Notice in the chart at 4:17 that beef is at the top, but dairy is soon after, and dairy is in fact higher than white meat. Lactivores have a greater deforestation footprint than many omnivores.
Amazing video! My wife and I are down here in Puerto Rico growing sustainable, ecosystem integrated, diverse, and rich plant foods for the coming generations! And it's an animal free homestead for us!
This is fantastic! Thank you, Chris. I support your cha nel Plant Chompers, too. I went plant based nearly 7 years ago and vegan 6&1/2 years ago. I now run courses to help people and mentor them into eating differently. I feel if we all do our bit collectively, then together, we will make this world a wonderful place to be again.
Yes you are right. I really like seitan, particularly the homemade stuff. Honestly the faux meats are better than the real thing. Are you tomb or a temple?
Finally I could find your TedX talk! Great message and presentation, you could see it was heartfelt but still mind-driven. I hope more people see this who are not already on the vegan path.
The most successful reduction in beef consumption has been inflation! The high cost is causing many folks to move towards more chicken. It might be time to consider additional taxes on beef for pollution just like carbon taxes on corporate production.
The easier solution would be to end taxpayer subsidies to these harmful industries. Even better solution would be to give subsidies to these innovative plant based companies. The best solution would be to do both simultaneously. No need for new taxes. Let's just stop propping up industries that are harmful and would fail without our tax money.
Seems like he's talking about diet and resources here, so please go plant based. I'm plant based for the environment and health, and i'm vegan because animals deserve rights too.
I don't understand. What is so wrong in the land use? It's not as if instead of pastures it would be better to have deserts like it happened in Africa once upon a time when the "white intelligentsia " decided to reduce cattle and other grass feedeng population. It is deeply wrong to prefer one photosynthesis to another, like pasture vs woods (in US or Europe). Another story is if we criticise deforestation in Amazon or elswhere, where whole eco systems are destroyed, native people included. But, generally, pasture has been around for ages. I admit my lacto vegetarian conflict of interest, but CoI does not mean that you are wrong. Thus gentleman is a vegan, but is still correct in some of his "provegan" claims.
Did you watch the video? Animal agriculture is the top cause of deforestation! Established forests capture and sequester CO2 much better than grassland. They also have other advantages, like increasing rainfall.
Yes, thank you, I watched the video and usually comment on what I saw/heard. Now, did you read my comment? Didn't you think that forest sequester the CO2 ONLY until the next death of the teee (or even more likely next wildfire, disease or a strong winter wind). And then? Where does this 'sequested CO2' go? You come with a plastic bag and vacuum machine and collect it? Sorry for the irony, but my comment was all about that: dead tree reemits all the captured CO2, and even methane, if tree is not induatrially used for heating, but left to rot. Furniture, you may say. Yes, you can keep some wood (and captured CO2) as furniture. But, after some time, again it will either rot on some depo and produce methan and give back sequested CO2, or it will be recycled into new furniture or paper or whatnot and will delay its inevitable fate to release CO2 (and maybe methane). BTW, the more you recycle that wooden furniture into furniture will decrease the demand for furniture from fresh wood, so recycling will just speed up the CO2 reemission. You may consider increasing human population to increase demand for furniture, but that is just extinguishing fire with petrol, since each human is nothing but CO2 emitter (among other things, like scientists, artists, carpenter, forester, herder, oh, sorry, herders may be considered inhuman for some).
@@anotherviewofthings "After a massive tree die-off, conventional wisdom has it that a forest would go from carbon sink to carbon source: Since the soil microbes are still around, they are expected to release large amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, where it is thought to accelerate climate change. "Surprisingly, we couldn't find a big pulse," said Moore, who is also a member of the UA Institute of the Environment. Trahan added: "In the first few years after beetles have come in and killed trees, the carbon release from the surrounding soil actually goes down." Large amounts of dead trees, it turns out, hold on to their carbon for a long time and prevent it from quickly being released into the soil or the atmosphere. According to Moore, this might be due to several reasons: First, while trees take up carbon dioxide during the day during photosynthesis, they release some of it at night when they switch to respiration. "Once the trees are dead, respiration by the trees goes away," Moore said. "In addition, if you cut off the carbon that a tree put into the soil while it was alive, you reduce the ability of the soil microbes around the roots to respire." "After five or six years, there is a buildup of some dead plant material, leaf litter and so on, and that seems to drive the rate of respiration up again. But it never recovers to the point it was before the beetles killed the trees, at least over the span of a decade," Moore said."- University of Arizona Title, subtitle- "Dead Forests Release Less Carbon Into Atmosphere Than Expected Trees killed in the wake of widespread mountain pine beetle infestations have not resulted in a large spike in carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, contrary to predictions, a UA-led study has found." On the other hand, burning trees, as has been done in the Amazon rain forest does release their carbon into the atmosphere, and very quickly! As Chris pointed out, that was done to raise cattle and to grow soy, almost all of which was used to feed to farm animals.
@@anotherviewofthings "Didn't you think that forest sequester the CO2 ONLY until the next death of the teee (or even more likely next wildfire, disease or a strong winter wind)." You REALLY haven't thought this through, yet your are poking fun at someguy's comment. Counting wildfires and dead tress (which get replaced with live ones as the dead one slowly rots away), forest sequester enormous amounts of carbon in their trunks, limbs, roots, and the soil. There are scientists who study forests for a living, and most types of forests sequester far more carbon than grasslands can. Thus, your long comment is disproven by scientific facts. However, to get the land to grow lots more forests and trees, LOTS people need to stop eating beef/meat/dairy, or eat it much less often. More cattle=less wilderness, less biodiversity, and higher CO2 levels. Period.
If GMO plants are unacceptable, how would it be more acceptable that meat grown in a factory is better for me than that raised on the hoof? Also, Beyond Meat has gone from a high of over $200 a share to $11 today with market targets lowered from $20 to $12 a week or so ago. Many are skeptical of the plant based meat industry and that has investors and consumers worried. As a result, the plant based market is down. As you know, I've tried several products and I would say if you used it like tofu, it really isn't all that bad but I have read some opinions that plant based meats are not good for you. How will you overcome objections, especially after all the hype? The next question is let's say everyone converted to plant based meat tomorrow. Would you say that half of the land cattle requires goes back toward farming? And finally, some doctors have said unprocessed, pastured beef is healthier when consumed in moderation than plant based alternatives, On the surface, it sounds like might be better just to reduce the amount of meat one eats. It's a fascinating subject. Thank you for your presentation.
Your comment seems to be rooted in the naturalistic fallacy. Clean cultured meat produced using lab technology is healthier since it avoids the pathogens found in slaughtered animal flesh. Why do you think you have to cook it so thoroughly? Feces from the animal's intestines ends up on or in the meat. It also bypasses the problems of antibiotics and growth hormones found in slaughtered meat.
Beyond Meat fell victim to inflation. The "green premium" price difference suddenly became unacceptable to many consumers. The SWAP-MEAT study proved that plant based meat alternatives are healthier than slaughtered meat.
@@someguy2135 There's more to it than simply to simply having to quit. For example, replacing a portion of your diet with fruits and lowering red meat intake can make a difference. For the biggest difference, changes in diet must be combined with other lifestyle changes.
You can't tell from the way it was recorded, but I was there and the audience was into it. They laughed in all the right places!
Notice in the chart at 4:17 that beef is at the top, but dairy is soon after, and dairy is in fact higher than white meat. Lactivores have a greater deforestation footprint than many omnivores.
Chris is great person with an important truth.
Thank you so much!
Amazing video! My wife and I are down here in Puerto Rico growing sustainable, ecosystem integrated, diverse, and rich plant foods for the coming generations! And it's an animal free homestead for us!
Thank you, Frenchie! So happy to hear what you're doing in Puerto Rico. 👏
Oh hey - it's Mr. Plant Chompers! Great talk! Thank you for all your work. :)
Thanks!
Thank you, Chris. Your message is so important.
Thank you, Paul! you crushed it with your talk.
Pray for the forests!!
Your purpose is admirable. This speech so important and to the point. Love your Plant Chompers channel. Thank you for your work!👃🏼
Thank you so much.
This is fantastic! Thank you, Chris. I support your cha nel Plant Chompers, too.
I went plant based nearly 7 years ago and vegan 6&1/2 years ago. I now run courses to help people and mentor them into eating differently.
I feel if we all do our bit collectively, then together, we will make this world a wonderful place to be again.
Thank you so much, Panes. 🙂
Hi where can I learn more about your work, please?
@@alexwilder8315 I have a RUclips channel! Plant Chompers.
Quality as always Chris. I pray we wake up and start listening to the science you've presented here before it's too late.
Thank you so much. I pray that every day.
A very important talk.
Great job Chris !
Thanks!
Yes you are right.
I really like seitan, particularly the homemade stuff. Honestly the faux meats are better than the real thing.
Are you tomb or a temple?
Haha, love that Greggs (that's the name of the shop/bakery) got a shout out for their vegan sausage rolls! 😊
I hear that they're delicious. 😋
Such a great video 🎉🎉🎉
Thank you so much, Talya. 🙂
Lol great intro 😂. And such an important message. Thank you for sharing!
Thank you, Lygia! Nice to see you over here. 🙂
Great talk, Chris! Still more eloquent than I'd have been even on your "off day" 😁🌱
Thank you! I really wasn't happy with it, but whatever. 🫣
My favourite alternative is potato
Brilliant!
Thank you so much, Ana.
Great presentation, very informative!
Thanks!
Finally I could find your TedX talk! Great message and presentation, you could see it was heartfelt but still mind-driven. I hope more people see this who are not already on the vegan path.
Thank you, Taurui. 🙂
Going back to your scientist roots. Go get ‘em Chris. Love your work.
Thanks!
great video
Guess you guys aren't ready for that yet...but your kids are gonna love it. 👨🏽🏫
Great talk and funny too! Many thanks.
Thanks Holly!
The most successful reduction in beef consumption has been inflation! The high cost is causing many folks to move towards more chicken. It might be time to consider additional taxes on beef for pollution just like carbon taxes on corporate production.
The easier solution would be to end taxpayer subsidies to these harmful industries. Even better solution would be to give subsidies to these innovative plant based companies. The best solution would be to do both simultaneously. No need for new taxes. Let's just stop propping up industries that are harmful and would fail without our tax money.
Great watch. Go vegan.
Seems like he's talking about diet and resources here, so please go plant based. I'm plant based for the environment and health, and i'm vegan because animals deserve rights too.
Thank you so much, Marishcha. 🙂
8 months!! At 63 so happy I made the change. Feel its the best action i can make for the planet.
Awesome!
Thank you German renewable energy law for making solar cheap!! And thank you Germans for paying the necessary subsidies to make it profitable
Miyowaki forests we make our house plots, town area, wherever vacant lands avl, world wide
W talk
The association of meat and cheese consumption with being a “foodie” doesn’t reflect well on “foodies”.
Hahaha. I got a laugh from that.
Wind and solar combined account for about 5.7% of energy use in the United States. And that is with huge subsidies. Big success?
That ignores the huge subsidies in fossil fuels.
Other countries like Germany have adopted solar in much higher rates.
!!!
I don't understand. What is so wrong in the land use? It's not as if instead of pastures it would be better to have deserts like it happened in Africa once upon a time when the "white intelligentsia " decided to reduce cattle and other grass feedeng population.
It is deeply wrong to prefer one photosynthesis to another, like pasture vs woods (in US or Europe). Another story is if we criticise deforestation in Amazon or elswhere, where whole eco systems are destroyed, native people included. But, generally, pasture has been around for ages. I admit my lacto vegetarian conflict of interest, but CoI does not mean that you are wrong. Thus gentleman is a vegan, but is still correct in some of his "provegan" claims.
Did you watch the video? Animal agriculture is the top cause of deforestation! Established forests capture and sequester CO2 much better than grassland. They also have other advantages, like increasing rainfall.
Yes, thank you, I watched the video and usually comment on what I saw/heard. Now, did you read my comment? Didn't you think that forest sequester the CO2 ONLY until the next death of the teee (or even more likely next wildfire, disease or a strong winter wind). And then? Where does this 'sequested CO2' go? You come with a plastic bag and vacuum machine and collect it? Sorry for the irony, but my comment was all about that: dead tree reemits all the captured CO2, and even methane, if tree is not induatrially used for heating, but left to rot. Furniture, you may say. Yes, you can keep some wood (and captured CO2) as furniture. But, after some time, again it will either rot on some depo and produce methan and give back sequested CO2, or it will be recycled into new furniture or paper or whatnot and will delay its inevitable fate to release CO2 (and maybe methane). BTW, the more you recycle that wooden furniture into furniture will decrease the demand for furniture from fresh wood, so recycling will just speed up the CO2 reemission. You may consider increasing human population to increase demand for furniture, but that is just extinguishing fire with petrol, since each human is nothing but CO2 emitter (among other things, like scientists, artists, carpenter, forester, herder, oh, sorry, herders may be considered inhuman for some).
@@anotherviewofthings "After a massive tree die-off, conventional wisdom has it that a forest would go from carbon sink to carbon source: Since the soil microbes are still around, they are expected to release large amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, where it is thought to accelerate climate change.
"Surprisingly, we couldn't find a big pulse," said Moore, who is also a member of the UA Institute of the Environment.
Trahan added: "In the first few years after beetles have come in and killed trees, the carbon release from the surrounding soil actually goes down."
Large amounts of dead trees, it turns out, hold on to their carbon for a long time and prevent it from quickly being released into the soil or the atmosphere. According to Moore, this might be due to several reasons: First, while trees take up carbon dioxide during the day during photosynthesis, they release some of it at night when they switch to respiration.
"Once the trees are dead, respiration by the trees goes away," Moore said. "In addition, if you cut off the carbon that a tree put into the soil while it was alive, you reduce the ability of the soil microbes around the roots to respire."
"After five or six years, there is a buildup of some dead plant material, leaf litter and so on, and that seems to drive the rate of respiration up again. But it never recovers to the point it was before the beetles killed the trees, at least over the span of a decade," Moore said."- University of Arizona
Title, subtitle- "Dead Forests Release Less Carbon Into Atmosphere Than Expected
Trees killed in the wake of widespread mountain pine beetle infestations have not resulted in a large spike in carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, contrary to predictions, a UA-led study has found."
On the other hand, burning trees, as has been done in the Amazon rain forest does release their carbon into the atmosphere, and very quickly! As Chris pointed out, that was done to raise cattle and to grow soy, almost all of which was used to feed to farm animals.
@@anotherviewofthings "Didn't you think that forest sequester the CO2 ONLY until the next death of the teee (or even more likely next wildfire, disease or a strong winter wind)." You REALLY haven't thought this through, yet your are poking fun at someguy's comment. Counting wildfires and dead tress (which get replaced with live ones as the dead one slowly rots away), forest sequester enormous amounts of carbon in their trunks, limbs, roots, and the soil. There are scientists who study forests for a living, and most types of forests sequester far more carbon than grasslands can. Thus, your long comment is disproven by scientific facts.
However, to get the land to grow lots more forests and trees, LOTS people need to stop eating beef/meat/dairy, or eat it much less often.
More cattle=less wilderness, less biodiversity, and higher CO2 levels. Period.
If GMO plants are unacceptable, how would it be more acceptable that meat grown in a factory is better for me than that raised on the hoof?
Also, Beyond Meat has gone from a high of over $200 a share to $11 today with market targets lowered from $20 to $12 a week or so ago. Many are skeptical of the plant based meat industry and that has investors and consumers worried. As a result, the plant based market is down. As you know, I've tried several products and I would say if you used it like tofu, it really isn't all that bad but I have read some opinions that plant based meats are not good for you. How will you overcome objections, especially after all the hype?
The next question is let's say everyone converted to plant based meat tomorrow. Would you say that half of the land cattle requires goes back toward farming? And finally, some doctors have said unprocessed, pastured beef is healthier when consumed in moderation than plant based alternatives, On the surface, it sounds like might be better just to reduce the amount of meat one eats.
It's a fascinating subject. Thank you for your presentation.
Your comment seems to be rooted in the naturalistic fallacy. Clean cultured meat produced using lab technology is healthier since it avoids the pathogens found in slaughtered animal flesh. Why do you think you have to cook it so thoroughly? Feces from the animal's intestines ends up on or in the meat. It also bypasses the problems of antibiotics and growth hormones found in slaughtered meat.
Beyond Meat fell victim to inflation. The "green premium" price difference suddenly became unacceptable to many consumers. The SWAP-MEAT study proved that plant based meat alternatives are healthier than slaughtered meat.
The most effective diet change (short of going vegan) for the environment would be to quit buying beef and dairy.
@@someguy2135 BYND is dying on the vine because of a lack of demand, not inflation.
@@someguy2135 There's more to it than simply to simply having to quit. For example, replacing a portion of your diet with fruits and lowering red meat intake can make a difference. For the biggest difference, changes in diet must be combined with other lifestyle changes.
Awesome!