Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "What the news won't tell you about climate change | Hannah Ritchie, PhD" video.

  1. 22
  2. Well there's a couple of issues, she uses worldwide figures of 24%, the people who use cows to pull ploughs, use them for transport, dried dung for fuel will have to have alternatives. In USA all animals are 5%, cows are 65% of that at 3.25%. It is very hard to replace all that we get which isn't just food, it's activated carbon to filter water, gelatine to hold toilet paper together, fats that go into devices like the one you are using, medicines, asphalt, there's leather, wool, fish bladders to fine wines, rendered meat for pet food, collagen, the list goes on. It all needs a grown source to replace what is mostly fed on grass, on land we don't put any sprays etc onto. The way it is worked out is what is edible that goes to market, it ignores all the waste of crops and puts all the emissions onto just the edible, that goes for sale, considering we get much more than food from animals and there is so much crop waste, this in incredibly deceptive to the general public. The issue here is she is comparing protein of say tofu as a standalone product, ignoring that animals take all the waste, we put the waste through them and then blame them for it. Soy is great example, 82% of the human usable part of soy is taken by humans, all animals take 7% of whole bean and 1% of the oil but they take 99% of the waste, then people will say they take 87% of soy, yes they do but by weight of the total grown product, of which we can't eat. She's very misleading and whether intentionally or unintentionally, very wrong, not sure which. If oranges, grapes, any crop that doesn't make it to market then it's not calculated but all the sprays, fertilisers, irrigation still happen, just not calculated. This is of course an unfair comparison. Saying getting higher yields means using synthetic fertilisers which is where the nitrous oxide comes into play, the gas that is emitted is 300 times worse than co2 and methane is only 26. She is using her own source as in our world in data, so she is biased in this way and is funded by bill gates the largest private landholder in USA, and considering we give more of out waste to animals from crops than food we grow for them, plant based directly subsidises caged animal rearing the most.
    20
  3. 12
  4. 10
  5. 10
  6. 9
  7. 9
  8. 6
  9.  @BM1982.V2  Your opinion that grass is disingenuous is in my opinion incorrect and you seem to be missing the point of it, that we get something in return for doing nothing basically. As most grass is from non arable land meaning it can't be farmed you can see the difference in inputs that are needed. Sayings 86% of their diet is from stuff we can't eat and then having to grow something on land that isn't possible is of course the wrong way to look at things, environmentally. As far as soy, 6% whole bean goes to humans,7% to all animals, cows the least amount as it goes towards other animals more, half the worlds fish is raised fish, actually figures aren't taking into account wild caught fish but that's another story, 87% is processed into oil of which animals take 1% so we are back to the 82% is used for humans. Palm or Soy oil is in everything these days. The rest of your figures then become meaningless, the point though is it's not just diet, half the animal is used for more than food, saying we can grow what needs replacing when we don't put a lot of inputs in now means we would have to put in sprays of all sorts, fertiliser, irrigation and where I am half the land is grazing land, that doesn't get sprayed, get's irrigated from weather and gets naturally fertilised, if looking at it as energy returned, we get a massive amount back. We grow far more tonnage of crops for humans, all this waste could be composted but it then would still emit to the atmosphere, we currently pass it through animals and blame them, unfairly I think. Saying disingenuous, doesn't make it so just because you remove 86% of their diet that isn't edible to us, that's not the point, the point is they can digest it.
    5
  10. 5
  11. 4
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57.  @Jodamo  No, that is wrong, you can't get 86% and then add 18%, it does not work that way to get to 100% Another thing you must consider is how the metrics work, It is measured on edible food to market, it doesn't include the waste of crops not making it and it also puts all the emissions from the whole animal onto the edible part, so leather, bone, fats, ligaments etc as rendered meat for pet food, should then be carbon free which is of course impossible. I want you to consider that food companies are lying to the people who want to believe the most and if eating the daily recommended amount of meat it equals I think 12 cows over a 60 year span, as you say we have cows on non arable land or land that has been grasslands, if in USA for longer than white man has been there, saying you can produce something cleaner with synthetic fertilisers, poisons etc instead of something that is no different to a wild animal, give it a shot, prove that you can replace 60 years of total calories cleaner before you resort to sarcasm. The world doesn't have a calorie problem, last year the world consumed enough calories for everybody to gain weight, we have a distribution one, saying we need more wheat or corn is incorrect, in fact there is an American study that I also posted on reddit, where taking animals out of the system does indeed raise calories but it lowers nutrition and that raised the cropping emissions 2.6%, as we need to also replace the inedible calories it would be hard to see replacing all that we get for 2.4% is possible, as all animals are 5% of US's emissions, beef and dairy are 65% of that at 3.25%. I understand it can be difficult to hear a lifestyle choice you may have chosen is based on half truths but the reality is there for you, and in todays market, more crop waste means caged animals are supported more, now I only eat beef.
    1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61.  @Jodamo  No-one is eating soy bean cake, as I say impossible is trying. Type in "how much soy is processed into oil" You talk of massive amounts, in USA it's around a third of corn and we grow far more tonnage for humans. Yes I said how much is used as whole bean, the reality is 92% of human edible soy ( your opinion on what can be but isn't doesn't count) is used for humans. The reduction in arable land will not replace all that we get, dairy for example, the amount of calories we get will never find a crop to replace that. As I say corn is mostly used in the US, here in AU it is wheat, both are grasses, having anything else grow IS going to need a lot more inputs, if poor grain doesn't meet protein levels then feed grade it becomes. There are no extra steps for cows eating grass and we get more than food, relegating everything to diet is talking about less than half of the problem. A cheap byproduct as you call them isn't going to have a better replacement because it needs a more expensive grown source, nor cleaner. We also shouldn't use overconsumption of meat as our metric, the basis should be the minimum daily requirements and because there is less nutrition in crop foods, this increases the amount of transport, tractors, fertilisers etc, to get the required amount of replacement nutrition volume of diet has to increase 25%, increasing emissions from fossil fuels. You can't get more energy out of a system than is already there, stored carbon being emitted is what is driving climate change and as I say all animals in the US are 5% of emissions, cattle 3.25%, how much change do you think will happen to replace what you call a byproduct? V and VG support caged animal rearing the most, crop waste is a cheap byproduct, why not mention this?
    1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1