At 8'20" the illustration showed "environmentally friendly diets like pescatarian, vegetarian, vegan, and low meat." I assumed that the fact that the vegan diet was further to the right than the pescatarian and vegetarian diets meant that it had a lower environmental footprint, but was surprised to see that the low meat diet was further to the right than the vegan diet. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bcVoabhpm8vDp6s.html Was that the intention, or was the order of the diets random?

I was actually surprised pescatarian was on that list. I get that this video was about land use mainly, but our oceans play a major role in climate change as well and the current over-fishing and disruption of oceanic ecosystems cannot help keep the balance.. Other than that I recognised a lot of things from Wageningens’s plan for an ecologically balanced ‘the Netherlands’ . Good to have made it a global path forward! Now we just need everyone to wake up, and those who’ve smelled the roses to speak up and be excellent communicators because lots of people prefer to dream on…

@@someguy2135 yes, it's just a random order. The study this refers to (in the description) is quite fascinating and worth checking out.

@@Lisdodde I think this is the most common question we got, and it's very valid. Obviously, eating fish 3x a day isn't going to be sustainable. But the study showed that pescatarians were not replacing the meat they skipped out on with fish. So they weren't eating more fish than the meat eaters. In practice, the pescatarian diet was actually mostly vegetarian. In the study this refers to, pescatarians did better than the low-meat group, but worse than the vegetarian and vegan groups.

Here's some feedback: I really Enjoyed this and appreciate it. Thank you 🌱❤️🤗

Because beef delivers a whole other level of nutrition compared to plants

@@CaridorcTergilti Yes...more saturated fat, hemi-iron, hormones ext.

Trophic levels! I remember this from school!😃

It doesn't matter. Ecosystems is where it is at, grow and eat that which improves ecosystems

Yeah, i mean a5 tue end of the day thats also the exavt reason Nobody really farms carnivorius animals in a large scale

@@dominicmutzhas6002 Warm-blooded carnivores. There are quite large crocodile farms unfortunately. They are obviously way less efficient than plant agriculture though, for reasons you, and OP, stated.

Energy is never lost, only recycled. Someone did indeed missed that day in school.

Do you really think you are going to feed 10 billion people that way?

​@@prieten49as I look across my paddock at the 2 dumb horses eating the grass down and ponder if I used permaculture food growing techniques that paddock could feed 50 people. Yeah I think it might be possible

Don't worry the way to fix the environment is to avoid environmental issues and make people that don't want to change, change

There's little doubt in my mind that modern, hugely subsidized industrial agriculture that avoids having to pay for all kinds of externalities will always measure up as more "efficient" than just swapping in permaculture under that same system. It's efficiency is very much married to the economic system it operates under. There's also little doubt in my mind that permaculture is efficient in its own way that if married to the right economic system. It totally make sense to do instead. But I think you're ultimately talking about something that cut to politics outside the conventional scope of what this channel would question.

And destruction of the soil.

@@brucejensen3081 And I forgot to mention that much of the production increase id due to fertilizers.

Thanks for this; I'm looking for a reference to show how much mor efficiently plants feed people than meat, etc; sounds like this will do it!

Do you want 4 billion more?

​​@@ronhumphreys3762i certainly don't. Too many people is a big part of many problems in the USA and the world already. If there already aren't enough parking spots in an urban area the last thing that should be done is to make the problem even worse by building more places that will make an existing problem even worse. Supply and demand. There aren't enough decent paying jobs for average people. There isn't enough affordable housing. The traffic jams are terrible so let's add another billion or 2 more people to the picture. What could possibly go wrong? More poverty and crime etc most likely!

@@sharit7970 Glad to help. Here is another. Google this title- "By going vegan, America could feed an additional 390 million people, study suggests." -LA Times Mar 26, 2018

@@ronhumphreys3762 What you and I want will not change anything. However, you and I can use social media to try to convince as many as possible to switch to a plant based diet, or at least to boycott the most environmentally destructive types of animal products like beef and dairy, especially cheese.

I agree but I think the idea was similar to the low meat one, so ideally a low amount of fish

All meat should be off the menu...

LOL!

Ah yes, let the BS bingo commence! What are the prices today?

It’s not empty, it’s huge 🎉

This was a really jarring experience. I saw this comment, and I was really surprised because I thought I deleted it because of a big fight over what "veganism" means, but here it is... with a different name. You couldn't think up your own comment? That's literally the most empty thing you could have done.

Nice so did you see the same problem I did? Marginal grasslands were glossed over and it seemed like they could be devoted to crop production.

Alas, chocolate. It has lead and cadmium, some more than others. It all has saturated fat and some sugar. And it's very high in oxalates. Even with fair trade chocolate available, reluctantly I decided it has to go.

@@susank4878 The composite of saturated fat in dark chocolate with no dairy and not sugar sweet to excess has not been found to be a cardiac negative. Positive actually likely due to other component parts. But the sat fat does not raise cholesterol which is particular to dark chocolate. The location of the chocolate where it is grown, absent testing derives a result of probability of lead and cadium contamination. Africa or south america plays into that.

George Monbiot has been campaigning to reduce land use to promote rewilding and reforesting land now used for food production by ending animal agriculture. The study by Poore and Nemecek found that we would free up 75% of the land used for food production by doing so.

Thanks so much, Lawrence! What are you going to study? Do you know yet?

​@@PlantChompers That's the million dollar question haha. I'm currently doing an undergrad in environmental social science specialising in human ecology, and I love it. Right now though I'm trying to decide what to do my graduate in, looking at everything from environmental sociology and psychology to sustainable resilience and system dynamics. My goal is basically to really understand social change and how to help it along, so as to be able to help bridge the gap between what the science shows we should do and what society does, especially around food as I care about it deeply on a personal level (apart from being a fellow baldie I'm also a fellow vegan!) and its such a low-tech solution with the potential to so enormously reduce environmental impact and increase human health. For example your fascinating story of how all the people at the neuro-conventions eat predominantly plant based I thought really showcased how large the rift is between scientific knowledge and societal practice. Exactly how to help bridge that gap and what specialization is best for giving me the tools to do so, I'm less certain about. If you have any thoughts or advice I'd count myself blessed to hear it!

Animal agriculture inherently wastes food since farm animals consume more nutrients than eating the edible parts of them provides. Google "Feed Conversion Ratios."

Yeah and we can feed like 20 fold more people on opportunity costs from whole plant foods alone that are thrown away. So that's essentially saying we can feed like 160 billion people potentially already with our current agricultural footprint if we just used it more efficiently and exclusively plant-based 🙂

If we garden and grow more of our own plant food, less is likely to be thrown away, or picked too early, or kept too long. The less distance food has to travel, the less the waste.

It's all about the dough. If it was even close to how safely and humanely animals were raised and processed, things would improve. But that would be a dream.

Yeah, that was the part of the script I wasn't comfortable with....

always 🤦‍♂

There was a time when it was, "Slaves though " Give it time, it'll happen. More and more people are waking up.

Poor Peppa! 🐖

@@teagoldleaf4137waking up to how bad grain and high glycemic carbs are for metabolic health

Oddly enough despite no hunting restrictions at all in places like texas and they becoming a problem and governments encouraging them to be hunted, no one does. Ferel pigs are endemic to texas and spreading nation wide fast. Which means....it is the processing and marketing not the thing itself. Goose sort of the same, a historical delight cooked goose for christmas. The biggest goose seen almost everywhere in such quantities they are a big problem, the canadian goose is not hunted hardly at all. Point being I think...we like the idea of what we are eating more than the thing itself eaten. So to change eating behaviors you need only to change the marketing and processing the core item is not important.

People killing themselves by overeating and zoonatic disease is nature's way of stopping it. Maybe we will someday learn from that.

Aquaponics, maybe, providing both plant food and a clean source of fish. Scales both up and down successfully.

Could be Last time I went to the gulf I saw a truck stuck in the sand. Spinning the wheels down about a foot there was a layer of pure tar like oil. I asked the desk people in the office area of the visitor center and they said it was a oil spill a little while back affecting the whole area. So I think pick your poison. Is it the ag lobby calling foul on oil or oil calling foul on ag? Who pays more I guess political donations in this oil Sorry this is how corrupt this place now is

Congrats to both of you! I'm at 9 years now myself as well. :D

we are

Yes, this was a bit jarring.

Keep in mind that Chris is narrating a script he doesn't have direct control over and the goal of the short film is to inspire people to start shifting their diets. It would likely be easier to get people to switch over to fish than directly to a vegan-friendly or plant-based diet and this may be why the writers suggested this.

@@MagnumCarta Pescaterians are the longest living group under study, that in the seventh day adventist study and it was gender specific to women not men. Men vegan was it. Perhaps that figured in.

I think they are talking about alternatives to animal foods no? Here's a good short video about that: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pqiddct9mtjWhKM.htmlsi=NQB6c4nYN20KgZVr

Charlton Heston. My bottom dollar bet is him being such a NRA guy and gun advocate his dementia was tied in directly to indoor shooting range toxic lead exposure. Michhael Moore I think tried to interview him for some gun control video back in the day but unfortunately found him a bit to gone to do it and did not air it to his credit.

Facts like the cholesterol hypothesis based on epidemeology (correlation) science. How the hell can you call a coincidence science. Its not animal products causing blindness and amputations in diabetics it is high glucose habitually.

This I can respect. I used to eat a ton of meat too, but science made me reconsider.

Kind of like cannibals are still around, as well as slavery.

I keep asking these regenerative agriculture people to tell me how, given that small scale pasturing became unfeasible as demand for animal products increased and was replaced by the industrialized an-ag system we have now, small scale pasturing is going to meet even greater demand currently? How will it magically work this time if it didn't last time? They can't answer.

@@tamcon72 it's really easy to answer honestly, it's because with scale industrialized an-ag system they have no interest in doing the things in the right way for the planet, they just want to earn more. so they buy the feed from places where it costs a lot less and it comes from places like brazil etc and they can produce more and sell at a lower price. if every farmer raised their cows making them roam free in their pasture like we always used to do we would produce a lot more with a lot less resource. and that's actually what regenerative agriculture farmers are doing. i buy my meat from farmers near me that grow all their crops and that restore carbon from the atmosphere and feed more people per acre than market store meat. At the recent COP28 all nations united in making a big push in regenerative agriculture as a strategy to tackle climate change, that's really great news if you're open minded honestly. Even the uk has been subsidizing regenerative agricolture farmers to tackle climate change since a few years ago. On the internet there's a lot of data on resources on regenerative agriculture farms and their effectiveness on restoring the land, I recommend the work of Allan Savory. There are some studies that say that we could feed more than triple the actual population if we produced everything in a regenerative way, and that doesn't surprise me since in that way you produce more than the resource you use

@@tamcon72 with plants agriculture you can cheat somehow to significantly increase production, vertical gardening or something. With animal agriculture watcha gonna do, plant vertical grass and hope the cows do a Spiderman performance.

Up until this year grass fed was and is only a industry regulated term. Which then means nothing as it is self regulated. There testing group was a industry group, The FDA did no compliance review it was all done by phone. The industry group filled in the gaps. Now under Biden that has changed. Did they provide funding for additional inspectors, I do not think so. And likely next jan that will change anyway.

No it doesn't, it just looks at the total output in calories per area of land. The agricultural output of the Netherlands has actually decreased since the agricultural revolytion in 1950's in terms of energy input vs agricultural output.

No but as any zoo goes knows they can throw their poop at you

@@ronhumphreys3762 unicorns poo skitles

I had two kids to fit in with replacement theory, which actually you could stretch to three. But 10 billion is a horrow show. I can think of no reason under the sun other than particular to fundamentalist interpretation of some religious beliefs any one would want to prefer to live in that world. I just assume they are consciously or unconsciously are holding fundamental religious beliefs. And or they are capitalists who encourage growth at any extend to maximize economic benefit. I assume the second is more predominate in the general population but could be wrong in that..

So the poor will suffer disproportionally?

@@ronhumphreys3762 Suffer? I've gone from having beef every day (1-2 servings/day) to having a small portion of it once a week. I'm hardly suffering. If anything, I'm actually enjoying this diet a lot more. Feel free to ask me any questions.

@@smithastley1616 You do realize that reducing or eliminating one prime source of food for a population will raise the price on all the other sources of food? So that is my question. I have not eaten beef for almost forty years, so have no questions on that.

@@ronhumphreys3762 I disagree with your premise. Because beef requires a lot of arable land to grow feed, it is likely that reducing beef consumption may actually bring down the cost of other sources of food over the long run, simply because there is more land available to grow other foods. If this weren't true, it's important to note that we're not only discussing climate change, but also food security. Our global population's growth presents a challenge: continuing to consume beef at current levels will strain our ability to feed everyone. As food demand rises with population growth, but food supply decreases, we can expect higher food prices due to basic supply and demand principles.

@@smithastley1616 Sure we need to cut out meat consumption.., Taxation to do that will inspire revolt. Check france a decade ago and the petrol tax for climate change remediation. Yellow shirt revolt I think it was called. Food? For food they will kill. You tax them for that and it will be to who ever does the taxings devolvement

Luckily not in my lifetime.

In the sahara they are going to do that? Or Barstow? Compton perhaps? LA then?

I’m afraid he breaks my brain too…

Pretty much The old truism is 7 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. A lot less than as described but nevertheless the efficiency remains consistent. My guess is as this here only references cattle meat not meat overall. Cows genetically are a water dependent specie. Adapted to forests not plains.

Just doing basic arithmetic, it couldn't feed 1 billion.

Because cheese is a product of milk. Every next product in a chain of events that requires previous input, requires more time, energy and resources than the previous step. And at each step there's loss of energy and resources. It's not a conversion thing. A kilo is a kilo. You can measure anything with it.

Because cheese is a milk concentrate; you must use many units--regardless of measurement--of milk to make one unit of cheese.

depending on the cheese made, you need ~10 litres of milk to make one kilo of cheese. The more fat/less water a cheese has, the more milk it required to make. Parmigianno is ~16 litres of milk per kilo of cheese for example.

Ii am sure there is, but like with carbon removed from air, it can be don,e the thing is cost.

Transportaion is actually a very much smaller impact on carbon production than that produced by what we eat. Meat production is just very carbon productive in all aspects, to include transportation of 1000 pound animals to feed lots and slaughter. The transportation of 1000 pounds of say broccoli is way easier and efficient. I think transportation overall is 7% of carbon production.

Of course you can't. This is all your fault not a systemic issue. Cheer!

Yes you are right, there is a apparent upper level which we will top out at in this century., Population experts' reference this commonly.. China though your comment is not common currently. China has this year and every year in the last decade and more improved their disposable income in double digits excepting directly after covid. Propaganda not the facts say otherwise China has a one child policy now removed to stimulate internal consumption

This is fact. The only supposition I would make is conceivably with fish farming it could be done in a environmentally friendly way or carbon neutral way. Right now they have a problem with contaminants in farmed fish but my guess is that may be solved in time. But yes you are right the oceans are way way overfished and a tragedy one step away. To much the removal of fish and some theorize the entire structure of the ocean in its sustainable fashion may devolve. We just do not know the possible results of a ocean with no fish in it. Likely it would be devastating. And since the oceans provide so much of our oxygen and atmospheric element who know the consequence, it is likely very bad.