×

We use cookies to help make LingQ better. By visiting the site, you agree to our cookie policy.


image

Veganism, Veganism could save the planet. Here's why. - YouTube

Veganism could save the planet. Here's why. - YouTube

- Back in 2006

the United Nations stated,

the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three

most significant contributors

to the most serious environmental problems

at every scale, from local to global.

The findings of this report suggests that it should be

a major policy focus when dealing with problems

of land degradation, climate change and air pollution,

water shortage and water pollution,

and the loss of biodiversity.

And then four years later they warned that a global shift

towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger,

fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change.

So why exactly is animal farming bad for the environment?

Globally, 26% of all the world's ice-free land surface

is given to grazing animals.

And in total animal agriculture use is 83%

of all agricultural land

yet it provides less than 20% of the calories consumed

and less than 40% of the protein that is consumed.

In the UK, it is estimated that 85% of the land that is used

for agriculture is just for animals

which is almost 50% of the entire land mass of the UK.

And in the US, 41% of the entire land mass

is for animal farming compared to 4%

which is used to grow plants directly for humans,

with half of all agricultural land

in the US being used specifically for beef production

even though it only makes up 3% of dietary calories.

Animal farming is the leading cause

of rainforest deforestation,

the single largest driver of habitat loss in general

in agriculture which also includes

the farming of fish is listed

as being a frat to 24,000 of the 28,000 species

that are currently frightened with extinction.

And when it comes to the Brazilian Amazon specifically,

cattle ranching is reportedly responsible

for 80% of rainforest loss.

We have a recent investigation showing that in 2019

fires in the Amazon were three times more common

in areas where there is cattle ranching.

When it comes to soy, about 75% of all the soy

that is produced is used for animal feeds

with only 6% of whole soybeans that are produced

being used to produce plant-based products like tofu,

soy milk, and other plant-based alternatives.

When it comes to emissions,

a University of Oxford report stated that,

even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately,

the emissions produced by the agriculture sector alone

would make it impossible to limit warming

to 1.5 degrees Celsius and would even make it difficult

to not hit two degrees.

This means that changes to our food system are essential

if we want to avoid making the coral reefs disappear,

creating more extreme heat waves, water scarcities,

droughts and food shortages

for hundreds of millions more people

forcing them to be climate refugees.

And it's essential if we want to avoid the demise

of the world's biodiversity,

increasing rates of dead zones and species extinction

and the rising of sea levels

causing the flooding of major cities

such as Mumbai, Shanghai, Miami, and New York,

with there even being the potential for islands

in the south Pacific Ocean to disappear completely.

Animal agriculture is responsible for producing

between 14.5% and 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions

which makes it responsible for more emissions

than the combined exhausts of all transport globally.

The fishing method of bottom trolling alone

is responsible for producing the same amount of emissions

as the entire aviation industry.

Switching to a plant-based diet

could reduce agricultural emissions by as much as 73%

in high-income nations.

And a study that analyzed 313

different potential food systems,

discovered that the highest greenhouse gas emissions

were found in the food systems

that included a high meet demand

especially focused on ruminant, meat and milk

whilst the lowest emissions came from the vegan diets.

But what about local animal products?

Are they not more sustainable

than buying plant foods from abroad?

Well, not according to the science.

In fact, when it comes to beef only Note 0.5%

of the emissions come from the transportation

and for lamb it's only 2% meaning that the issue

of animal farming is the farming itself.

Even with plant foods like avocados,

only 8% of the total footprint

comes from the traveling itself.

In fact, for most food products,

the transportation accounts for less than 10%

with the higher transportation percentage

simply being a reflection of the fact that

the food naturally produces lower amounts

of greenhouse gases.

Furthermore, a report comparing greenhouse gas emissions

from the average diet across countries in the EU

revealed that transportation was only responsible

for 6% of the total emissions related to diets.

And when the results were broken down by food items,

animal products were shown to be responsible for 83%

of emissions in the average EU diet,

compared to only 17% coming from plant-based foods.

In the US, the climate impacts of food choice were analyzed.

And the food transport was shown to only account for 5%

of emissions in the average US household.

This equals around Note 0.4 tons of CO2 equivalent.

However, the study showed that substituting calories

from red meat and dairy to plant-based alternatives

for just one day a week would save Note 0.46 tons

of CO2 equivalent.

This means that eating plant-based over red meat and dairy

just one day a week, would achieve the same result

as having a diet with zero food miles.

The only way that buying local animal products

could be more sustainable

is if the farming of different foods

was environmentally the same to begin with,

and the only difference was the miles

the two foods had to travel.

This is obviously not the case.

But isn't regenerative beef good for the environment

because grazing cattle

can absorb carbon back into the soils?

Well, not according to the Metro analyses

that have been conducted on the matter that state that,

although certain grazing management

can put carbon into the soil,

at best this would only amount to 20 to 60% of the emissions

that the animals produce in the first place.

And besides, after a few decades

the soil reaches soil carbon equilibrium

which means the soil cannot sequester any more carbon

at which point none of the emissions

from the animals would be offset.

So farmers would either have to start grazing on more land

increasing the land used for animal farming

or stop the farming.

Meaning that grazing animals

is not an effective short-term or long-term strategy

for dealing with the problem, either.

In the words of one of the lead researchers,

"Grazing livestock and net contributors

to the climate problem as are all livestock.

Rising animal production and consumption,

whatever the farming system and animal type,

is causing damaging greenhouse gas release

and contributing to changes in land use.

Even the lowest impact to beef is responsible

for six times more greenhouse gases

and a staggering 36 times more land

than plant proteins, such as peas.

Plus, there are more beneficial things

we can do with the land.

For example, research into the US food system

found that reconfiguring cropland

from animal feed to entirely human edible crops

particularly ones that promote positive health outcomes,

such as fruits, vegetables and pulses

would feed an additional 350 million people

compared to what the same area of land produces

in the current US food system."

To put that into perspective,

there are around 330 million people in the US,

meaning another nation the size of the US

could be fed with just the cropland

that is used to currently feed animals there.

Furthermore, in the UK

just one third of the cropland currently used

to grow animal feeds could provide 62 million adults

there five servings of fruits and vegetables a day all year

which incidentally is almost the entire UK population.

Plus, if the world shifted to a plant-based diet

we could feed every mouth on the planet

and global farmland could also be reduced by more than 75%

which when put into perspective

is the equivalent size of China, Australia the US

and the entire European Union combined,

no longer being needed for agriculture.

We could reforest and restore this land,

bringing back lost habitats

and reversing the decimation of the world's biodiversity.

It is also estimated that by returning animal farms

to natural vegetation,

we could remove the equivalent of 8.1 billion metric tons

of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.

This is about 15%

of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions.

So not only would a plant-based diet reduce

total annual emissions by around 13%,

but it would also allow us to sequester a further 15%

of total annual carbon emissions on top of that.

Switching to a plant-based diet

would also mean reducing soil acidification

and eutrophication which is the process

that creates algae blooms and dead zones by 50%.

And all of the issues related to animal farming

have come from a planet

with just under 8 billion people on it.

Within the next 30 years,

our population is expected to increase to 10 billion people.

However, global trends as they are now

are showing the animal product consumption is increasing

regardless of the growing population.

This means that by 2050, the overall demand

for animal based foods will be 70% higher

than it is currently.

And specifically ruminant meat will be 88% higher.

This means that an additional 593 million hectors

of land will be needed.

Which is the equivalent size of two Indias.

Something clearly has to change and change quickly.

How much more rainforest needs to be cut down

or set on fire?

Do major cities and entire islands

need to be submerged underwater?

How much more habitat needs to be destroyed

and how many more species need to go extinct?

How many more people need to suffer

from food and water scarcity

and how many more climate refugees does there need to be

before we realize that we need to change our food system?

And don't just take it from me, the lead author

of the largest and most comprehensive analysis

ever conducted analyzing

the impact that food and agriculture

has on the environment stated that a vegan diet

is probably the single biggest way

to reduce your impact on planet earth.

It's been 11 years since the UN told us

that we need to shift to a plant-based diet.

We don't have another decade to spare.

(ominous music)


Veganism could save the planet. Here's why. - YouTube

- Back in 2006

the United Nations stated,

the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three

most significant contributors

to the most serious environmental problems

at every scale, from local to global.

The findings of this report suggests that it should be Bu raporun bulguları, olması gerektiğini gösteriyor.

a major policy focus when dealing with problems sorunlarla uğraşırken büyük bir politika odağı

of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, arazi bozulması, iklim değişikliği ve hava kirliliği,

water shortage and water pollution,

and the loss of biodiversity.

And then four years later they warned that a global shift

towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger,

fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change.

So why exactly is animal farming bad for the environment?

Globally, 26% of all the world's ice-free land surface Küresel olarak, dünyanın buzsuz kara yüzeyinin %26'sı

is given to grazing animals. otlayan hayvanlara verilir.

And in total animal agriculture use is 83%

of all agricultural land

yet it provides less than 20% of the calories consumed

and less than 40% of the protein that is consumed.

In the UK, it is estimated that 85% of the land that is used

for agriculture is just for animals

which is almost 50% of the entire land mass of the UK.

And in the US, 41% of the entire land mass

is for animal farming compared to 4%

which is used to grow plants directly for humans,

with half of all agricultural land

in the US being used specifically for beef production

even though it only makes up 3% of dietary calories.

Animal farming is the leading cause

of rainforest deforestation,

the single largest driver of habitat loss in general genel olarak habitat kaybının en büyük itici gücü

in agriculture which also includes

the farming of fish is listed

as being a frat to 24,000 of the 28,000 species as being a frat to 24,000 of the 28,000 species 28.000 türün 24.000'inin kardeşliği olarak

that are currently frightened with extinction.

And when it comes to the Brazilian Amazon specifically,

cattle ranching is reportedly responsible büyükbaş hayvancılığın sorumlu olduğu bildiriliyor

for 80% of rainforest loss.

We have a recent investigation showing that in 2019

fires in the Amazon were three times more common

in areas where there is cattle ranching.

When it comes to soy, about 75% of all the soy

that is produced is used for animal feeds

with only 6% of whole soybeans that are produced

being used to produce plant-based products like tofu,

soy milk, and other plant-based alternatives.

When it comes to emissions,

a University of Oxford report stated that,

even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately,

the emissions produced by the agriculture sector alone

would make it impossible to limit warming

to 1.5 degrees Celsius and would even make it difficult

to not hit two degrees.

This means that changes to our food system are essential

if we want to avoid making the coral reefs disappear,

creating more extreme heat waves, water scarcities,

droughts and food shortages

for hundreds of millions more people

forcing them to be climate refugees.

And it's essential if we want to avoid the demise

of the world's biodiversity,

increasing rates of dead zones and species extinction

and the rising of sea levels

causing the flooding of major cities

such as Mumbai, Shanghai, Miami, and New York,

with there even being the potential for islands

in the south Pacific Ocean to disappear completely.

Animal agriculture is responsible for producing

between 14.5% and 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions

which makes it responsible for more emissions

than the combined exhausts of all transport globally.

The fishing method of bottom trolling alone

is responsible for producing the same amount of emissions

as the entire aviation industry.

Switching to a plant-based diet

could reduce agricultural emissions by as much as 73%

in high-income nations.

And a study that analyzed 313

different potential food systems,

discovered that the highest greenhouse gas emissions

were found in the food systems

that included a high meet demand

especially focused on ruminant, meat and milk

whilst the lowest emissions came from the vegan diets.

But what about local animal products?

Are they not more sustainable

than buying plant foods from abroad?

Well, not according to the science.

In fact, when it comes to beef only Note 0.5%

of the emissions come from the transportation

and for lamb it's only 2% meaning that the issue

of animal farming is the farming itself.

Even with plant foods like avocados,

only 8% of the total footprint

comes from the traveling itself.

In fact, for most food products,

the transportation accounts for less than 10%

with the higher transportation percentage

simply being a reflection of the fact that

the food naturally produces lower amounts

of greenhouse gases.

Furthermore, a report comparing greenhouse gas emissions

from the average diet across countries in the EU

revealed that transportation was only responsible

for 6% of the total emissions related to diets.

And when the results were broken down by food items,

animal products were shown to be responsible for 83%

of emissions in the average EU diet,

compared to only 17% coming from plant-based foods.

In the US, the climate impacts of food choice were analyzed.

And the food transport was shown to only account for 5%

of emissions in the average US household.

This equals around Note 0.4 tons of CO2 equivalent.

However, the study showed that substituting calories

from red meat and dairy to plant-based alternatives

for just one day a week would save Note 0.46 tons

of CO2 equivalent.

This means that eating plant-based over red meat and dairy

just one day a week, would achieve the same result

as having a diet with zero food miles.

The only way that buying local animal products

could be more sustainable

is if the farming of different foods

was environmentally the same to begin with,

and the only difference was the miles

the two foods had to travel.

This is obviously not the case.

But isn't regenerative beef good for the environment

because grazing cattle

can absorb carbon back into the soils?

Well, not according to the Metro analyses

that have been conducted on the matter that state that,

although certain grazing management

can put carbon into the soil,

at best this would only amount to 20 to 60% of the emissions

that the animals produce in the first place.

And besides, after a few decades

the soil reaches soil carbon equilibrium

which means the soil cannot sequester any more carbon

at which point none of the emissions

from the animals would be offset.

So farmers would either have to start grazing on more land

increasing the land used for animal farming

or stop the farming.

Meaning that grazing animals

is not an effective short-term or long-term strategy

for dealing with the problem, either.

In the words of one of the lead researchers,

"Grazing livestock and net contributors

to the climate problem as are all livestock.

Rising animal production and consumption,

whatever the farming system and animal type,

is causing damaging greenhouse gas release

and contributing to changes in land use.

Even the lowest impact to beef is responsible

for six times more greenhouse gases

and a staggering 36 times more land

than plant proteins, such as peas.

Plus, there are more beneficial things

we can do with the land.

For example, research into the US food system

found that reconfiguring cropland

from animal feed to entirely human edible crops

particularly ones that promote positive health outcomes,

such as fruits, vegetables and pulses

would feed an additional 350 million people

compared to what the same area of land produces

in the current US food system."

To put that into perspective,

there are around 330 million people in the US,

meaning another nation the size of the US

could be fed with just the cropland

that is used to currently feed animals there.

Furthermore, in the UK

just one third of the cropland currently used

to grow animal feeds could provide 62 million adults

there five servings of fruits and vegetables a day all year

which incidentally is almost the entire UK population.

Plus, if the world shifted to a plant-based diet

we could feed every mouth on the planet

and global farmland could also be reduced by more than 75%

which when put into perspective

is the equivalent size of China, Australia the US

and the entire European Union combined,

no longer being needed for agriculture.

We could reforest and restore this land,

bringing back lost habitats

and reversing the decimation of the world's biodiversity.

It is also estimated that by returning animal farms

to natural vegetation,

we could remove the equivalent of 8.1 billion metric tons

of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.

This is about 15%

of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions.

So not only would a plant-based diet reduce

total annual emissions by around 13%,

but it would also allow us to sequester a further 15%

of total annual carbon emissions on top of that.

Switching to a plant-based diet

would also mean reducing soil acidification

and eutrophication which is the process

that creates algae blooms and dead zones by 50%.

And all of the issues related to animal farming

have come from a planet

with just under 8 billion people on it.

Within the next 30 years,

our population is expected to increase to 10 billion people.

However, global trends as they are now

are showing the animal product consumption is increasing

regardless of the growing population.

This means that by 2050, the overall demand

for animal based foods will be 70% higher

than it is currently.

And specifically ruminant meat will be 88% higher.

This means that an additional 593 million hectors

of land will be needed.

Which is the equivalent size of two Indias.

Something clearly has to change and change quickly.

How much more rainforest needs to be cut down

or set on fire?

Do major cities and entire islands

need to be submerged underwater?

How much more habitat needs to be destroyed

and how many more species need to go extinct?

How many more people need to suffer

from food and water scarcity

and how many more climate refugees does there need to be

before we realize that we need to change our food system?

And don't just take it from me, the lead author

of the largest and most comprehensive analysis

ever conducted analyzing

the impact that food and agriculture

has on the environment stated that a vegan diet

is probably the single biggest way

to reduce your impact on planet earth.

It's been 11 years since the UN told us

that we need to shift to a plant-based diet.

We don't have another decade to spare.

(ominous music)