Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why

This video changed my mind in the opposite direction. ▶ this video Stopping meat consumption would make a negligible difference in emissions. It's more valuable to focus on minimizing food waste instead.

I was much more concerned about my beef consumption before watching this WIL video. It put things in perspective for me. The efficiency of beef production in each country, how water and land use calculations are done, equivalent nutritional value compared to other crops was very interesting. It doesn't negate the moral problems with factory farming, but that wasn't the intent of the video. ▶ this video

I think you're overestimating that, probably because of vegan propaganda. Eg. A lot of the water you use for animals turns into milk or pee (or sweat?), and goes back to the cycle of water. I don't like posting videos but this one goes through several points: ▶ this video

Thats a simplification for a feel good narrative. Your source lists all land that grows anything but forest as agriculture land. Yet on large parts of those areas you cant do anything but pastures. Also, much of the cow feed isnt calories humans can process. Think byproducts of soy production. The youtube channel "What I've Learned" has a great video on it. ▶ this video What they dont mention is the large part livestock (especially cows an chicken) will have to play in producing soil from the dirt left behind after industrial agriculture. Regenerative agriculture is the term here, with rotating cows and chickens on degraded dirt patches to build top soil. All of this of course doesnt take away from the madness that is industrial meat production. But nothing has ever been solved by oversimplified narratives and action-ism.

Not true, live stock feed is mostly the husks and stalks of the plants that are inedible to humans, which if it weren't for livestock, would be discarded as waste. See this video for some more common misconceptions, if you're interested: ▶ this video Every plot of land used to grow crop represents countless animals that used to live there, and were wiped out by the farmer. Farmers constantly battle against pests, which too are animals, just trying to live. Vultures are often seen following combine harvesters, to prey on the corpses of field mice and other small mammals that get caught in the blades. Zero harm is a myth.

I disagree with this article and frustrated with those who try to push this narrative Here’s a 20 min video to show you why ▶ this video

> taking space that we now use for growing animal feed There was a recent Youtube video that explained how this isn't quite accurate: ▶ this video I'll save you the time (though you should watch it). 1. Much of the animal feed comes from agricultural byproducts. As an example, we eat corn on the cob, but much of the corn stalk is inedible to humans, but can be made into products for animals. 2. Much of the land used for animals is not suitable for growing crops. Some is, but it's not a 1:1 swapability factor.

YT channel What I've Learned goes in-depth into inflated carbon footprints like these and can explain it more concise than I can. ▶ this video

>90% less greenhouse emissions, 99% less water, and 93% less land This was a great video concerning those claims above.... ▶ this video

Misleading -- 94% of the water that's "used" to produce beef is just rainwater, see here: ▶ this video

“If the entirety of the US were to go vegan for a year, the reduction in GHG emissons would be 2.6%” ▶ this video I think cows get to much blame

at around 18:21 in ( ▶ this video ), the author claims that since cows produce methane (CH4) from grass that was built by metabolizing rainwater and atmospheric CO2, and methane is subsequently washed out over the course of a decade by being broken down to H2O and CO2. True, but methane is still a potent GHG even though a less persisting one than CO2. You cannot just show that there's a chemical cycle going on and then claim there's no environmental effect; without cows' burps, there would be one less source of intermittent atmospheric methane. You'd need at least one more factor to demonstrate it's irrelevant (like it's only a tiny fraction of all methane sources, or if we were to live without that many cattle we'd inevitably produce other GHG to keep us from starving or somesuch). Earlier in the video, it is claimed that the water footprint calculations one hears so often are calculated in a misleading way, since almost all of it is natural rainwater anyway, and secondly, it's almost completely urinated back onto the land within hours or a day anyway. I agree with that and want to add that I'm for this reason skeptical of many water footprint calculations. This site link seems to do a fairly good job at explaining the different water sources (surface, rain, tap) and detailing where the actual contention occurs. As far as cattle is concerned though, one thing the video glances over is that cow piss is not considered potable (though some cultures have been known to use it for di