27 Mar 16
Have you watched this documentary?
It came out in 2014, financially backed by Leonardo DiCaprio.
It makes lots of assertions, primarily that the meat industry has a hidden environmental cost which Greenpeace ignore for contributions & protesters or activists are murdered to silence in America.
Are these things known to you / believed by you/ verified anywhere else to you?
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by yo its meI have not watched the documentary. The environmental cost of meat is not exactly 'hidden' and has been known for a long time. It is however not a universal cost, ie there are sustainable ways to raise livestock and if done right, meat production can be environmentally sound if not essential for good soil management.
It makes lots of assertions, primarily that the meat industry has a hidden environmental cost which Greenpeace ignore for contributions & protesters or activists are murdered to silence in America.
Are these things known to you / believed by you/ verified anywhere else to you?
I know nothing about Greenpeace or US activist murders.
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you have Netflix? If so would you watch it if you get a spare afternoon?
I have not watched the documentary. The environmental cost of meat is not exactly 'hidden' and has been known for a long time. It is however not a universal cost, ie there are sustainable ways to raise livestock and if done right, meat production can be environmentally sound if not essential for good soil management.
I know nothing about Greenpeace or US activist murders.
Greenpeace wrote a response on their site.
The maths in the program seamed sound and calculated meat isn't sustainable mainly because population is growing too rapidly.
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by shavixmirWell yes, it overall advocated going vegan.
Is it vegan based? If so, I can't watch it, for those people throw me into fits of rage.
I eat fish, eggs, cheese, butter and put milk into or on things. Going vegan would be difficult, but not impossible.
Fits of rage because their dedication appears imposed onto you or something else?
If its because you don't understand their logic then maybe you would after watching the film?!
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by yo its meNo, I am afraid not, and the site for the documentary charges to watch it. It did have a short 'facts' video which was not very informative.
Do you have Netflix?
The maths in the program seamed sound and calculated meat isn't sustainable mainly because population is growing too rapidly.
It is a fact that the world cannot eat as much meat as the average American without devastating environmental consequences.
It is also a fact that a significant proportion of the worlds deforestation is in order to support meat production.
It is also a fact that agriculture and changing land use in general is a major contributor to global warming.
It is also a fact that none of this is new information (I have known about it for twenty years or more.)
Here in Africa, and in fact in many semi-arid parts of the world, proper livestock management can significantly improve soils. In addition, the biggest causes of poor soil management here are not meat production but poorly managed crop production.
I have seen claims that proper use of livestock for improved soil carbon could reverse global warming by sequestering the excess carbon in the soils.
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI hadn't heard it before, that I remember anyway. I read the occasional geographic mag, WWF email & Greenpeace news feeds on Facebook. And it largely gives confusing and changing information: fossil fuel consumption, palm oil production, logging as main factors- or not even saying they're mains just factors.
No, I am afraid not, and the site for the documentary charges to watch it. It did have a short 'facts' video which was not very informative.
[b]The maths in the program seamed sound and calculated meat isn't sustainable mainly because population is growing too rapidly.
It is a fact that the world cannot eat as much meat as the average American wit ...[text shortened]... mproved soil carbon could reverse global warming by sequestering the excess carbon in the soils.[/b]
Is the soil carbon from animal waste?
What about all the other things soil is made from though, like specific nutrients particular plants use up- my aunt grows her own food & she rotates the veg that take one thing with the plant that replaces it the next time- is that what you mean by management?
Feels like I haven't learnt basic things that are important when I watch documentaries like this one! And feels like the government bodies are way too worried about money in the short-term to plan ahead.
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by yo its meWWF and Greenpeace are somewhat biased organizations which fixate on particular issues.
I hadn't heard it before, that I remember anyway. I read the occasional geographic mag, WWF email & Greenpeace news feeds on Facebook. And it largely gives confusing and changing information: fossil fuel consumption, palm oil production, logging as main factors- or not even saying they're mains just factors.
Is the soil carbon from animal waste?
In part yes. Animals play a role in loosening soil and providing manure which encourages plant growth which results in higher soil carbon. Its a bit more detailed than that, but overall, healthy soils require animals.
What about all the other things soil is made from though, like specific nutrients particular plants use up- my aunt grows her own food & she rotates the veg that take one thing with the plant that replaces it the next time- is that what you mean by management?
Crop rotation helps as do other practices such as no-till.
Feels like I haven't learnt basic things that are important when I watch documentaries like this one! And feels like the government bodies are way too worried about money in the short-term to plan ahead.
That is a result of political systems that encourage short term thinking and GDP over everything else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png
Land use an agriculture make up a significant proportion of greenhouse gas production. They could instead by net absorbers.
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by yo its meNo, it's because they spam me with garbage like:
Well yes, it overall advocated going vegan.
I eat fish, eggs, cheese, butter and put milk into or on things. Going vegan would be difficult, but not impossible.
Fits of rage because their dedication appears imposed onto you or something else?
If its because you don't understand their logic then maybe you would after watching the film?!
Milk = cow rape
And that 'the business' calls it the rape rack (which it doesn't, the term was invented by vegans).
Little things like that...
28 Mar 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou make good points. The major reason that almost no source is "sustainable" is recent population growth say the last century. Fortunately, most of the first world and a large part of the second are at or near zero population growth, with more moving in that direction. If that progress continues, then those dire scenarios will not materialize. Besides that reclaiming unproductive land, such as most of the interior of your Continent, much of Africa, and South America which are potentially perfect agricultural areas, based on climate. Much of the mid-western "breadbasket of America" was originally deemed unsuitable for agriculture. Modern farming techniques have turned a lot of that around, and more is coming.
No, I am afraid not, and the site for the documentary charges to watch it. It did have a short 'facts' video which was not very informative.
[b]The maths in the program seamed sound and calculated meat isn't sustainable mainly because population is growing too rapidly.
It is a fact that the world cannot eat as much meat as the average American wit ...[text shortened]... mproved soil carbon could reverse global warming by sequestering the excess carbon in the soils.[/b]
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadHave you seen documentaries on vertical farming? Fields are built, and multiple layers are created with "topsoil" on every layer. Rotation, as well as irrigation, and scientific fertilization make these vertical farms extremely productive for the acreage they use.
WWF and Greenpeace are somewhat biased organizations which fixate on particular issues.
[b]Is the soil carbon from animal waste?
In part yes. Animals play a role in loosening soil and providing manure which encourages plant growth which results in higher soil carbon. Its a bit more detailed than that, but overall, healthy soils require animals.
...[text shortened]... e up a significant proportion of greenhouse gas production. They could instead by net absorbers.[/b]