What I've Learned Doesn't Read His Own Sources (Eating Less Meat Won't Save the Planet?) | Part 1

Part 1 of my response to “Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why” by What I’ve Learned.

WIL’s video

IMPLICATIONS OF FUTURE US DIET SCENARIOS ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Dr. Frank Mitloehner’s paper & criticism

Can You Trust a Pro-Beef Professor? It’s Complicated.

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products

Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States

How Much Meat Can You Expect from a Fed Steer?

What is the Beef Checkoff?

Feeding Bill Gates a Fake Burger (to save the world)

Soybean hulls

Okara burger recipe

Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate

Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture

A key debate: the impact on diets and greenhouse gas emissions of eliminating animals from US agriculture

Land use (our world in data)

California Farmers Count Every Drop with Efficient Irrigation Technologies

Aran Islands

The innovation turning desert sand into farmland

The science helping plants survive in salty soils

Scientists warn factory farming raises future pandemic risk

Projections of population growth

*Support an Effective Animal Charity*

*Support the Channel*

*Socials (that I rarely use)*

#whativelearned #vegan #savetheplanet

[StarLineCZ]

You missed the point of his video. You just focused on the meat thing again. His message wasnt that veganism is bad, but the fact that we focus so much on the meat industry, when the main problem is entirely something differnt.

[alohm]

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”

― Harlan Ellison

[TerriblyFatCat]

Well I don't think he was trying to shit on vegans. He just wanted people to see that the main culprit of the whole global warming is actually fossil fuels. I mean that is atleast what i took from the video.

[suoun]

This video have the exact same problems as his video did

Your calculation for dietary emissions does not take the need for extra crops and vegetables into account, it doesn't take the transportation, the packaging, the production and all the edible waste material we previously gave to livestock into account.

It's near impossible include and calculate every little detail, but don't be hypocritical

[ketle]

As a farmers son: To correct you on one thing. Land used for farm animals grassing are usually not fit for grain or any vegetables. If it was the farmer would use it for that because it pays much more to grow grains or anything vegetable on the land than using it for life stock.

[miumau]

Also why do the anti-vegans always try to present vegan diet as rice, almonds and avocado....

[KS-uvrh]

Thats funny abt the rice thing. A lot of cultures (esp asian) eat rice as a staple carb, much like when you eat potatoes or bread. It's high in carbs and sugar and it's meant to fill you up and give you energy. Meat, beans and veggies are what accompany rice when we eat, and that's where the protein, vitamins and other nutritions come from. So the comparison of beef vs rice is already very odd coz rice are not eaten the same way as beef or vegetables.

[pseudonamed]

We are in an information war where most people don’t read primary sources but just watch or read things until they come across something that tells them what they want to hear (like the film being criticised here) and then choose to trust that.

[saritsotangkur]

Right off the bat, I noticed you’re already focusing on the wrong details to correct like whether the 10% reduction comes from ppl going vegan whereas that’s not really the point. Any 10% reduction regardless of which proportion of the population achieves it would net the same result.

[Mico]

I think you very well missed the entire point of his video. It wasnt to say agriculture or meat industry isnt polluting the world, in fact he even says in the video we should work on reducing the pollution in those industries, but his main point was the absurdity of the fact that we focus more on meat industry than on the actual giant polluters which are fossil fuels and fossil industries.

[annala]

I also hate when they talk about the resources taken by rice, corn, soy, etc. because meat eaters ALSO EAT RICE, CORN, and SOY.

[Shelbizleee]

someone tell me who replaced beef with rice & avocados... I'll wait 🙄

[nategalvan]

They dont leave out parts of emissions he literally describes in the video how the statistics were being manipulated, which you conveniently leave out. This video is the other side of stilted information. Except its worse because this woman thinks shes carring the weight of the world by not eating animals.

[ten_tego_teges]

You're not actually addressing his water argument. I don't know enough about water management to say who is right, but you keep stating the grand total number for water, while WIL clearly points out that not all water is the same and that if cows drink the water that would just drain to a river and flow straight to the sea then that's not a problem.

I don't know if that argument holds when you take into account the whole water cycle, I guess that depends on evaporation rates along the way, contamination from livestock etc. But you're not actually addressing the argument here by just restating raw numbers.

[sasopetrovic]

I appreciate the other point of view from you, I just don't understand why you have to ridicule him through the video instead of keeping things civil. It's harder to take this as a nonbiased perspective.

[LifesABeach]

The central valley in california is the largest producer of livestock in the country - I can guarantee all that water isn't getting there from precipitation

[ypkousj]

Why I will continue eating meat:

Tastes good.

[Merlin]

I appreciate you correcting some of his statements and balancing the argument. The video was very informative however very sarcastic and the tone was not constructive, very condescending. Also you have made some very oversimplifications regarding changing land use just like he did in his video.

Point 1 you stated that runoff was a major problem in the cattle and diary industry which it is but it is also a big problem in the arable farming industry. All that fertiliser and pesticide runs off into a river and causes eutrophication and other huge environmental damage. This is also more likely to happen in arable farming as ploughing and regular use reduces if you like the strength of the soil so there is more runoff especially during floods. Eutrophication produces a huge amount of greenhouse gases, including methane, btw.

Point 2 you can’t just sprinkle some phosphate and move a couple of rocks to change the land use. A lot of it will be bedrock which is extremely difficult to remove by heavy machinery and all that heavy machinery produces CO2 except if you get electric ones. However the electric ones will probably get their energy from fossil fuels. And production of chemical fertilisers uses over 1% of the world energy as well as large amounts of environmental damage due to excavation for phosphate for example. So if you increase arable farming = more fertiliser = more greenhouse gasses. I do understand however that this could be reduced by carbon capture technology when producing ammonia.

Point 3 a lot of wildling benefits hugely with grazing and the use of livestock as it allows for the management of meadows and other habitats allowing for more wildlife and increased carbon sequestration. This is definitely an area where livestock is very useful and should be kept.

Point 4 irrigation is by far the best invention ever made by man but it still has its drawbacks which you didn’t mention especially in Middle East and deserts. In many places it uses deep reservoirs which can’t replenish themselves if overused, which is the case in many places across the globe. The heavy use of water can disrupt water cycles and cause droughts, meaning populations can’t get access to water and no water or crops. Getting water from the sea is an option but still uses a lot of energy unfortunately.

Point 6 we will definitely not easily be able to feed under 10 billion people. There are many people today who are already malnourished and starving. It will be achievable but not easy.

Point 7 I pretty sure Will used the abstracts of the articles instead of going down into nitty gritty of the articles and analysing every sentence. This is a common technique used by researchers to save time so please don’t penalise him too much about not reading articles properly. He highlighted the stuff that supported his argument and so did you.

I haven’t used articles for this just stuff that I have learnt over the years and picked up so I apologies if I am corrected. I also haven’t watched part 2

BUT my point still stands you are just like him so don’t sound so condescending. You both supported the different sides of the argument, both oversimplified things and mislead your audience into thinking that in your case arable farming is the only and best way. This area of science is not easy so there is a lot of variation in fingers and there is no definitive answer. And he wasn’t attacking veganism, he made that clear, he just wanted to provide an alternative view.

Also why didn’t you get an expert in like Will did cause I don’t see your doctorate.

[TurtleneckTim]

I think the main argument for animal products, mainly dairy and cow meats, is the ability to upcycle nutrients from grasslands and other ruminating land. Beef liver is EXTREMELY nutrient dense.

[dflates]

I appreciated your thoughtful response to the inaccuracies and false claims in the original video. I only wish you had been a bit more diplomatic, and avoided dropping an insult to all non-vegan/non-vegetarian viewers by saying:

“Eating animals when you have other options is just a really stupid way to eat.”

There are other legitimate reasons people may choose to still eat animals. If you mean “protein-inefficient”, say that, not “stupid”. I’m being picky here only because, whether you are arguing mainly for veganism or for sustainability, you can’t expect to have a reasonable dialogue with those who disagree with you (or who are on the fence) if throw in statements that insult their intelligence.