more carbon in the soil. As for food waste I have none because I compost, own chickens and have a dog.
Nuanced? Nothing of the inedible mentioned, replacing animals isn't just about food and everything will need a grown replacement. Nothing about the massive amounts of pesticides and how crops are six times less nutritious because of soil degradation, I would say this is incredibly biased and all of the video sends the wrong message.
@@antonyjh1234 If we were to change over to a plant based food system we would greatly reduce the amount of land required to grow crops and therefor reduce to pesticides used. The fact that we are currently feeding 80 billion farmed animals a year (10x that of the human population) really puts this into perspective. And contrary to what some misinformed people would say, we aren’t feeding 80 billion land animals the inedible portion of plants grown for 8 billion humans. You can easily see online the makeup of cattle feed. For some examples Soy cakes and soybean meal which is a widely used source of cattlefeed contains a significant amount of whole soybeans, a nutritious plant food which could be fed directly to humans.
@@dbr2802 One third of one crop, corn is used, the rest of the land is nonarable, we don't fertilise that, the animals do. Yes you can find online the amount of crops we feed to animals in the form of our waste and it is more than the crop food we give them. The amount of feed that cows use is majority grass. If we were to go to a crop only system it would raise the amount of arable land needed, for food, not the inedible as there wouldn't be enough arable land, as I say one third of one crop is all the land that will come back to the crop system and this of course is not going to be enough. The total land would be diminished in size but as I say we don't fertilise it, we don't irrigate it, so basically the lowest pollution levels occur on it. added : If you were to take AU, I think half the land is used, if it were wild animals on it, you probably wouldn't care but in no way is it fertilised or irrigated by humans other than water troughs, it is all rain used as the irrigation method for the land and the animal's manure for fertilisation. Using rain as a metric for how much water cattle use is deceptive but of course it's a false metric. The last large forest fire for one year killed more wild animals than australians have eaten cows since it became a country and if you wanted to include soil organisms then more animals than australians have eaten, total numbers are higher but 80% is exported. Around 9 million cows in total each year from a herd of 25 million so with 3 billion above ground animals killed in one fire in 19-20 fire season, total cows at current rates is equal to 335 years, at current rates. Grain fed in Au is mainly wheat and that is after they have been brought up on grass as no cow can digest grain from an early age and it must be a minimum of 3 months before it can be called grain fed, this is only a third of the total though so roughly 70% are completely grass fed, which as I say is the cleanest option for the edible and non edible and to replace it would need arable land that goes along with all the environmental damage of sprays/fertilisers etc. As far as soy, 7% is used for feed, 1% more than humans, but soy cake, a by product of oil, 99% is fed to animals, same as all seed oils have waste to be used somewhere, as far as cattle both dairy and beef, use 3% of this, most going to pigs and chicken at 82% of this.
@@antonyjh1234 Are you claiming that 7% of the world’s soy is used for feed? I’m not disagreeing that soy byproducts are used in the production of cattle feed but the vast majority of the worlds soy (both inedible and edible parts of the plant) is used for cattle feed production. If we removed the need to grow this food for cattle we would only need a fraction of the arable land we are currently be using to product enough food. This is especially so we you take the poor conversion rate of plant calories consumed by animals to calorie produced by animal based foods. I’m glad you brought up grass fed beef in australia too as this is an environmental disaster. As reported by the WWF in 2019 and reiterated many time since, grass fed beef in Australia is the number one cause of deforestation on the continent. This bush/forest clearing results in habitat loss for many of our native species which in turn has resulted in many animals being added to the endangered species list. If we were to move to a plant based food system we would be able to restore this natural habitat and require less arable lands for growing plant food. I dabble in mycology as a personal hobby and personally I find it mindblowing how much high quality food you can grow in such a small space as just one example.
I can't imagine going back at this point. It's been long enough that chicken, beef, fish, all of it looks and sounds pretty gross. There's an odd point where it's like a switch is flipped and things you know you used to love just have no appeal at all.
As an ex vegan and ex vegetarian, both are extremely polluting to the environment comparatively and don't take into account using the daily recommended amount meat which is less polluting than gaining the same nutrition through crop based foods as more kgs of food are needed, meaning more transportation and new additions of carbon are the main driver of global warming. As of last year all studies only used fuel consumed by tractors etc and not full life cycle while beef was full life cycle and they also lump all the emissions onto the food product, which of course is a false way of looking at the issue. 50% of the chemical damage done to our bodies is from crop foods and considering they are 6 times less nutritious not the way to go long term.
@@antonyjh1234 Sure, do you have some sources to back that up? Primary sources please (i.e. journal articles). I've done a fair amount of reading on this, and this is pretty much the opposite of what I've read. I'm totally willing to change my mind when presented with evidence, but need evidence.
People often have the perception that grass fed beef must be better for the environment, yet it's a system in which cattle grow more slowly and are slaughtered at a lower live weight . Normal cows are injected with drugs and hormones and supplements. .. to grow faster .. and their flesh is highly processed before its served on the plate.. For example ,If we switched to all grass fed beef in the us , it would require an additional 64.6 million cows cows, 131 million acres more land , and 135 million more tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. . We'd have the same amount of beef , but with a huge environmental cost.. When we take into account everything that's inolved with producing a pound of corn fed or grass fed beef , from the manufacture of pesticides , herbicides, and ferrilizers to the transport of animals to the slaughterhouse door , we see that the reduced productivity in the grass fef systems results in significant increase in land use , water use and greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef compared to cornfed beefs..
It's better for the environment because they are usually on land we don't do anything to. They could live to 100 and it would still mean less inputs overall. All beef is grass fed beef as no cow can consume grain from an early age, in the US if they eat grain for a day they are classed as grain fed and where I am it's 70% that are totally grass fed, which means no sprays, no insecticides, no fertilisers, no irrigation other than rain. It's not a fair comparison to lump all of it onto a pound of meat, as we get other things like collagen to hold together toilet paper, activated carbon for water filters, leather etc, all needing a grown replacement and if it all grows on non arable land for the majority of its life then there is nothing cleaner.
And yet some people advocate for cows to be abolished so we can rewilder the land. Read: have wild animals take the cow's place burp and fart methane and carbon dioxide. "When we take into account everything that's inolved..." Rarely is everything taken into account that's involved in maintaining a vegan lifestyle.
I almost never cook meat myself, but having recently been confronted with the need/desire to cook inclusively for my family plus one person who was vegan, I realized that it's actually quite hard to avoid any eggs or milk products, (especially cheese) without resorting to commercial substitutes that appear to be highly processed and packaged in a lot of plastic, and thus not very climate friendly themselves... I'm not so sure I'm convinced of the benefits, unless you come up with a completely different way of cooking. Which, ok, could do that, but it would require complete retraining.
That's why we should talk more about being flwxitarian/reducetarian! Humans need a label, so there it is. Progress is more important than perfection, most people would not go vegan but can take steps to reduce meat consumption, and that counts!
08:30 As for the example with the tomatoes: please consider that tomatoes from the Mediterranean are grown in drought-stricken areas, so the extraction of water for the cultivation at the expense of the surrounding landscape can increase the greenhouse-gas emissions of the non-local option. I assume, over time, those Mediterranean agriculture systems will develop desalination systems to supply their cultivation. While desalination is energy-intensive, I assume Mediterranean tomatoes will then again hold a definite edge over German ones.
I like that you tell people that a little is better than nothing. Then over time a little becomes the new normal and eating in even more climate friendly ways becomes easier to implement the next time they stumble upon something that makes them think about their climate impact.
The food waste thing was a bit of a culture shock to me because I just *never* waste food. And I was shocked when I became an adult and started living with people who routinely buy twice as much as they actually eat.
Organic production prohibits "tools" based on whether they are considered "natural" or not, meaning it makes some inputs, technologies and so on, to reduce problems, increase output from a given system, unavailable, because of nonsense, unless you happen to believe that something is arbitrarily considered "not natural" makes it inherently bad. There's no magic created by avoiding stuff that's been considered "not natural", ergo, if some practices developed for organic production actually is net beneficial, they can be adopted by "non-organic" production too. The idea that commercial farming that avoids stuff that isn't natural makes it more a part of nature, than farming that choose the best way to handle issues isn't logical. Sure, organic farms often have higher biodiversity, but is it really a good thing to have mostly more weeds and pests destroying crops and causing all kinds of problems, as a substitute for leaving more actual nature alone? And it's not like organic farming doesn't use pesticides, it just that they are limited to pesticides that have been deemed "natural". As if, "nature" was some kind of organism and all parts of it was adapted to everything in it. It's not haw reality is. Funny thing, hardcore proponents of organic production are also overrepresented among hardcore nuclear power opponents, despite the fact that the nuclear power fuel is "natural", in the same way their "But they're nAtUrAl!!!" pesticides, used in organic farming. Organic farming prohibits some really bad pesticides, but so does most countries too. Organic farming also prohibits some very specific pesticides, that is, that low to no effects on anything else except what you want to protect from, and that also breaks down very quickly. Land restoration performed by grazing animals, well, wouldn't that be great, if breaking up organic matter and using most of the stored chemical energy could somehow cause the amount of organic matter to increase. If that actually worked, we should put a lot of effort in finding out how, and apply the same magic to internal combustion engines, and start reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere while driving ICE cars more. I've studied some of the claims about grazing animals improving soil quality, and they were all either about comparing controlled grazing to uncontrolled, usually overgrazing, or, things like spot measurements of the carbon content of the soil, or some combination. Measure the carbon content of the soil where animals poop, and not were there food comes from, and sure you'll see an increase, no surprise there. It's also not land restoration. Plants use light and CO2 to build biomass, animals consume that biomass, and release the carbon usually in form of CO2, ruminants take help from microorganisms to extract what they want from the plants, microorganisms that produce significant amounts of CH4. That means they release a lot of CO2 and CH4, from carbon plants had taken from the air. That's the opposite of storing carbon, animals release CO2, and ruminants also release a lot of CH4. Animals can be a great solution if you want to convert biomass into CO2, mostly, and if you want part of it to become CH4, ruminants are a great choice. Besides the idea that grazing animals could be a good tool for land restoration, as in, improving fertility/soil carbon content, without removing much more biomass from somewhere, is incompatible with our current understanding of how the world actually works, if it was possible, we should see that happening in nature, as well as in practice in agriculture, on large scale. Savory, besides probably holding the world record for number of elephants slaughtered anyone have been responsible for, also popularized the idea of controlled grazing for land restoration. In his mind, it was the mimicking of nature, as in mimicking herds of wild grazing animals migrating, that was the main factor. So obvious, why didn't I think of that, change some factor to mimic nature, in that way, and obviously you can make something that doesn't happen in nature, and that is impossible, just happen. Yeah food miles, unless flown from far away, it won't matter much, except, how you get the food home, from the store. If you drive a gas guzzler a significant distance to pick up a small amount groceries, you might actually make emissions from transportation somewhat significant. Distance traveled, in itself doesn't actually matter to the climate or atmosphere, at all.
I get you. I know lots of people who are in a similar boat, and shift their diets (or focus on other things to food!) since they can't go completely vegan/vegetarian
Although I completely agree with this video ( a like is given ) and I am one of the persons trying to lower it's footprint, I want to add some thoughts about scaling. Statista Germany ( because I am German, but scaling should be similar in the UK ) says: Per head and year values: 12,7 kg beef. ( ×14kg Co2 ) = 178 kg co2 Total co2 emission 11.200 kg Nutrition quota 1.690 kg Goal for 2050 2.000 kg The numbers show, nutrition's contribution to co2, although not insignificant, is not the most important aspect, but: Statista Germany also says for Germany ( same as for world wide ): 4/5 of high quality farmland is taken to produce animal feed, 1/5 is taken to produce food directly. But high quality farm land is a limited ressource. If we would abstain from 25% meat only, we could double grain and vegetables and .... basically enough to defeat malnutrition world wide. For me, this is the most important number together with avoid to waste. Watching the video ( you briefly showed a list of co2 footprints of food, including coffee) caused me to check my co2 coffee footprint, 1,5 ltr per day ( fortunately decaf mostly, at the moment I work on my 4th 0.2 ltr cup, 11:30 am ) To my surprise ( 75 g / 125 mltr ) × 1500 mltr × 365 days = 330 kg per year, equivalent to drive 2100 km with my car. I will try to Limit my consumption of coffee.
I was literally holding my breath waiting for a sponsor bit to skip so when you said no sponsor I just realized I was... I'm going to college for organic farming so I agree with farming in ways that are regenerative. The food system under capitalism is so broken. Food waste is literally such an insane problem to have and we need to address it.
my favorite kind of food waste is the one with planned obsolescence. anyone ever been dumpster diving in december? chocolate, chocolate, chocolate. advent calendars, chocolate santa clauses and whatnot. all with a best-before date months or years in the future. dumpster diving in times like that time can quite literally make you sick...
Adam, thanks! Very nice video. It breaks the common "companies and government must stop burning fossil fuels" only mantra and adds what we can do on our own to fight climate change.
Thank you for your great videos I enjoy watching them and find them very inspiring! When it comes to organic farming, it's important to note that it doesn't necessarily mean lower production per unit of land. Several studies have shown that implementing organic farming with agroecological principles actually leads to increased food production per unit of land. This is due to the inherent diversification and improved resilience through eco-system services. Additionally, organic farming contributes to better soil health and balanced ecosystems, which in turn supports ecosystem services that help mitigate the effects of climate change and enable farmers to grow more food per land unit (water infiltration, heat reduction on farmland etc.). Also soil is heavily degrading under non-organic farming which means we are losing land which can be used for cultivation. This in turn is one of the major reason for deforestation and deforestation is one of the major contributor of climate change.
Theres also so much that can be done in terms of making the production model more sustianable, and efficient at adressing severan issues at once; with a light impact to productivity. For example, im some natural parks in my country sheep herders are actually comissioned to graze undergrowth and maintain forests paths; while yielding excellent cheese and meat, and not having so much negative impact as they would locked in a farm all day.
grazing like that there's almost zero negative impact. Not even methane since when they're around all those plants the combination of sunlight and humidity from evapotranspiration breaks the methane down into CO2 before it gets very far. The problem is that it only scales up so far.
@@miz4535 hydroxyl radicals in the air oxidize methane, and UV can split water vapor to make hydroxyl radicals. because of evapotranspiration, you get a much higher concentration of hydroxyl radicals over a grassy meadow, which oxidizes almost all of the methane.
Actually, all of this is still in the big family of shifting responsibility on the individual. I am on a plant based diet myself, just to dismiss some of the triggers.
Not sure if this is necessarily about responsibility, it's just a suggestion of things you *can* do if you want to change your personal lifestyle to be more climate friendly. And the same things that could help on an individual level would also help if implemented in policies. Eg you could take away that raising the sales tax on animal products would be more effective than implementing a higher import tax on, well, imported foods. Like Adam said in the end, what we can eat is complicated, and we need to make sure that everybody has access to food, so that we even have the option to make those choices :)
Great topic and presentation, I always enjoy your videos. My new years resolution last year was to waste less food, and while I have always paid attention to it, additional focus on less waste has been benificial. I do find it a bit tedious to start every meal plan with looking in the fridge to see what needs to be used next, but I feel it's worthwhile. I've discouraged my girl friend from bringing home too many fresh friuts and veg all on the same shopping trip so that's better now. The biggest challenge I still have personally is to not sit by quietly while friends and visiting family toss piles of food from their half finished plates, that they have served themselves. Anyone have polite suggestions to address this?
I would suggest offering them to take it home in a "doggy bag" like in a restaurant. I wouldn't expect them to take it. Just to bring awareness for a split of a second. You might even excuse yourself by adding you have invested much love, that's why you are sorry to see it going to waste. 🙂
@@Edda-Online Yeah, thats a good suggestion. It might be worth a little confrontation if it comes across that way. If not to change minds and attitudes but it might at least get ascross my feelings toward waste. thanks.
@@jeffreywright3499 Glad it might help. I don't want to encourage confrontation, but if it isn't a hot topic already, expressing your feelings shouldn't offend. Just, try to leave the decision to them... Best wishes and have happy meals 🙂
Extremely rude. You paid and made their food and they toss it in the bin. I wouldn't make food for them. This is where the 15min cities come in though. If it is convenient to buy food, you buy it as needed. The American way is terrible.
Eat local AND seasonally is better & not just for emissions. We evolved eating different foods in different proportions around the year. This maximizes getting a diversity of good nutrients & not overdoing intake of problematic ingredients.
Love the nuance you've brought to this discussion Adam! While the topic is incredibly data driven, the solution is fundamentally a human one. Gentle shifts across the many, as opposed a few folks making massive life changes into Veganism, is a much more achievable approach. Thanks for giving this topic the respect it deserves!
According to the lead author of the most comprehensive study on the environmental impact of food production, switching to a plant based diet is the single most effective way to minimize your environmental impact. He switched to a plant based diet after seeing the results of his study. Google the interview of Richard Poore by "The Independent." The Oxford study was by Poore and Nemecek.
Such a shame diet isn't the only thing that needs replacing when doing away with animals and with all the emissions etc pushed onto diet then it would be an easy but incorrect choice overall.
@@someguy2135 The metric used is saleable meat/dairy that makes it to market versus crop food that makes it to market, it doesn't account for the inedible things like fats that go into plastics, roads, medical devices or collagen going into toilet paper, activated carbon, pet food etc. It doesn't account for crop waste, damaged fruit etc, it is only diet against diet with all the emissions for the animals pushed onto diet, an unfair comparison but a good way to convince people.
@@antonyjh1234 Have you read the study? Why should people reading this thread believe the unsupported claim of a random person with an internet connection over an Oxford PhD research scientist?
@@antonyjh1234 Although TH-cam doesn't allow links, you could copy and paste evidence from credible sources and give us the title and author to support your claims.
4:22 I know “eats just beef” was a joke, but there is an worrying corner of the Internet that advocates for and practices just that. Climate, ethics, and economics be damned.
If food waste were a country, it'd be the third most prolific contributor to greenhouse emissions in the world. Distributors and wholesalers are also responsible for reprehensible volumes of tossed calories. As for veganism, I have nothing against it and occasionally consider making the switch. I would point out, however, that there is a tremendous difference in environmental impact between cattle raised in a Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and those raised in regenerative farms, which actually increase the carbon sequestered on their land. I think you would really dig regenerative agriculture, which, if implemented properly, could literally sequester more carbon than we currently create, globally. The keystone to the environmental impact of agriculture is the soil. Take care of the soil and many things will fall into place. Responsibly raised food also tastes better.
A very good explainer overall. But I think it's bad to advocate substituting meats like chicken for red meat - the suffering of farmed chickens is so abysmal that this seems surely to be a negative overall. When trying to do good, we should consider all issues, not just one issue like climate change in isolation. A vegan diet is the only one currently that seems sure of both having low climate impact and minimising animal suffering. If one has to suggest a source of meat, organic pork (i.e. UK Soil Association standard) is perhaps a contender for fulfilling both criteria reasonably, but the actual welfare of organic animals does not seem very systematically studied (but is clearly a lot better than that of conventionally farmed animals for pigs, cattle, and chickens. Though organic chicken still doesn't seem up to the standard of achieving a good level of welfare from what I've been able to find.) To be clear, I'm not arguing that anyone who consumes other meats should be shamed, and I admire anyone who takes steps to move away from a typical diet in their country towards one causing lower environmental harm and animal suffering.
For the most part fossil fuel use needs a top down approach. People can make a few tweaks by consuming less but people dont fundamentally choose what kind of power their getting and many people still cant afford an EV. Government intervention is needed to reduce fossil fuels. Food however, is consumer driven, everybody has a choice what goes on their dinnerplate. We all have full control over our carbon footprint when it comes to food where we don't when it comes to fossil fuels.
I don't comment often but I find your videos really informative, interesting and positive (which sadly is not common in other eco-friendly youtube channels). Also, I absolutely love your puns :) Keep it up, Adam!
Sometimes eating local foods goes hand in hand with reducing waste. If I buy raspberries from my home state, they will likely stay fresh longer than those shipped from another country.
Ultimate tipp for sustainable eating: install those small garden solar panel lights into your skin above energy-consuming organs and muscles so you can run on sunlight
Totally agree that we need to move our food choices along a spectrum towards a healthy diet, not demand impossible perfection. We eat smaller portions of meat, rarely eat beef (although we still do), and eat a vegan dish every now and then. Spicy butter Masala with tofu, yum!
The secret to eating more vegan food that tastes good is seaweed. it's a really easy and healthy way to add back all the savory and umami flavors simple non-Indian vegan recipes are often missing.
When totting up the emissions from agriculture, do they differentiate between the carbon' that is already in the carbon cycle, and 'new' (to the carbon cycle) carbon from the burning of fossil fuels? Thus 'food miles' are probably fossil fuel powered but emissions from ploughing soil (I'm not referring to tractor emissions here) and decomposition etc are not.
Also worth noting- though not directly applicable to emissions- that organic food still totally uses pesticides, they just use “natural” pesticides. Which is a mostly arbitrary distinction. After all, it doesn’t really matter if the poison comes from nature or not.
It does matter because natural pesticides are not harming health of humans and is not polluting waters, soil and the environment. They are natural so this means they fastly decompose and dont remain in the eco-system. Chemical pesticides do.
@@agroecologytutorials9280 No, that’s not what natural means. If that was the case then they would call it “biodegradable pesticides” or “less dangerous pesticides”. They just call them natural. It’s the naturalistic fallacy to impose too many expectations on what that means, since at the end of the day, it’s still pesticide. It’s always gonna pollute the environment, that’s what it does. Its origins should matter very little when determining what it actually does. Calling it “natural” poison does nothing but make it sound nice. (And besides, everything is a chemical. Natural pesticides are chemicals too.)
Thanks Adam! This was V.I.T. (Very Important Topic) Lots of good points and sense of relativity. In my living area all bio waste goes into biodiesel production. So not completely wasted food. But ofcourse that's not good reason to produce lots of food waste, but it does comfort a little bit. I really hope the decision makers start shifting the food system towards more sustainable version. In these high emission times it is just unbelievable how we are still spending huge amount of energy in producing beef while we get so little energy out of it. Crazy.
What is killing Earth (even though the planet will remain to exist) is our consumption. If we did not buy oil, no one would produce oil because they could not sell the stuff. Availability and affordability is the big issue for most people. Personally, when it comes to food I think the most pressing issue is all the processed foods. Also the transport of food around the world. Great that you noticed that locally produced can mean more energy intensive production and thereby a higher footprint. I think it's good to see a bit of self-awareness when it comes to preachiness, because that tends to be a turn-off for a lot of people who we need to change their ways for a better planet. 100% agreed on food waste.
I have a problem. I actually believe in climate science. I ride a bike, I own a plug-in car, I've insulated my home, BUT. After a long and sometimes unpleasant journey, I discovered that I need meat for my health. I'm not carnivore, but I've come to realize that I ate too much grains and too little protein. Also, I need about 120 grams of protein a day, but I should stay below 2000 kcal at the same time, otherwise I get fat. With the exception of soy, all the foods that can deliver so much proteins with so little calories are animal-based. I also discovered that I am not the only one that has gotten healthier once he/she increased meat intake. There are people who eat ONLY meat (I'm still omnivore) and claim that they've solved several health conditions. Are they all deluded or trolls? Fact is, nutrition science is far less reliable than climatology. The section about nutrition in the IPCC is dominated by studies from dr. Springmann, who is a declared vegan. In this field there are so many conflicts of interests (on both sides) that it's very difficult to determine with accuracy what a healthy food is for each and every human in the world. I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a food that is universally healthy or unhealthy. If it is true that healthy foods are also the ones with the smallest environmental footprint, then it is all nice and dandy. But *what if* it turns out that we are all different, and there are indeed people who live and thrive on meat while others need a vegetarian one? Should we interfere with dietary choices and impose the sacrifice of a minority to the benefit of a majority? A sacrifice, mind you, not of personal taste but of actual health and lifespan.
Here's some food for thought. Our closest animal relatives eat MOSTLY plants (Of many DIFFERENT kinds). However, they also eat meat. It isn't a huge part of their diet, but they don't have a huge energy hungry brain to feed either. So I believe a balanced diet should include many types of edible plants, and a variety of meats. When I say variety I don't just mean different animals, but also many different parts of those animals. When a true carnivorous animal eats, it eats every part of the animal it can. This give it all kinds of different nutrition, as different organs in the bodies of animals have different vitamins and minerals in them.
That's not a problem, just eat mostly chicken and pig. Oh, and eggs and beans are good sources of protein too, and they can be made to be very tasty (not very good raw :P)
@@jimthain8777 That's completely off topic. I'm not trying to repeat the never-ending argument of plant vs animal eating. Want to avoid animal food? Fine for me. I'm saying that there are people, many people, not a statistical fluke, that claim that they feel much better if they eat also meat (keto, paleo, carnivores, low carb... millions of them). And I experienced the same. And I found out there are some interesting possible explanaitons why it may be so. Now, if all these people are a signal that nutrition "science" is wrong again (it definitely wouldn't be the first time), and it pans out that what is good for the planet is bad for at least a group of humans, what shall we do? Shall we compromise health of a minority for planet's sake? Shall we stop promoting plant-based solutions? Artificial meat will take decades if ever to become available. Insects will most probably end in highly processed foods. What about instead increasing farming on marginal land, where anyway crops can't be grown, in a regenerative manner, instead of the current model of intensive farming?
Ya. I got a similar problem. I just cannot get away from the occasional Schnitzel and all the sandwich meats. So I decided to be very strict on having no beef (and try to reduce other meat). I think that counts as a proper attempt at saving the planet. If you'd like to contribute more, you can try to not use airplanes anymore.
Excellent topic; many of your points were a big surprise. Thanks especially for covering ways that we the people can individually contribute to a solution.
Awesome video Adam. 😁 I love how you cover land use as a major topic when discussing sustainable farming. I would just like to add that 40% of our arable land is used to produce animal feed and we've lost about a third of all arable land globally in the last 40 years.
Duchenne muscular dystrophy patient speaking, I literally CANNOT cut on meat and dairy. It can and will affect my health. Once I cut back on dairy, my findings worsened. I cannot neglect my health for the sake of the planet. After all, livestock production has been around since the beginning, and suddenly it's one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases. British Petrol told you to watch out for your personal carbon footprint, to minimize their responsibility, and continue on destroying the planet. We're all got hooked, didn't we?
What people who don't grow food sometimes don't comprehend about veganisms is that agriculture for most of human history has included animals because land needs fertilizer to grow (yes cover crops/ legumes help and that often requires land not in production) but basically every culture has used - human or animal manures or other practices like floodplain regeneration or slash and burn. So yes we need to reduce meat consuption but it isn't actually an all or nothing proposition. And culture is a big factor - in fact vegangelism is a bit of a pseudo Western response to Western eating patterns and instead we need to concieve more holistic, culturally appropriate and local climate/land use fitness. A lot like our obsession with being skinny the fatter we get. This is coming from a soil ecologist. In the US - we need to actually grow more vegetables so people can even just get their recommended serving as it is (and much of veg is grown in CA now which is under threat from CC). Yes local is also contextual in terms of what plants you are growing and what season it is. (In cold climates you can now grow cool climate veg in unheated greenhouses and there are way to heat greenhouses that don't rely on fossil fuels although much is still in early days for that). Something you missed in places like the US every day we loose ag land to suburban development - SO one of the biggest food decisions we can make locally in the US (and other places) isn't even about food, it is about land use zoning etc. so that we stop suburbanizing the world and then have to drive more. Food waste is def a big and complicated problem and compost helps w land regen but contaminated compost is an issue. Generally speaking we need people who care to be engaged with creating innovative solutions and not just creating more us vs. them antigonism. As you say - nuance is really important. I could go on forever but we really need new generations that want to grow food, garden and farm (be it in urban, suburban or rural context) because farmers are literally getting old and don't have people to take over their farms, 1% of ppl farmers, majority not making a profit. So for people who are passionate about food, I say learn about growing it and be less judgemental of farmers themselves. Most profit goes to the corporation, which is a benefit of buying local not directly a CC issue, but is a resiliency issue that links with CC. It's not all about mitigation itself.
I think this video may have been good but it misses some things. not every farmer uses big machines, fossil fueled machines, or any electricity driven machines or greenhouses at all. not every farmer feeds the same to livestock (livestock feed has an influence on bloating and burping of methane) and -this is important - not every livestocks destiny is to be food. I had wished that this video might show solutions to the food problem but instead it focuses solely on the big producers and supermarkets and not on permaculture, ecosystem grower, regenerative agriculture and such. I wish more people would know there are actually people out there that try to actively solve the problem in a sustainable way - even ignoring capitalism all together and grow only for themselves and a very small community around them and even trade instead of sell. Here somehow all farmers are portrait as bad if they use livestock other than chickens, which is a little one-sided. the topic is very complex, but there are actually ways to farm sustainable and even have livestock that burp and have a lot of other uses than being food. wool for example, which can be rooed from specific breeds that loose their wool in summer instead of them being sheared, which some people might consider cruel. It's just a little example to show that there is a way to actually live and work with nature.
Very good and excellent timing as I am starting to talk about agriculture in environmental science. I'm also a very small farmer. I'm of the, grow it yourself category. Our food waste usually goes to our chickens which then turn it back into eggs and manure which we then use to fertilize our crops. We may not be the most efficient producers but we also try to maintain habitat (reconstructed prairie and forest) so we have a carbon sink on site. I would be very curious on the carbon footprint of a locally produced apple (one that was stored through fall for example) vs an apple flown in (I assume rather than shipped?) from New Zealand.
I would add a third thing. Only buy what we eat, reduce food waste. Don’t eat red meat and cut down on dairy. Batch cook things that take a lot of energy. If you make your own bread, bake 3 loaves and freeze two of them. If you bake a lentil cottage pie, bake two and freeze one. If you roast aubergines and peppers, do enough for two lasagnes not one.
For me veganism isn't as much about the planet as it is about being as ethical as possible with my lifestyle choices... if it helps reduce the garm done to the planet/biosphere, then well done 😁
Beef and dairy really do take more resources than other kinds of food, and cows really do emit more methane than other food sources. But it's unwise to use efficiency per calorie (for example) to decide which foods are best. Every food comes with a cost/benefit profile. The methane cows emit is from anoxic decay of plants. In a way, it's part of the natural carbon cycle. Good environmentalists don't advocate draining all the wetlands because they emit large volumes of methane! The reason why wetlands are OK is they are part of the natural carbon cycle. But the methane they emit is still a greenhouse gas. Sometimes we need to overlook that fact. Beef and dairy aren't without benefit. Cows eat waste food products and massive amounts of fiber humans can't extract nutrition from. They eat massive amounts of low quality food and concentrate nutrition in their bodies and their milk. Imagine, for illustration, humans eating similar volume of grass to achieve our nutritional needs (proportional to our weight). It's ridiculous, we can't get our nutrition from grass. Cows are also able to extract far more of the available nutrients from grains and grass than people can. They waste the calories, but they concentrate easily accessible nutrition from things we can't eat into something we can. With regard to climate, I think there is a reasonable argument to leave the cows alone. If we just replaced fossil fuels, future climate change would be so radically diminished we wouldn't need to eliminate cows.
looking at the graph of co2 emission per food type... chocolate and coffee are way higher up there then I'm comfortable with. probably going to cut out that last bit of meat consumption before I stop with my caffeine addiction.
to some extend, the methane emissions from farming animals can be mitigated by using the dung for biogas production. a sizeable portion of the emissions occur after the substrate left the animal.
I apreciate you are no teling people to go to the extrem, insted trying (if you can) to balance your food consuption in order to reduce red meet and dairy products. You dont have to be vegeterian or vegan. From Uruguay 🇺🇾
I'm vegan now but it was never my intention when I started changing my diet for climate. I was flexitarian for at least 6 months. After getting the hang of that, vegetarian was easy enough. I was vegetarian for a year, then Veganuary came around and I thought what the hell. And that's how I ended up vegan kinda by accident. Taking a bit of time helps your gut adjust as well btw!
Rather than eating organic, we should promote and choose whenever possible, to eat food grown with regenerative processes. These restore the soil's ability to capture and hold moisture, which activity in turn is close to the same importance as drawing down greenhouse gases in other ways. In fact, a healthy, living soil is one of the most effective ways to remove excess CO2, because the microbes do the work.
Great video as always. 👍 But 9:10: the footprint of the German tomatoes is 5-10% higher than what? Just in case, I need tomatoes during winter time...😀
Why do we constantly overlook our one major problem: over population? We need more population awareness aswell as food awareness. I eat Quorn meat substitutes and other brands and find some very tasty meals in the process. It's not hard to try this out. As an example I can make a vegi bolognese sauce that lasts four portions and so saves me having to cook for three days as a result, you can do this with lots of meals like stew etc. Maybe persuasion is the answer not extreme measures like vegans seem to suggest - this puts people off. Could we just survive on fruit and nuts I wonder? That would be fun. Great video by the way.
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
The most important message from the video: "The perfect is the enemy of the good". Doing something positive and recognizing it is better than doing nothing, because doing the perfect thing is too hard (or for some people even not possible). Thanks for the video!
sounds like you're already taking some tasty steps!
@eAdam Though I actually find this statement is also weaponised against doing better, used as a trope against people wanting better in policy. Mediocrity, laziness and vested interests can also the enemy of better policy and practice, the real enemy of the good. There really are powerful wealthy interests who actively attack or campaign against doing better and want to keep on doing business as usual, and this particular statement is something trotted out against doing any better when it could easily be done
The belief of going to veganism does more harm than good environmentally as all the emissions have been pushed onto diet and doesn't account for the whole animal to be replaced.
Added : Along with a new study just come out that 50% of chemical damage is done to the body is done from crops, also another that per gram of food, microplastics in foods can be in the hundreds of thousands from crops, apples being the worst and carrots the largest pieces, the perception of doing something good can be doing more harm than good.
@@antonyjh1234 That seems pretty ridiculous generalisation, there's plenty of research of meat, particularly beef, being massively more impactful in terms of emissions and land clearing including impacts on biodiversity. Don't think many climate conscious ppl are so ignorant to dismiss all the other emissions or factors. Just understanding of how food production is significant and people can make choices directly on what they eat. Seems another example of how tropes about doing more harm than good can be used without any actual qualification or actual analysis, often to argue just for more of the same
I'm not generalising, I'm being pointed. I understand the issue as an ex vegan, you are giving insults as a way of discussion and yes I do think other people ignore the other issues as I did, of growing a crop to replace collagen that holds together toilet paper, the asphalt that has fats in it, the plastics to make then shiny, activated carbon to filter water, all these things need a grown replacement.
I can argue all day with facts if you want but on youtube they don't allow links.
An understanding of how food is produced is needed, 30% of one crop, corn, in the USa goes towards animals, 9% beef and 6% dairy, this can be found by your own research, 30% of corn is not going to replace all that we get and the only paper that you will be able to find that takes animals out of the system in USA, not from where I am from but that study raised the crop side of emissions 2.6%, from the 5% that it currently is. Animals account for 5%, so for diet alone it raised the emissions by half of what animals emit, for around half of what we get, food, so the other half of the animal still needs to be replaced, parts that are more energy dense than food.
The issue is we all believed in data and believed it was just about food and this is of course incorrect.
Added ; as far as crops, we feed more of our waste from things like seed oils to animals than we do farmed food, so wouldn't that mean the more crops we eat the cheaper meat is and then is more sustainable/ better for the environment than growing a crop to replace it?@@peter1448
I'm vegan for ethical reasons, but I agree with everything you said. Thanks for being impartial and showing a complete picture.
Love your channel! Just subbed 💚
Nice to see you here!
I really enjoy your nuanced takes. The whole "local doesn't always mean less CO2" part blew my mind. I never considered how much more resources it took to grow things in a greenhouse than just shipping them over!
it blew mine too! it's just stated as absolute fact so often that local = better for the environment!
If you aren't taking full life cycle of ships, etc then yes less CO2 is possible but is a false way of looking at the issue.
@@ClimateAdam That part did sound a bit dubious to me, to be honest. I don't know how greenhouses are usually done in Germany, but I'm used to see the typical spanish solution, which is pretty low cost and basically consists on rised translucent tarps, usually, and maybe a closed nursery for seedlings. That doesn't sound that much material or energy intensive to me. I'm pretty sure under "greenhouse" falls a whole spectrum of solutions, and some can be pretty good, even saving water in the process (those tarps will function as wind traps during the night)
Kris de Deker has covered a lot of those solutions in his Low Tech Magazine, btw
Shipping food can be seen as transporting solar energy.
@@drillerdev4624 I cant talk for Germany or Spain but in the Netherlands a greenhouse is made of glass which is then heated by burning gas. Or sometimes the gas is just burned to create co2 to feed to the plants in the greenhouse. It is the burning of the gas that is the big issue here.
The unsustainable commoditisation of food (of everything) for the sake of bigger profots YoY in spite of the inflation that it causes is a core component. Especially when we know that there's enough food produced every year to feed +10 billion people; but we live in a world of food poverty, famines and artificial scarcity (waste, incineration).
Fun fact, since the 2000s Irish farmers have been effectively forced to specialise (and de-diversify) toward beef, dairy, pork and sheep in that's how the incentivisation of not just market demand from processing factories, commodity brokers and supermarkets; but also by how the EU's CAP is disigned towards those commercial interests "for the economy". And farners suffer, the light at the end of the tubnel is vanishing, unseasonal weather from climate change making things worse suicides are rampant, and no surprise there's so much anger and desperation being cultivated by fascist "anti-eco/woke" politics funded by Monsanto.
So after a decade or so, Ireland exports up to 98% of its dairy and meat produce while importing +80% of our vegetables from Spain, Netherlands. The size of cattle herds owned by the largest landowners (+700 cows) particularly in west Cork and the midlands have caused more record mass die offs in rivers and streams as well as Ecoli and algae infestation of fields from the manure of overherding.
We cannot kid ourselves with how precariously dire biodiversity collapse is from how ruthlessly the land has been exploited . And overshoot, can't forget that.
Agree with you. A substantial amount of loses from farm to table is inevitable. Not all of us can survive on a vegan diet.
Oh ya. This is very true.
Commodification of things like food, water, base materials in general, and housing leads to market incentives to produce the lowest quality, highest volume products people will buy as well as provides an incentive to hoard basic human needs at expense of the enviroment, overproduction of higher profit margin items "just in case" and underproduction of basic items for "just in time" models that heavily depend on high speed transport, and instant gratification rather then proper planning and consumer paitence and long term product statisfaction.
An example of the overal quality degreading activley harming the enviroment and everyones poket book; I would sound like a crazy person if I talked about how my cheap bluejeans used to last two decades and I could throw a 20 in and get them fitted and hemmed to fit; and I's sound crazy if my blue jeans ONLY lasted two decades and had to pay for extra fitting in the 1920's.
Likewise, it would seem crazy today and for the past several hundred years for raw crops and even (some) cattle and fish to be free, farmers paid for fulfilling the cities needs directly. Coins minted for food, coins and gold having value because of food.
Yet that was the normal for most of written history.
One prerequisite before anyone can say being vegan is too hard for them: Try it.
Honestly, however hard you think it is, it's about 40% that hard at first, and about 2% that hard after you really figure out what you're doing.
When you ask someone to be vegan, you're not giving them an all-or-nothing ultimatum. You're setting a standard. They can still choose to do just a bit better, and better is marvelous compared to not trying at all.
I've tried it so many times and always ended up back at vegetarian. But every time you try it you figure out some new ways to reduce your animal consumption so let's all keep trying and trying
why are some people so weak? Seriously it isn't that hard. Actual hard things must be impossible for you.
@@therabbithat I agree; I was that way for a long time. I'd go weeks or months eating 100% plant based, have a craving for dairy, and reset the clock to Day 1. But instead of throwing in the towel that "well veganism is just too hard/impossible," one day I was finally able to just say "no" to whatever animal product craving, enjoy a decent alternative option for what it was, and I have now been vegan for almost 3 whole years. :) I don't even think about it anymore.
@@miz4535Lots of people come from areas where meat is an integral part of every meal. It is hard to go from meat at every meal, to no meat ever. Imagine how hard it would be for a vegan to switch to eating meat at every meal. Even if they have the will power, it takes a lot of learning to figure out how to find and prepare new foods. It also takes time for the gut to adjust to the change in diet.
@@miz4535my EDS means I need to consume animal collagen or my colon literally breaks down. Yeah. I am biologically weak. But I’m here and I’m alive and I’m not going to just roll over and die because I’m disabled.
The eat less meat messaging has really helped for me. I’ve always been a picky eater, and it’s hard for me to make drastic changes, but I’ve slowly been trying to reduce my meat intake. I have a few meat-free meals a week, and I eat beef and lamb much less frequently than I used to. Also, by eating meat less often, I’m able to afford free range options.
I can’t say it’s been easy, but by taking it slowly I’ve made more progress than I thought I would have.
That sounds like an excellent approach.
After a while it will become second nature.
I am a heavy meat eater, but I did swap away from beef.
@@bramvanduijn8086
I have as well, it seemed to be making me sick!
That's not something most people have a problem with, and I'm just glad there's chicken, fish, and pork.
People often have the perception that grass fed beef must be better for the environment, yet it's a system in which cattle grow more slowly and are slaughtered at a lower live weight . Normal cows are injected with drugs and hormones and supplements. .. to grow faster .. and their flesh is highly processed before its served on the plate..
For example ,If we switched to all grass fed beef in the us , it would require an additional 64.6 million cows cows, 131 million acres more land , and 135 million more tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. .
We'd have the same amount of beef , but with a huge environmental cost..
When we take into account everything that's inolved with producing a pound of corn fed or grass fed beef , from the manufacture of pesticides , herbicides, and ferrilizers to the transport of animals to the slaughterhouse door , we see that the reduced productivity in the grass fef systems results in significant increase in land use , water use and greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef compared to cornfed beefs..
You only don't eat meat a few times a week and that's hard for you? Lol.
I discovered this fact about the impact of food on our planet some years ago running the Ecological Footprint calculator. The simplest way to personally contribute to carbon emissions overshoot reduction would be to simply eat differently. So many options.
The issue is all emissions pushed onto the edible portion, while we use all the fats, rendered meat, bones, the inedible, and needs a grown replacement, is not a fair way of looking at the issue.
Another great reason to go vegan or just reduce meat consumption is that it's way cheaper. My mom's family is vegan and my dad's eats a standard diet both healthy and both in New York City and the vegan one is a bit less than 2/3 the price per person per week. Granted, it's in New York City, so the scale won't be the same everywhere, but the point stands that vegan saves a few thousand dollars per year per person.
I've found the easiest way to make good vegan food without trying too hard is to add some seaweed flakes (I tend to like Dulse) as seasoning since it's a really easy way to add a lot of Umami to anything and it's really healthy. And seaweed, especially Kombu, is the secret to good vegan broth because it's how you get all the savory umami flavors without meat.
The only caution is that you need to take a B12 supplement if you reduce your meat intake a lot (eggs and diary don't have much B12), but those cost pennies, so it's not a big deal.
My wife and I have been vegan for over 24 years and friends are shocked to find out how little we spend on food. Granted, we prepare all our meals, reserving convenient packaged vegan foods for rare occasions. But I'd guess our savings falls in the 2/3 of friends as well. And yep to the B12 supplement.
I have a medical condition (that I had even before going vegan), and I get detailed blood draws twice a year. Results are always great, and my doctors think it's cool and encourage me to keep doing what I'm doing. In time, it all becomes everyday habit 😀
You are also getting less nutrition per kg, veganism has the ability to reduce weight because more kg's are needed for the same amount of nutrition, overconsumption of meat shouldn't be the comparison and it's only cheaper because you aren't paying the external costs of extra transport or fertiliser use. Crops can be over 20 times the emission factor per kg and this isn't nutrition and new forms of carbon being emitted in the form of fossil fuels, is the driver of global warming.
I also spend very little by buying meat that still has fat/poorer cuts, as they are better for the human diet than eye fillet.
Ex vegan.
Great points about cost savings and umami. Let me know if you want the details for a study that found that about a third of the cost of food could be saved by switching to a whole food plant based diet. Other sources of umami include mushrooms, nutritional yeast, miso paste, soy sauce, kimchi, tomato products, msg, and other fermented products like Korean gochujang sauce. Most people outside Asia get umami from meat and dairy, but they are not the only source of the savory flavor of umami. Since buying miso paste, I haven't been without it in my refrigerator.
B12 is given to farm animals, so most people get their B12 second hand.
Many meat eaters, especially those over 50, would benefit from a B12 supplement since people tend to absorb less as they get older.
@@antonyjh1234 Whole plant foods tend to be lower in calorie density, but are higher in micro-nutrient density than animal products. Most people in developed countries would benefit from lower calorie density since excessively high BMI is the norm here. In the Adventist Health Studies, the only dietary group with an average BMI in the recommended range was the vegan group. This was among a large population of SDA's in the developed world who tend to exercise, abstain from drinking and smoking, and put a priority on health.
I don't eat meat (can't stand the texture), lactose intolerant so not much dairy, eat seasonally and mostly locally, and I meal plan (would starve otherwise😂). Glad my preferences help the planet!
happy coincidence!
And the innocent baby animals❤ please live vegan and not wear animals either. Get cruelty free(not tested on animals) products 🙏💗 see Challenge 22 if you have any more questions about living vegan😊
Sounds like being vegan would be very easy for you.
@@Figaroblue I would die without eggs. Literally. I have tons of allergies so my food choices are limited
@@kokitsunetoraso there is one animal product to replace.. you can do it and you’ll feel amazing
Concerning food waste, supermarkets should not be allowed to chuck out food, especially when there are hungry people out there. IMHO, eating fresh, whole foods (for those with the time and money) over processed foods, also lowers your food footprint. As an ecologist who has studied this, I can say the biodiversity gains from organic agriculture outweigh the marginal land use - we are in an insect apocalypse at the moment, with pesticides forming a major, but not a single, pressure (climate change, habitat loss and invasive species also factoring in). As Adam noted, organic farms are more porous for insects, allowing them to pass through. Lowering or eliminating meat impact makes the biggest difference to total land use.
To add to the supermarket food waste issue. I remember a time when low income people could skip dive behind a supermarket and so reduce the food waste, but now food waste is kept under lock and key and monitored by CCTV.
A lot of grocery stores, at least around here, have arrangements with food shelves and other food security charities to handle at least some waste. Of course they’d rather give it to the hungry rather than simply throw it out, whenever that’s possible and practical.
@agner I disagree that supermarkets will make the right choice when possible. The area I grew up in had a main grocery store that did donate some products, but another store I worked at in the same area used some excuse that even perfectly good food is "unfit" for donation because of a blanket corporate policy.
@@TimHills526I've noticed a couple of supermarkets no longer seem to put any reduced items on their shelves like they used to, while another major chain makes reductions that are so small as to be not worthwhile.
To be honest, the reduced price sections are where I head for 'first' on any shopping trip (there is one shop that does decent reductions nearly every time).
I can't bear the idea that at closing time this will all be binned, while so much of it can be frozen. Such a waste. If they can't sell it, it beats me why they can't send it away for composting.
The moral argument for veganism isn't hard to understand: 1. we can thrive on a plant based diet 2. animals don't want to be meals on our dinner plates 3. our taste pleasure is not worth more than an animal's desire to live
Pretty straightforward
Us: How many puns can you fit in a video?
Adam: Yes 🗿
please don't PUNish me for the terrible jokes
@@ClimateAdam
Always intend your puns!
I particularly enjoyed this video because of some well placed puns.
Playing word games with language makes language more fun, and we can all use more fun in our lives these days.
@@jimthain8777 AB"SOUL"UTELY! A smile can change the world.
To clarify a common misconception, 'Veganism' and 'Plant Based diets' are two different concepts. Veganism advocates for affording basic rights to life and bodily autonomy for a non-human sentient being, but a Plant based diet, one might still knowingly or unknowingly pay for animal abuse through clothing or cosmetic products.
Absolutely.
...& therefore, veganism is not a diet; a vegan eats plant-based foods as a result of their philosophy (& avoids animal cruelty & exploitation 'as far as possible & practical").
I think it'd be far easier & accurate to refer to plant-based foods, diets etc.
Like collagen to hold together toilet paper, fats in plastics to make them shiny, in asphalt, activated carbon for water filters? Vegans use animal products every day unknowingly.
👍 Whole food plant based for the environment and health; vegan for the victims!
The biggest issue of food waste isn't the stuff we buy and let go bad, but the stuff the food industry throws out before it ever makes it into households or restaurants. That's really a big oversight in this video.
Briefly mentioned at 14:16 :) I guess this video focusses more on personal food choices we can make, and also focuses purely on the climate impact, which is the same at any point in the chain. Food waste in industry also has a lot of other implications though, so that probably deserves its own video!
I haven't watched the whole video yet but around 2:02, you mentioned what we can afford..
Well, as an indian, growing up i didn't eat a lot of meat.. why? Becuz we couldn't afford it..
It was like 300-400 rupees per kg (I'm talking about chicken or something.. but beans and lentils on other hand were like 50-60 rupees(probably even lower) per kg which was really really cheap.. I'm 6 feet tall girl (trust me.. it's really tall for an 18 year old indian girl).. so mum would buy a lot of local veggies and seasonal fruits and beans and lentils (fruits were my favourite...i craved for mangoes..) ...
It's true for a lot of africans(i just watched this documentary about a single african mother..who was struggling but still her children a nutritious diet (she especially pointed at the bean curry) and asians as well..
We did eat aome dairy but it was mostly milk/cottage cheese/curd(kinda like yogurt)
What about dried versus canned beans?
Canned beans, extra transport costs, plus the packaging cost. But isn’t cooking during the canning process a lot more energy efficient than everyone home cooking in small amounts? I just don’t know?
Lentils are different, the short cooking time makes home cooking from dried an easy energy win. Pre soaked lentils often take the same cooking time as other ingredients of the meal, so there is zero added energy footprint by doing the lentil cooking yourself. Beans are different, they often need a long pre cook.
I don't know an absolute answer to your question, which is a very good question. It could be quite tricky to fully answer, as obviously there are more & less efficient ways to cook at home.
I use dried beans. I leave the beans to soak, e.g. overnight if I remember, then cook them in a pressure cooker; sometimes when the pressure cooker gets up to pressure, I then dump it into a 'hay box' (any insulated container).
The pre-soaking definitely speeds up cooking. Using a hay box vastly reduces, I'd estimate by more than 50%, maybe 70%, pan time on the heat source.
(One "hay box" I made is just off-cuts of waste rigid insulation board, & I stuff old towels, under, over, & around the pan. The pan does loose heat, but can stay warm for ages. At some point when the pressure has dropped, I open the pan to check if more cooking is needed. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on type of bean, age etc.)
Again, it's complicated. Canada is one of the world's major producers of pulses. My understanding (sources might not be correct) is that most of that production gets bulk shipped to India for processing. It's impossible to find lentils packaged in Canada in Canadian stores; they've been packaged in India and shipped back.
The world is strange.
Personally I think dried beans just taste better. Pressure cooking them is better, faster, and more energy efficient. If you make as big of a batch of bean curry, the leftovers keep well in the fridge, so just make as much of the stuff you can with one go in the pressure cooker.
When it comes to fruit and vegetables, what do you think about the impact of fresh vs. frozen/canned?
My own opinion is that folks overvalue fresh produce because they believe it to be healthier, when in fact it may be less nutritious than frozen, because the freezing process slows down degradation. I don't know about canned in this aspect.
Meanwhile, and more to the point, I think but don't know that frozen and canned fruits have a lower carbon footprint than fresh: they last longer, meaning they can spend more time in transit or storage before they spoil (which creates supply chain efficiencies), and also meaning they are less likely to go bad in your house before you can eat them.
Curious to know what you think. Thanks for making this video!
Industrial, quick freezing (not the one made with home freezers) is one of the best ways to store food without nutrient depletion. Main problem from a health perspective is that many of the frozen foods are ultraprocessed. But whole fish, meat and vegetables, for those freezing is great.
I think cans (which being metal are fairly easy to recycle), are a good way to keep foods for later.
Glass jars are probably even better.
Keeping foods "fresh", probably means less waste and that's a bonus.
Packaging is important though.
Canned/Jarred foods come in the container they are sold in.
Many other foods are packaged in plastic to keep them fresh, and that is a bit more of a problem in my opinion.
@@jimthain8777The problem with glass is that it is heavy and in impractical shapes. Which reduces logistics efficiencies. Reduced consumption would also be a solution as would be local production. For example, I really should get a carbonation machine so I can stop buying sparkling water.
@@bramvanduijn8086
I definitely agree with a lot of what you're saying.
Reduced consumption is hard, especially in a world that's always telling you to consume more.
People who can reduce their consumption are pretty amazing.
As to the sparkling water, that's probably a good idea. Buy one glass bottle and keep refilling it as needed.
you did a great job being nuanced. food is such an emotional topic.
I just wanna send a huge 'thank you' for posting such high quality content with no sponsors whatsoever. That's really awesome, hope it helps people realize how much of a difference it makes, on many levels. Thank you, thank you very much indeed.
I'm so glad you value that too!
well veganism isn't just about food, but also animals products elsewhere in a person's life, which in the large part are by-products of the animal husbandry industry (exclusions granted), hence limiting animal products by removing them from a person's lifestyle reduces C footprint in addition to reducing or eliminating them from the plate.
If most people went vegan, I wonder how that would change things like the leather trade? Do you actually believe they’d continue to raise expensive, climate unfriendly cattle just for their skin? Of course not. Same with the other items people buy containing animal parts.
Sometimes encouraging people to go vegan without being a vegan-gatekeeper will still bring the results you are looking for
Great vid. I've been veggie for over 36 years, but over the past 10 or more have become more and more towards vegan - except I'm a freegan and 'find' lots of cheese, yoghurts and sometimes eggs, and things with dairy in them like coleslaw and chocolate. So I consider myself 'fiscally vegan' since I now never buy any meat or dairy - but do eat dairy which has past it's sell-by date but is still extremely edible. This seems like a good solution for me to be low carbon and still have some yummy stuff like cheese. 'Perfect is the enemy of the good' is a perfectly good mantra to live by, in my opinion.
You are obviously unaware of the fact that the dairy industry is the sickest and cruellest of the lot - do some research.
It is a blatant LIE that it takes more land to grow organic food. Crop yield records were broken with organic produce.
Organic ANIMAL PRODUCTS? Yes. But not organic plant foods.
Crop yield records have been broken with organic crops in recent years, especially with rice in India.
That’s some good Monsanto/Bayer propaganda though.
Smallholder non-mechanized farms have an advantage over large farms (in calories per acre)... and smallholder farms tend to be organic. But aren't smallholder farms not much more labour-intensive? So there could be a trade-off there.
I became vegetarian for multiple reasons; climate, health, and ethics regarding animals. I don't regret it one bit. I won't personally push individuals to go vegetarian or vegan but agricultural emissions are ridiculously high and switching to a vegan or vegan adjacent diet us by far the most impactful action any individual person can take
You can't really "push" people to do anything, you can only inform them, or ask leading questions. Like, are eggs and dairy ethical?
I think another interesting thing is how some people are looking into cultivating a greater diversity of food, and more of the food/edible plants that are native species to an area, and thus better adapted to it. Genetic engineering to make crops more hardy, require less resources, etc. too is really neat, but I think it's also cool to know some smart people out there are researching some of plants we've neglected or haven't been making use of as much. It's also interesting just purely from a culinary perspective, and the possibility of enriching dishes with flavors we have perhaps left aside forgotten for awhile due to just how for lack of a better word or term.... homogenized? some of our crop growing and food has become in a way? Kind of like how commercially we only grow one specific species of cloned bananas, when there are hundreds of under-utilized wild varieties that just haven't been explored as much. I just find the idea that there are so many 'hidden' (not necessarily hidden to people who live and cultivate some of these more niche plants on a small scale integrated into local culture of course) or just lesser known to most people. It's fascinating.
Damn! This is the best, and funniest, video about the topic I've seen. Very well done.
I love a good hamburger, but the thrust of the video is, you don't have to go from one extreme to the other to help. People love to think in black and white, but the world is shades of gray.
Personally, I'd love to have an environmentally friendly plant based "meat" that tastes good and has a good texture. I promise to give a plant-based meat alternative a go on my next outing. Hopefully it won't be horrible!
Though plenty of people seem against plant-based meat alternatives as a matter of principle. "We are omnivores, get over it!". We are also supposed to be sentient and sapient...
That sounds very reasonable. Thanks for joining the effort on this front. If you don't like plant based meat, on your first try, ask which brand they use. They are all different. If none of them suit you, just try again in a few years ❤
when people say "humans always ate meat, even the neanderthals!" i usually reply with "then go eat your neighbor; humans have always been cannibals, too!"
Being vegan isn't extreme.
People have a need for collagen, having a hamburger or poorer cuts of meat/sausages, consuming the fats instead of having them cut off, are a better addition to peoples lives over eye fillet every single time..
It is when you might not understand it fully.@@Figaroblue
Interesting as always.
On the subject of food waste from restaurants and shops, there are many ways this food can be donated, such as bread from the bakery going to Meals on Wheels, SecondBite food charity and many others.
But here’s one you didn’t mention (yes, I know you couldn’t mention everything) in Australia the wastage of food on farms for ‘not meeting the grade’ required by Supermarkets etc is half as much again as household food waste. Of that a quarter is composted on site and the remainder falls under the heading of ‘on farm disposal’. Finding ways to get better use of the ‘not making the grade’ produce is not insignificant in reducing food waste, at least in Australia.
I loved this video. Thank you very much for posting. I do try to eat organic, local, sustainably and I am vegan. This year, I am trying the square foot method of companion planting a veg/herb/flower garden. I have learned to dehydrate and can food for preservation if my garden is successful. I know I'm just one person but living life this way makes me happier than I have ever been plus it helps with the rising costs of groceries 🤗 Keep those videos coming ❤️
Regarding food waste:
Food must be wasted. We need a surplus production in order to have a stable supply of food.
To me the interesting question therefore is: how much waste do we need?
Does that follow? Surely we can have a surplus of food production without wasting it. We’re pretty good at preserving food through freezing, canning, drying, pickling. We can have stockpiles of food that don’t go bad, so stable food supplies shouldn’t be too hard to maintain.
@@scaredyfish yes. But what you store origins from a surplus production. Without, there is nothing you can store.
And I don't think, that we are able to be so efficient in a very distributed system of planning and production and distribution.
We could waste a lot less food if consumers stopped buying according to the appearance of the food. As an avocado producer, I can say its ridiculous how much we must waste because the retailer's want every piece of fruit to look perfect because that's what consumers prefer.
This is a good example of a narrowly correct statement which misses the reality of pricing, marketing, food equity, composting, silly supermarket standards, consumer behaviour, farming systems, taxes and incentives - ie the entire food system!
This is a system which is incompatible with a liveable planet, so we should reform it top to bottom.
Start with eating less meat, target 1-2 times per week or less.
Food is biodegradable, so as long as you compost it you're not wasting the food, you're wasting efficiency. And efficiency isn't important anyway, efficiency just makes your system more fragile.
I dunno. I disagree with the part at roughly 4:40. It does make sense to create categories if you can categorize one item as "looses calories during trophic level pass through".
Do you mean at 4:07? "All the foods we eat have an impact on the climate, and there's no sharp cutoff where we can say, 'these foods are fine and these foods are terrible.'"
Well, if there was a good/bad ecological impact line drawn somewhere, it would be near sustainably farmed mussels and rice. It's only so useful to say that there is "no sharp cutoff" when the real challenge is that beef consumption, whether it's raised in confinement or grass fed, is EMBARRASSINGLY BAD. The truth is still there, even when so many are politically bound to ignore it and deeply fund technofixes (feed additives?) that do NOT project cow flesh anywhere near that "cutoff."
When the conversation loses courage in the face of human privilege we have @Scaredyfish, who commented above, finding some pride in eating less lamb for the environment. Nobody NEEDS to eat lamb, but and when we say "all foods have impact" and "no sharp cutoff" it disempowers their commitment to irrelevance and erases solutions in plant-based proteins and fats.
Perhaps you're right about organic produce however the latest trend in Regenerative agriculture according to research is that more food can be grown on less land which allows Regenerative farms and rewilded areas to fix more carbon in the soil. As for food waste I have none because I compost, own chickens and have a dog.
Thanks for a very good and nuanced video on the subject!
well thanks so much for watching!
Nuanced? Nothing of the inedible mentioned, replacing animals isn't just about food and everything will need a grown replacement. Nothing about the massive amounts of pesticides and how crops are six times less nutritious because of soil degradation, I would say this is incredibly biased and all of the video sends the wrong message.
@@antonyjh1234 If we were to change over to a plant based food system we would greatly reduce the amount of land required to grow crops and therefor reduce to pesticides used. The fact that we are currently feeding 80 billion farmed animals a year (10x that of the human population) really puts this into perspective. And contrary to what some misinformed people would say, we aren’t feeding 80 billion land animals the inedible portion of plants grown for 8 billion humans. You can easily see online the makeup of cattle feed. For some examples Soy cakes and soybean meal which is a widely used source of cattlefeed contains a significant amount of whole soybeans, a nutritious plant food which could be fed directly to humans.
@@dbr2802 One third of one crop, corn is used, the rest of the land is nonarable, we don't fertilise that, the animals do.
Yes you can find online the amount of crops we feed to animals in the form of our waste and it is more than the crop food we give them.
The amount of feed that cows use is majority grass.
If we were to go to a crop only system it would raise the amount of arable land needed, for food, not the inedible as there wouldn't be enough arable land, as I say one third of one crop is all the land that will come back to the crop system and this of course is not going to be enough. The total land would be diminished in size but as I say we don't fertilise it, we don't irrigate it, so basically the lowest pollution levels occur on it.
added : If you were to take AU, I think half the land is used, if it were wild animals on it, you probably wouldn't care but in no way is it fertilised or irrigated by humans other than water troughs, it is all rain used as the irrigation method for the land and the animal's manure for fertilisation. Using rain as a metric for how much water cattle use is deceptive but of course it's a false metric. The last large forest fire for one year killed more wild animals than australians have eaten cows since it became a country and if you wanted to include soil organisms then more animals than australians have eaten, total numbers are higher but 80% is exported. Around 9 million cows in total each year from a herd of 25 million so with 3 billion above ground animals killed in one fire in 19-20 fire season, total cows at current rates is equal to 335 years, at current rates. Grain fed in Au is mainly wheat and that is after they have been brought up on grass as no cow can digest grain from an early age and it must be a minimum of 3 months before it can be called grain fed, this is only a third of the total though so roughly 70% are completely grass fed, which as I say is the cleanest option for the edible and non edible and to replace it would need arable land that goes along with all the environmental damage of sprays/fertilisers etc.
As far as soy, 7% is used for feed, 1% more than humans, but soy cake, a by product of oil, 99% is fed to animals, same as all seed oils have waste to be used somewhere, as far as cattle both dairy and beef, use 3% of this, most going to pigs and chicken at 82% of this.
@@antonyjh1234 Are you claiming that 7% of the world’s soy is used for feed? I’m not disagreeing that soy byproducts are used in the production of cattle feed but the vast majority of the worlds soy (both inedible and edible parts of the plant) is used for cattle feed production. If we removed the need to grow this food for cattle we would only need a fraction of the arable land we are currently be using to product enough food. This is especially so we you take the poor conversion rate of plant calories consumed by animals to calorie produced by animal based foods. I’m glad you brought up grass fed beef in australia too as this is an environmental disaster. As reported by the WWF in 2019 and reiterated many time since, grass fed beef in Australia is the number one cause of deforestation on the continent. This bush/forest clearing results in habitat loss for many of our native species which in turn has resulted in many animals being added to the endangered species list. If we were to move to a plant based food system we would be able to restore this natural habitat and require less arable lands for growing plant food. I dabble in mycology as a personal hobby and personally I find it mindblowing how much high quality food you can grow in such a small space as just one example.
I went vegetarian three or four years ago due to climate concerns, and cut out most dairy as well. I believe that's nearly as good as vegan, isn't it?
I tried to go vegetarian and failed, omnivore to the core.
I can't imagine going back at this point. It's been long enough that chicken, beef, fish, all of it looks and sounds pretty gross. There's an odd point where it's like a switch is flipped and things you know you used to love just have no appeal at all.
@@raybod1775 have you tried seaweed? it's an easy and healthy way to add Umami without adding meat.
As an ex vegan and ex vegetarian, both are extremely polluting to the environment comparatively and don't take into account using the daily recommended amount meat which is less polluting than gaining the same nutrition through crop based foods as more kgs of food are needed, meaning more transportation and new additions of carbon are the main driver of global warming. As of last year all studies only used fuel consumed by tractors etc and not full life cycle while beef was full life cycle and they also lump all the emissions onto the food product, which of course is a false way of looking at the issue. 50% of the chemical damage done to our bodies is from crop foods and considering they are 6 times less nutritious not the way to go long term.
@@antonyjh1234 Sure, do you have some sources to back that up? Primary sources please (i.e. journal articles). I've done a fair amount of reading on this, and this is pretty much the opposite of what I've read. I'm totally willing to change my mind when presented with evidence, but need evidence.
People often have the perception that grass fed beef must be better for the environment, yet it's a system in which cattle grow more slowly and are slaughtered at a lower live weight . Normal cows are injected with drugs and hormones and supplements. .. to grow faster .. and their flesh is highly processed before its served on the plate..
For example ,If we switched to all grass fed beef in the us , it would require an additional 64.6 million cows cows, 131 million acres more land , and 135 million more tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. .
We'd have the same amount of beef , but with a huge environmental cost..
When we take into account everything that's inolved with producing a pound of corn fed or grass fed beef , from the manufacture of pesticides , herbicides, and ferrilizers to the transport of animals to the slaughterhouse door , we see that the reduced productivity in the grass fef systems results in significant increase in land use , water use and greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef compared to cornfed beefs..
It's better for the environment because they are usually on land we don't do anything to. They could live to 100 and it would still mean less inputs overall. All beef is grass fed beef as no cow can consume grain from an early age, in the US if they eat grain for a day they are classed as grain fed and where I am it's 70% that are totally grass fed, which means no sprays, no insecticides, no fertilisers, no irrigation other than rain.
It's not a fair comparison to lump all of it onto a pound of meat, as we get other things like collagen to hold together toilet paper, activated carbon for water filters, leather etc, all needing a grown replacement and if it all grows on non arable land for the majority of its life then there is nothing cleaner.
And yet some people advocate for cows to be abolished so we can rewilder the land. Read: have wild animals take the cow's place burp and fart methane and carbon dioxide.
"When we take into account everything that's inolved..."
Rarely is everything taken into account that's involved in maintaining a vegan lifestyle.
I almost never cook meat myself, but having recently been confronted with the need/desire to cook inclusively for my family plus one person who was vegan, I realized that it's actually quite hard to avoid any eggs or milk products, (especially cheese) without resorting to commercial substitutes that appear to be highly processed and packaged in a lot of plastic, and thus not very climate friendly themselves... I'm not so sure I'm convinced of the benefits, unless you come up with a completely different way of cooking. Which, ok, could do that, but it would require complete retraining.
That's why we should talk more about being flwxitarian/reducetarian! Humans need a label, so there it is. Progress is more important than perfection, most people would not go vegan but can take steps to reduce meat consumption, and that counts!
08:30 As for the example with the tomatoes: please consider that tomatoes from the Mediterranean are grown in drought-stricken areas, so the extraction of water for the cultivation at the expense of the surrounding landscape can increase the greenhouse-gas emissions of the non-local option.
I assume, over time, those Mediterranean agriculture systems will develop desalination systems to supply their cultivation. While desalination is energy-intensive, I assume Mediterranean tomatoes will then again hold a definite edge over German ones.
I love that you used a vegan patty as your example for "beef" 😂
I haven't (deliberately) bought meat in over a decade, and I'm not gunna start just for this vid! 😂
I like that you tell people that a little is better than nothing. Then over time a little becomes the new normal and eating in even more climate friendly ways becomes easier to implement the next time they stumble upon something that makes them think about their climate impact.
Well presented. I agree that promoting people to reduce their meat/dairy intake vs abstinence is a much more productive conversation to have.
The food waste thing was a bit of a culture shock to me because I just *never* waste food. And I was shocked when I became an adult and started living with people who routinely buy twice as much as they actually eat.
Organic production prohibits "tools" based on whether they are considered "natural" or not, meaning it makes some inputs, technologies and so on, to reduce problems, increase output from a given system, unavailable, because of nonsense, unless you happen to believe that something is arbitrarily considered "not natural" makes it inherently bad. There's no magic created by avoiding stuff that's been considered "not natural", ergo, if some practices developed for organic production actually is net beneficial, they can be adopted by "non-organic" production too.
The idea that commercial farming that avoids stuff that isn't natural makes it more a part of nature, than farming that choose the best way to handle issues isn't logical. Sure, organic farms often have higher biodiversity, but is it really a good thing to have mostly more weeds and pests destroying crops and causing all kinds of problems, as a substitute for leaving more actual nature alone?
And it's not like organic farming doesn't use pesticides, it just that they are limited to pesticides that have been deemed "natural". As if, "nature" was some kind of organism and all parts of it was adapted to everything in it. It's not haw reality is. Funny thing, hardcore proponents of organic production are also overrepresented among hardcore nuclear power opponents, despite the fact that the nuclear power fuel is "natural", in the same way their "But they're nAtUrAl!!!" pesticides, used in organic farming.
Organic farming prohibits some really bad pesticides, but so does most countries too. Organic farming also prohibits some very specific pesticides, that is, that low to no effects on anything else except what you want to protect from, and that also breaks down very quickly.
Land restoration performed by grazing animals, well, wouldn't that be great, if breaking up organic matter and using most of the stored chemical energy could somehow cause the amount of organic matter to increase. If that actually worked, we should put a lot of effort in finding out how, and apply the same magic to internal combustion engines, and start reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere while driving ICE cars more.
I've studied some of the claims about grazing animals improving soil quality, and they were all either about comparing controlled grazing to uncontrolled, usually overgrazing, or, things like spot measurements of the carbon content of the soil, or some combination. Measure the carbon content of the soil where animals poop, and not were there food comes from, and sure you'll see an increase, no surprise there. It's also not land restoration.
Plants use light and CO2 to build biomass, animals consume that biomass, and release the carbon usually in form of CO2, ruminants take help from microorganisms to extract what they want from the plants, microorganisms that produce significant amounts of CH4. That means they release a lot of CO2 and CH4, from carbon plants had taken from the air. That's the opposite of storing carbon, animals release CO2, and ruminants also release a lot of CH4. Animals can be a great solution if you want to convert biomass into CO2, mostly, and if you want part of it to become CH4, ruminants are a great choice.
Besides the idea that grazing animals could be a good tool for land restoration, as in, improving fertility/soil carbon content, without removing much more biomass from somewhere, is incompatible with our current understanding of how the world actually works, if it was possible, we should see that happening in nature, as well as in practice in agriculture, on large scale. Savory, besides probably holding the world record for number of elephants slaughtered anyone have been responsible for, also popularized the idea of controlled grazing for land restoration. In his mind, it was the mimicking of nature, as in mimicking herds of wild grazing animals migrating, that was the main factor. So obvious, why didn't I think of that, change some factor to mimic nature, in that way, and obviously you can make something that doesn't happen in nature, and that is impossible, just happen.
Yeah food miles, unless flown from far away, it won't matter much, except, how you get the food home, from the store. If you drive a gas guzzler a significant distance to pick up a small amount groceries, you might actually make emissions from transportation somewhat significant. Distance traveled, in itself doesn't actually matter to the climate or atmosphere, at all.
I'm stuck with carnivore due to health constraints. I tried for years.
I get you. I know lots of people who are in a similar boat, and shift their diets (or focus on other things to food!) since they can't go completely vegan/vegetarian
Although I completely agree with this video ( a like is given )
and I am one of the persons trying to lower it's footprint,
I want to add some thoughts about scaling.
Statista Germany ( because I am German, but scaling should be similar in the UK ) says:
Per head and year values:
12,7 kg beef. ( ×14kg Co2 ) =
178 kg co2
Total co2 emission 11.200 kg
Nutrition quota 1.690 kg
Goal for 2050 2.000 kg
The numbers show,
nutrition's contribution to co2, although not insignificant, is not the most important aspect, but:
Statista Germany also says for Germany ( same as for world wide ):
4/5 of high quality farmland is taken to produce animal feed,
1/5 is taken to produce food directly.
But high quality farm land is a limited ressource.
If we would abstain from 25% meat only, we could double grain and vegetables and ....
basically enough to defeat malnutrition world wide.
For me, this is the most important number together with avoid to waste.
Watching the video ( you briefly showed a list of co2 footprints of food, including coffee)
caused me to check my co2 coffee footprint,
1,5 ltr per day ( fortunately decaf mostly, at the moment I work on my 4th 0.2 ltr cup, 11:30 am )
To my surprise ( 75 g / 125 mltr ) × 1500 mltr × 365 days = 330 kg per year,
equivalent to drive 2100 km with my car.
I will try to Limit my consumption of coffee.
I was literally holding my breath waiting for a sponsor bit to skip so when you said no sponsor I just realized I was... I'm going to college for organic farming so I agree with farming in ways that are regenerative. The food system under capitalism is so broken. Food waste is literally such an insane problem to have and we need to address it.
my favorite kind of food waste is the one with planned obsolescence. anyone ever been dumpster diving in december? chocolate, chocolate, chocolate. advent calendars, chocolate santa clauses and whatnot. all with a best-before date months or years in the future. dumpster diving in times like that time can quite literally make you sick...
Adam, thanks! Very nice video. It breaks the common "companies and government must stop burning fossil fuels" only mantra and adds what we can do on our own to fight climate change.
Thank you for not falling into that "Holier than Thou" attitude. In the end, it's all about having an equilibrated diet.
Thank you for your great videos I enjoy watching them and find them very inspiring! When it comes to organic farming, it's important to note that it doesn't necessarily mean lower production per unit of land. Several studies have shown that implementing organic farming with agroecological principles actually leads to increased food production per unit of land. This is due to the inherent diversification and improved resilience through eco-system services. Additionally, organic farming contributes to better soil health and balanced ecosystems, which in turn supports ecosystem services that help mitigate the effects of climate change and enable farmers to grow more food per land unit (water infiltration, heat reduction on farmland etc.). Also soil is heavily degrading under non-organic farming which means we are losing land which can be used for cultivation. This in turn is one of the major reason for deforestation and deforestation is one of the major contributor of climate change.
Theres also so much that can be done in terms of making the production model more sustianable, and efficient at adressing severan issues at once; with a light impact to productivity. For example, im some natural parks in my country sheep herders are actually comissioned to graze undergrowth and maintain forests paths; while yielding excellent cheese and meat, and not having so much negative impact as they would locked in a farm all day.
grazing like that there's almost zero negative impact. Not even methane since when they're around all those plants the combination of sunlight and humidity from evapotranspiration breaks the methane down into CO2 before it gets very far. The problem is that it only scales up so far.
@rdragonheart8682Where does methane burn when grazing? You just made that up.
@@miz4535 hydroxyl radicals in the air oxidize methane, and UV can split water vapor to make hydroxyl radicals. because of evapotranspiration, you get a much higher concentration of hydroxyl radicals over a grassy meadow, which oxidizes almost all of the methane.
I was struck by the fact that chocolate and coffee are also very high on the list of carbon-intensive foods and are never being talked about.
Actually, all of this is still in the big family of shifting responsibility on the individual. I am on a plant based diet myself, just to dismiss some of the triggers.
Vote with your wallet. Choose who to fund.
Not sure if this is necessarily about responsibility, it's just a suggestion of things you *can* do if you want to change your personal lifestyle to be more climate friendly. And the same things that could help on an individual level would also help if implemented in policies. Eg you could take away that raising the sales tax on animal products would be more effective than implementing a higher import tax on, well, imported foods. Like Adam said in the end, what we can eat is complicated, and we need to make sure that everybody has access to food, so that we even have the option to make those choices :)
Great topic and presentation, I always enjoy your videos. My new years resolution last year was to waste less food, and while I have always paid attention to it, additional focus on less waste has been benificial. I do find it a bit tedious to start every meal plan with looking in the fridge to see what needs to be used next, but I feel it's worthwhile. I've discouraged my girl friend from bringing home too many fresh friuts and veg all on the same shopping trip so that's better now. The biggest challenge I still have personally is to not sit by quietly while friends and visiting family toss piles of food from their half finished plates, that they have served themselves. Anyone have polite suggestions to address this?
I would suggest offering them to take it home in a "doggy bag" like in a restaurant. I wouldn't expect them to take it. Just to bring awareness for a split of a second. You might even excuse yourself by adding you have invested much love, that's why you are sorry to see it going to waste. 🙂
@@Edda-Online Yeah, thats a good suggestion. It might be worth a little confrontation if it comes across that way. If not to change minds and attitudes but it might at least get ascross my feelings toward waste. thanks.
@@jeffreywright3499 Glad it might help. I don't want to encourage confrontation, but if it isn't a hot topic already, expressing your feelings shouldn't offend. Just, try to leave the decision to them... Best wishes and have happy meals 🙂
Extremely rude. You paid and made their food and they toss it in the bin. I wouldn't make food for them. This is where the 15min cities come in though. If it is convenient to buy food, you buy it as needed. The American way is terrible.
Eat local AND seasonally is better & not just for emissions. We evolved eating different foods in different proportions around the year. This maximizes getting a diversity of good nutrients & not overdoing intake of problematic ingredients.
Love the nuance you've brought to this discussion Adam! While the topic is incredibly data driven, the solution is fundamentally a human one. Gentle shifts across the many, as opposed a few folks making massive life changes into Veganism, is a much more achievable approach. Thanks for giving this topic the respect it deserves!
Us: How many puns can you fit in a video?
Adam: Yes
According to the lead author of the most comprehensive study on the environmental impact of food production, switching to a plant based diet is the single most effective way to minimize your environmental impact. He switched to a plant based diet after seeing the results of his study. Google the interview of Richard Poore by "The Independent." The Oxford study was by Poore and Nemecek.
Such a shame diet isn't the only thing that needs replacing when doing away with animals and with all the emissions etc pushed onto diet then it would be an easy but incorrect choice overall.
@@antonyjh1234 Please clarify. I don't understand what you are saying.
@@someguy2135 The metric used is saleable meat/dairy that makes it to market versus crop food that makes it to market, it doesn't account for the inedible things like fats that go into plastics, roads, medical devices or collagen going into toilet paper, activated carbon, pet food etc. It doesn't account for crop waste, damaged fruit etc, it is only diet against diet with all the emissions for the animals pushed onto diet, an unfair comparison but a good way to convince people.
@@antonyjh1234 Have you read the study? Why should people reading this thread believe the unsupported claim of a random person with an internet connection over an Oxford PhD research scientist?
@@antonyjh1234 Although TH-cam doesn't allow links, you could copy and paste evidence from credible sources and give us the title and author to support your claims.
4:22 I know “eats just beef” was a joke, but there is an worrying corner of the Internet that advocates for and practices just that. Climate, ethics, and economics be damned.
If food waste were a country, it'd be the third most prolific contributor to greenhouse emissions in the world. Distributors and wholesalers are also responsible for reprehensible volumes of tossed calories. As for veganism, I have nothing against it and occasionally consider making the switch. I would point out, however, that there is a tremendous difference in environmental impact between cattle raised in a Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and those raised in regenerative farms, which actually increase the carbon sequestered on their land. I think you would really dig regenerative agriculture, which, if implemented properly, could literally sequester more carbon than we currently create, globally. The keystone to the environmental impact of agriculture is the soil. Take care of the soil and many things will fall into place. Responsibly raised food also tastes better.
I’m vegan for 20 years 72 no problem
I've beaten you I've been one for 35 years and now 70 but so pleased to read what you have written :-)
A very good explainer overall. But I think it's bad to advocate substituting meats like chicken for red meat - the suffering of farmed chickens is so abysmal that this seems surely to be a negative overall. When trying to do good, we should consider all issues, not just one issue like climate change in isolation. A vegan diet is the only one currently that seems sure of both having low climate impact and minimising animal suffering. If one has to suggest a source of meat, organic pork (i.e. UK Soil Association standard) is perhaps a contender for fulfilling both criteria reasonably, but the actual welfare of organic animals does not seem very systematically studied (but is clearly a lot better than that of conventionally farmed animals for pigs, cattle, and chickens. Though organic chicken still doesn't seem up to the standard of achieving a good level of welfare from what I've been able to find.) To be clear, I'm not arguing that anyone who consumes other meats should be shamed, and I admire anyone who takes steps to move away from a typical diet in their country towards one causing lower environmental harm and animal suffering.
For the most part fossil fuel use needs a top down approach. People can make a few tweaks by consuming less but people dont fundamentally choose what kind of power their getting and many people still cant afford an EV. Government intervention is needed to reduce fossil fuels.
Food however, is consumer driven, everybody has a choice what goes on their dinnerplate. We all have full control over our carbon footprint when it comes to food where we don't when it comes to fossil fuels.
I don't comment often but I find your videos really informative, interesting and positive (which sadly is not common in other eco-friendly youtube channels). Also, I absolutely love your puns :) Keep it up, Adam!
lovely to hear - thanks so much for commenting!
I'm glad TH-cam recommended this channel to me. I have subscribed. It's great to see and hear a scientific view instead of sensational clickbait.
Sometimes eating local foods goes hand in hand with reducing waste. If I buy raspberries from my home state, they will likely stay fresh longer than those shipped from another country.
When they are in season.
Ultimate tipp for sustainable eating: install those small garden solar panel lights into your skin above energy-consuming organs and muscles so you can run on sunlight
Totally agree that we need to move our food choices along a spectrum towards a healthy diet, not demand impossible perfection. We eat smaller portions of meat, rarely eat beef (although we still do), and eat a vegan dish every now and then. Spicy butter Masala with tofu, yum!
learning recipes that you love is such an essential part of any dietary shift! and curries have always helped me out too!
The secret to eating more vegan food that tastes good is seaweed. it's a really easy and healthy way to add back all the savory and umami flavors simple non-Indian vegan recipes are often missing.
When totting up the emissions from agriculture, do they differentiate between the carbon' that is already in the carbon cycle, and 'new' (to the carbon cycle) carbon from the burning of fossil fuels? Thus 'food miles' are probably fossil fuel powered but emissions from ploughing soil (I'm not referring to tractor emissions here) and decomposition etc are not.
Also worth noting- though not directly applicable to emissions- that organic food still totally uses pesticides, they just use “natural” pesticides. Which is a mostly arbitrary distinction. After all, it doesn’t really matter if the poison comes from nature or not.
It does matter because natural pesticides are not harming health of humans and is not polluting waters, soil and the environment. They are natural so this means they fastly decompose and dont remain in the eco-system. Chemical pesticides do.
@@agroecologytutorials9280 No, that’s not what natural means. If that was the case then they would call it “biodegradable pesticides” or “less dangerous pesticides”. They just call them natural. It’s the naturalistic fallacy to impose too many expectations on what that means, since at the end of the day, it’s still pesticide. It’s always gonna pollute the environment, that’s what it does.
Its origins should matter very little when determining what it actually does. Calling it “natural” poison does nothing but make it sound nice. (And besides, everything is a chemical. Natural pesticides are chemicals too.)
Loved your perspective! Thank you for making me realize the danger of labels!
Thanks Adam! This was V.I.T. (Very Important Topic) Lots of good points and sense of relativity. In my living area all bio waste goes into biodiesel production. So not completely wasted food. But ofcourse that's not good reason to produce lots of food waste, but it does comfort a little bit. I really hope the decision makers start shifting the food system towards more sustainable version. In these high emission times it is just unbelievable how we are still spending huge amount of energy in producing beef while we get so little energy out of it. Crazy.
People from Restaurants will throw away the food on daily basis instead of giving it to a hungry person.
Hi Dr. Levy!
I wonder if I should just eat less, too.
What is killing Earth (even though the planet will remain to exist) is our consumption. If we did not buy oil, no one would produce oil because they could not sell the stuff. Availability and affordability is the big issue for most people. Personally, when it comes to food I think the most pressing issue is all the processed foods. Also the transport of food around the world. Great that you noticed that locally produced can mean more energy intensive production and thereby a higher footprint. I think it's good to see a bit of self-awareness when it comes to preachiness, because that tends to be a turn-off for a lot of people who we need to change their ways for a better planet. 100% agreed on food waste.
5:51 Wow, this is probably the first time I've seen someone use a Fairphone on YT
I have a problem. I actually believe in climate science. I ride a bike, I own a plug-in car, I've insulated my home, BUT. After a long and sometimes unpleasant journey, I discovered that I need meat for my health. I'm not carnivore, but I've come to realize that I ate too much grains and too little protein. Also, I need about 120 grams of protein a day, but I should stay below 2000 kcal at the same time, otherwise I get fat. With the exception of soy, all the foods that can deliver so much proteins with so little calories are animal-based. I also discovered that I am not the only one that has gotten healthier once he/she increased meat intake. There are people who eat ONLY meat (I'm still omnivore) and claim that they've solved several health conditions. Are they all deluded or trolls? Fact is, nutrition science is far less reliable than climatology. The section about nutrition in the IPCC is dominated by studies from dr. Springmann, who is a declared vegan. In this field there are so many conflicts of interests (on both sides) that it's very difficult to determine with accuracy what a healthy food is for each and every human in the world. I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a food that is universally healthy or unhealthy.
If it is true that healthy foods are also the ones with the smallest environmental footprint, then it is all nice and dandy. But *what if* it turns out that we are all different, and there are indeed people who live and thrive on meat while others need a vegetarian one? Should we interfere with dietary choices and impose the sacrifice of a minority to the benefit of a majority? A sacrifice, mind you, not of personal taste but of actual health and lifespan.
Sadly me too. I consider myself a non-practicing vegetarian due to health issues. Wish eating grains and beans worked for me.😩
Here's some food for thought.
Our closest animal relatives eat MOSTLY plants (Of many DIFFERENT kinds).
However, they also eat meat.
It isn't a huge part of their diet, but they don't have a huge energy hungry brain to feed either.
So I believe a balanced diet should include many types of edible plants, and a variety of meats.
When I say variety I don't just mean different animals, but also many different parts of those animals.
When a true carnivorous animal eats, it eats every part of the animal it can.
This give it all kinds of different nutrition, as different organs in the bodies of animals have different vitamins and minerals in them.
That's not a problem, just eat mostly chicken and pig. Oh, and eggs and beans are good sources of protein too, and they can be made to be very tasty (not very good raw :P)
@@jimthain8777 That's completely off topic. I'm not trying to repeat the never-ending argument of plant vs animal eating. Want to avoid animal food? Fine for me.
I'm saying that there are people, many people, not a statistical fluke, that claim that they feel much better if they eat also meat (keto, paleo, carnivores, low carb... millions of them). And I experienced the same. And I found out there are some interesting possible explanaitons why it may be so.
Now, if all these people are a signal that nutrition "science" is wrong again (it definitely wouldn't be the first time), and it pans out that what is good for the planet is bad for at least a group of humans, what shall we do? Shall we compromise health of a minority for planet's sake? Shall we stop promoting plant-based solutions? Artificial meat will take decades if ever to become available. Insects will most probably end in highly processed foods. What about instead increasing farming on marginal land, where anyway crops can't be grown, in a regenerative manner, instead of the current model of intensive farming?
Ya. I got a similar problem. I just cannot get away from the occasional Schnitzel and all the sandwich meats. So I decided to be very strict on having no beef (and try to reduce other meat). I think that counts as a proper attempt at saving the planet. If you'd like to contribute more, you can try to not use airplanes anymore.
Excellent topic; many of your points were a big surprise. Thanks especially for covering ways that we the people can individually contribute to a solution.
Awesome video Adam. 😁 I love how you cover land use as a major topic when discussing sustainable farming. I would just like to add that 40% of our arable land is used to produce animal feed and we've lost about a third of all arable land globally in the last 40 years.
No food waste here. We have chickens. They convert food waste into eggs and fertiliser for our veg plot.
you put more efforts in your transitions than i do to my school assignments
Duchenne muscular dystrophy patient speaking, I literally CANNOT cut on meat and dairy. It can and will affect my health. Once I cut back on dairy, my findings worsened. I cannot neglect my health for the sake of the planet.
After all, livestock production has been around since the beginning, and suddenly it's one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases.
British Petrol told you to watch out for your personal carbon footprint, to minimize their responsibility, and continue on destroying the planet. We're all got hooked, didn't we?
What people who don't grow food sometimes don't comprehend about veganisms is that agriculture for most of human history has included animals because land needs fertilizer to grow (yes cover crops/ legumes help and that often requires land not in production) but basically every culture has used - human or animal manures or other practices like floodplain regeneration or slash and burn. So yes we need to reduce meat consuption but it isn't actually an all or nothing proposition. And culture is a big factor - in fact vegangelism is a bit of a pseudo Western response to Western eating patterns and instead we need to concieve more holistic, culturally appropriate and local climate/land use fitness. A lot like our obsession with being skinny the fatter we get. This is coming from a soil ecologist. In the US - we need to actually grow more vegetables so people can even just get their recommended serving as it is (and much of veg is grown in CA now which is under threat from CC). Yes local is also contextual in terms of what plants you are growing and what season it is. (In cold climates you can now grow cool climate veg in unheated greenhouses and there are way to heat greenhouses that don't rely on fossil fuels although much is still in early days for that). Something you missed in places like the US every day we loose ag land to suburban development - SO one of the biggest food decisions we can make locally in the US (and other places) isn't even about food, it is about land use zoning etc. so that we stop suburbanizing the world and then have to drive more. Food waste is def a big and complicated problem and compost helps w land regen but contaminated compost is an issue. Generally speaking we need people who care to be engaged with creating innovative solutions and not just creating more us vs. them antigonism. As you say - nuance is really important. I could go on forever but we really need new generations that want to grow food, garden and farm (be it in urban, suburban or rural context) because farmers are literally getting old and don't have people to take over their farms, 1% of ppl farmers, majority not making a profit. So for people who are passionate about food, I say learn about growing it and be less judgemental of farmers themselves. Most profit goes to the corporation, which is a benefit of buying local not directly a CC issue, but is a resiliency issue that links with CC. It's not all about mitigation itself.
I think this video may have been good but it misses some things. not every farmer uses big machines, fossil fueled machines, or any electricity driven machines or greenhouses at all. not every farmer feeds the same to livestock (livestock feed has an influence on bloating and burping of methane) and -this is important - not every livestocks destiny is to be food. I had wished that this video might show solutions to the food problem but instead it focuses solely on the big producers and supermarkets and not on permaculture, ecosystem grower, regenerative agriculture and such. I wish more people would know there are actually people out there that try to actively solve the problem in a sustainable way - even ignoring capitalism all together and grow only for themselves and a very small community around them and even trade instead of sell. Here somehow all farmers are portrait as bad if they use livestock other than chickens, which is a little one-sided. the topic is very complex, but there are actually ways to farm sustainable and even have livestock that burp and have a lot of other uses than being food. wool for example, which can be rooed from specific breeds that loose their wool in summer instead of them being sheared, which some people might consider cruel. It's just a little example to show that there is a way to actually live and work with nature.
Very good and excellent timing as I am starting to talk about agriculture in environmental science. I'm also a very small farmer. I'm of the, grow it yourself category. Our food waste usually goes to our chickens which then turn it back into eggs and manure which we then use to fertilize our crops. We may not be the most efficient producers but we also try to maintain habitat (reconstructed prairie and forest) so we have a carbon sink on site. I would be very curious on the carbon footprint of a locally produced apple (one that was stored through fall for example) vs an apple flown in (I assume rather than shipped?) from New Zealand.
If someone won't be vegan, they won't do anything else either.
I would add a third thing.
Only buy what we eat, reduce food waste.
Don’t eat red meat and cut down on dairy.
Batch cook things that take a lot of energy. If you make your own bread, bake 3 loaves and freeze two of them. If you bake a lentil cottage pie, bake two and freeze one. If you roast aubergines and peppers, do enough for two lasagnes not one.
The trick to buying tomatoes in Germany is to buy canned tomatoes.
#LifeHack!
I know of people who are against climate change who are in Massachusetts who want more mild winters and spray bleach and clorox in the air .
For me veganism isn't as much about the planet as it is about being as ethical as possible with my lifestyle choices... if it helps reduce the garm done to the planet/biosphere, then well done 😁
Beef and dairy really do take more resources than other kinds of food, and cows really do emit more methane than other food sources. But it's unwise to use efficiency per calorie (for example) to decide which foods are best. Every food comes with a cost/benefit profile. The methane cows emit is from anoxic decay of plants. In a way, it's part of the natural carbon cycle. Good environmentalists don't advocate draining all the wetlands because they emit large volumes of methane! The reason why wetlands are OK is they are part of the natural carbon cycle. But the methane they emit is still a greenhouse gas. Sometimes we need to overlook that fact. Beef and dairy aren't without benefit. Cows eat waste food products and massive amounts of fiber humans can't extract nutrition from. They eat massive amounts of low quality food and concentrate nutrition in their bodies and their milk. Imagine, for illustration, humans eating similar volume of grass to achieve our nutritional needs (proportional to our weight). It's ridiculous, we can't get our nutrition from grass. Cows are also able to extract far more of the available nutrients from grains and grass than people can. They waste the calories, but they concentrate easily accessible nutrition from things we can't eat into something we can. With regard to climate, I think there is a reasonable argument to leave the cows alone. If we just replaced fossil fuels, future climate change would be so radically diminished we wouldn't need to eliminate cows.
looking at the graph of co2 emission per food type... chocolate and coffee are way higher up there then I'm comfortable with.
probably going to cut out that last bit of meat consumption before I stop with my caffeine addiction.
I say "tomato", you say "Tomaten in Deutschland im Winter sind nicht so gut." 🍅
to some extend, the methane emissions from farming animals can be mitigated by using the dung for biogas production. a sizeable portion of the emissions occur after the substrate left the animal.
Or maybe don't have the animals at all...
@@Figaroblue that is not really a productive suggestion is it.
I apreciate you are no teling people to go to the extrem, insted trying (if you can) to balance your food consuption in order to reduce red meet and dairy products. You dont have to be vegeterian or vegan. From Uruguay 🇺🇾
and taking your food with a large pinch of salt probably isn't a good idea.
climate change makes my blood pressure high enough as it is! I don't need a high salt consumption maxing it out!
Salt gets a bad rap. It makes food taste nice, and unless you have hypertension already, you don’t need to worry about it.
Im so glad I find your channel! You are so talented in conveying the message in a neutral entertaining way!
I'm so glad you found it too! welcome!
I'm vegan now but it was never my intention when I started changing my diet for climate.
I was flexitarian for at least 6 months. After getting the hang of that, vegetarian was easy enough. I was vegetarian for a year, then Veganuary came around and I thought what the hell. And that's how I ended up vegan kinda by accident.
Taking a bit of time helps your gut adjust as well btw!
Nice 🎉
Great video as always. Also the added information scouces are invaluable, thanks for their inclusion.
Rather than eating organic, we should promote and choose whenever possible, to eat food grown with regenerative processes. These restore the soil's ability to capture and hold moisture, which activity in turn is close to the same importance as drawing down greenhouse gases in other ways. In fact, a healthy, living soil is one of the most effective ways to remove excess CO2, because the microbes do the work.
Great video as always. 👍 But 9:10: the footprint of the German tomatoes is 5-10% higher than what? Just in case, I need tomatoes during winter time...😀
I believe the comparison is relative to Spain (check the link in the description to read more details of the study!)
Why do we constantly overlook our one major problem: over population? We need more population awareness aswell as food awareness.
I eat Quorn meat substitutes and other brands and find some very tasty meals in the process. It's not hard to try this out. As an example I can make a vegi bolognese sauce that lasts four portions and so saves me having to cook for three days as a result, you can do this with lots of meals like stew etc. Maybe persuasion is the answer not extreme measures like vegans seem to suggest - this puts people off.
Could we just survive on fruit and nuts I wonder? That would be fun. Great video by the way.