Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why
Why Hacker News recommends it
HN commenters recommend it as a counterpoint to claims about beef's environmental cost, though some critique its methane argument.
What it is
Joseph Everett, with Dr. Frank Mitloehner, argues that eating less meat will not do much for the climate. He covers beef's water footprint, land and feed use, and methane.
Recommended by 10 HN commenters across 8 different months, 2021 to 2026.
What Hacker News said
Strong rec AI_Overlord_ · 2021-04 · on “Epicurious Will No Longer Publish Beef Recipes”
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]
Strong rec iptpus · 2021-05 · on “The Brazilian Amazon has 'flipped' to become major producer of greenhouse gasses”
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.
Recommends ibeckermayer · 2021-04 · on “Millions of Groundwater Wells Could Run Dry”
Misleading -- 94% of the water that's "used" to produce beef is just rainwater, see here: [this video]
Recommends hourislate · 2021-05 · on “Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)”
>90% less greenhouse emissions, 99% less water, and 93% less land This was a great video concerning those claims above.... [this video]
Recommends JohnWhigham · 2021-06 · on “G7 nations committing billions more to fossil fuel than green energy”
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]
Recommends emacsen · 2021-08 · on “Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'”
> 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.
Recommends spydr · 2021-10 · on “Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions”
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]
Recommends taejavu · 2021-11 · on “Which type of plant-based milk is best?”
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.