NEW VIDEO: Is Meat REALLY Bad For The Climate?

Great video! I agree that meat produces pollution. I am willing to cut back in many areas of my lifestyle, although my food isn’t one of them. I think this video states that very nicely in the beginning, pointing out that this is many peoples issue.

Wanted to point out that the animals that historically grazed in the areas that are now high-density cattle farms would not have the same carbon output. Cows that are raised for slaughter are generally raised at a much higher density (more animals per sqft) and eat more than the animals that historically grazed there (generally much smaller mammals). Food waste is a crucial part of the equation, to be sure, and I don't want to cut you down! You make some excellent points; I only want to say cattle farming here in the USA has dramatically higher carbon output than the historical grazers in those areas.

garshtoshteles

I enjoyed the video but I felt it fell short on other things that would be less bias against meat. For example they ignored that cattle ultimately are not used just for food and the alternatives are more damaging (e.g. leather vs polyurethane and plastics which creates more waste and has a short shelf life). The other thing they seem to not address is that just because you remove cow farming doesn’t eliminate carbon emissions, the animals eliminated to create the farms and protect cattle, would have naturally lived in those spots, they would replace the cattle if we stoped farming so the carbon would probably stay the same. The only benefit would be from the trees that would grow back if possible for the affected area. The other part was the system of food waste that humans produce that they automatically feed cattle. I am not for cutting down forest for cattle I feel that is unnecessary at this point. But fixing the overall system while keeping food health and unprocessed, and reducing the mass amounts of food wastage, is just as important. I am worried sometimes when fixing one problem it is too easy to ignore everything and everyone it will effect in the process, and that the answer isn’t cut and dry. For example you may elimate cows but doesn’t mean people won’t substitute for other animal sources ie. fish which could lead to far bigger circumstances over fishing, or dietary problems.

Hyspin

First topic, first panel: I think all three of these problems stem from the fact that we try to create food in basically ancient ways. Cutting down forests, reserving huge areas for livestock or crop growths and using ever more fertiliser to make it all work. Some people still call this 'natural' food production and despise the usage of green house complexes or even more advanced and modern technologies like hydroponics. In my opinion we won't go anywhere, unless we start modernising how we actually grow the food. Shrinking the areas needed by producing in closed and completely controlled environment enables us to afforest huge areas and reduce the amount of fertiliser that gets into the environment to a minimum. But this won't happen until the governments stop to subsidise these practises and rather invest the money into fresh and sustainable ideas...

Thorben Menne

I saw that too, and now I'm afraid to reopen the video to finish it because I don't want to skew the results towards "meat hate", and then end up accidentally contributing to a future video where they say "Look how much better 'Meat Hate' did! It means people prefer angry videos!"

William Molls

I loved this video. Would love to hear your thoughts on a No Mammal Diet based on the data from that video. 1. Its less cruel. Mammals are the animals that produce milk and use the milk from their bodies to feed their young. They include humans, monkeys, dogs, cats, dolphins, whales, pigs, cows, lamb and many other animals that care for their young. Mammals have the most well developed brains of all animals, brains most similiar to our own brains, brains that utilize a great deal of energy, and mammals demonstrate traits such as empathy and altruism. Mammals DO NOT include chicken, turkey or any of the commonly consumed sea food. 2. Its much better for the environment. Many studies have shown that beef, lamb and pork are the biggest contributors to global warming and if we just gave up those three foods, the planet would be much better off. Studies also showed that of all the meats, chicken has the least negative environmental impact. 3. I am not particularly relgious but it is nice that this diet is inclusive of all the major cultures and religions. For example, Hindus consider eating beef a sin and Muslims consider eating pork a sin.

Vikram Vaka

I saw you changed the title from “Meat Love” to “Meat Hate”. I know creators often change the title to see which one does best in attracting viewers. As a “non-creator” I’d kinda be interested in that too, if you feel like divulging that information!

Ken Board

My take is they tried to limit themselves to quantitative comparisons for this video. Animal ethics, as well as meat consumption affects on physical performance, mental performance, and spiritual wellbeing are all hard to measure and are not included.

Victor H.

yeah I suppose that makes sense, but I still think they should have acknowledged in the video that climate change isn't the only factor against meat.

Tom

Also, they will grab more people with that title than with a title that mentions climate change. Half the country would be averse to even clicking on it.

Gleb Mordovskoi

There are other Kurzgesagt videos on meat, too, Tom.

Martin Downs

Kurzgesagt as always you did a fantastic job of researching the topic. But why did you call the youtube video "Is meat really that bad?", when you're only talking about the climate side of things? It makes it seem like you're largely dismissing the animal ethics side of things, and to me this is by far the most compelling argument against meat.

Tom

Truly love these videos Thank you so much.

ghostman

This should be mandatory viewing for folks on all sides of this debate. Thank you!!!

Santiago Perez

Sometimes... then with other products it's just to access cheaper labor.

Crissa Kentavr

Yeah, there are other reasons - like being more sure that products produced locally have a lower footprint and aren't replacing rainforest. Some ecologies benefits from grazing, which helps create firebreaks and keep open areas open and fuel loads lower.

Crissa Kentavr

Wonderful video! Probably the most comprehensive and well explained out there. I've been sharing it but here in Spain a lot of people require spanish subtitles in order to properly understand the content. I've been checking and most of the previous videos have subtitles in other languages (spanish in particular), so I suppose it's only a matter of time. Just in case I would like to ask, are spanish subtitles on the way? Thank you for all your scientific dissemination and specially your focus in climate change! Proud to be a patreon of this channel!

Jose Gomez de la Varga

It depends. Ship transport is cheap. But your country may have higher agricultural standards regarding to i.e. soil degradation/deforestation. Also you have to transports stuff to ship first. Usually by cars. And then ships it from ports to your supermarket.

Filias

I was honestly shocked to see that buying local meat was not necessarily better at reducing carbon emissions. This makes me wonder what other local goods may not be necessarily better than other globally shipped goods in regards to emission levels. Sometimes things are way too oversimplified which makes it easy to be lulled into a false sense of security. Thanks for the great video! :)

Michael Brito

Check out the YT video "The Incredible Logistics of Grocery Stores" by Wendover Productions. It does a great job explaining why modern grocery stores ship in fruits and veggies from different locations over the year. At least from a North American perspective. Bottom line, it's about providing year-round availability of foods that have a specific harvesting season.

John H Martin

Overpriced? Maybe. Overrated? Never! But I would prefer if it were made in a vat, using artificial photosynthesis and CO2 from air.

Dragi Raos

The big surprise for me was the small carbon footprint of vegetables shipped from South America to Europe. I always disapproved the onions from South America here in the store because they grow perfectly here. No need to ship them around the globe. Now I am confused whether it actually makes a difference, if the major CO2 footprint is the shared, last mile.

Iva

I'm a bit surprised by your local VS container at 4:42 carbon emission comparaison : it undermiens the fact that to go in and out of the container, the product has to do truck transport as well. Avocados aren't ships to our houses via containers directly, especially in middle land 🤔

X-Raym

Because there were two videos about meat released before? "Is meat unhealthy?" and "Meat" (may be called differently, I see the English thumbnail but German subtitle in the list).

Iva

Good video! Thanks. The subject seems quite familiar for this channel, though...

Forodriac Origamius

thank you for this video! 💚🌱

Dan Kniebűgl

Kurzgesagt, thank you so much for this video! I keep stressing to folks that the land usage aspect is the most egregious environmental damage from animal agriculture. It's effectively an opportunity cost on CO2 sequestration, and we'd have a much easier time hitting the 1.5 C limit by replacing animal agriculture. Animals are just fundamentally inefficient tech, and we'll do so much better with plant and fermentation-based technology. I'm excited to pass this video around--you've explained it so well. And you've thankfully refuted the regenerative animal agriculture argument. Finally, you guys have come a long way from your perplexing, anodyne conclusion in the video about the ethics of eating meat. Cheers and proud of you guys!

Sherbert

Steak is over rated anyway.

Bester