Video

Transcript

Food is arguably the best thing about being alive. No other bodily pleasure is

enjoyed multiple times every day and never gets old. It is an expression of culture,

our parents’ love and a means of celebration or comfort.

That’s why it hits a special nerve when we are told we should change what and how we eat to

fight rapid climate change. One of the most delicious foods, meat gets the worst press.

It doesn’t help that the topic is really hard to properly research yourself

and debates get emotional quickly. But clearly science can give us an answer!

The reality is, well, it’s complicated.

Let’s take a look at three climate arguments against

meat that are used a lot and see what happens.

Does our Diet REALLY play that big a role in climate change?

Feeding billions of people is impossible without causing emissions. Even if someday we have

zero-carbon tractors, refrigerators and cookers running on renewable energy and electric trucks

to move our food, there are still unavoidable emissions. Rice emits methane. We cut down forests

to make room for pastures and crops. And we emit nitrous oxide when we use fertilizers and manure.

Worldwide food production is responsible for about 26% of all human-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Which is unfortunate, since food is not optional. While 26% doesn’t sound THAT bad

it means that even if we extinguished all other sources of emissions today,

the emissions from food alone would still use up our entire carbon budget by 2100.

So no matter how we twist and turn it, food is a real driver of climate change.

Still, emissions from different food items vary a lot.

How do things look when we compare their footprints separately?

Foods’ climate impact is most often based on “life cycle assessments”:

an analysis that looks at all the emissions of a product throughout its existence,

from production to transportation, packaging, use and waste management.

In the most detailed meta analysis of life cycle assessments to date, beef emissions

stand out at the top. On average, a kilogram of beef emits 71 kilograms of CO2 equivalents.

Lamb is also high, at 40 kilograms. Pork emits 12 and poultry 10 kilograms. At the bottom we

have lots of plant-based foods: Potatoes, for example,emit around 150 times less than beef.

The most important aspect of food isn’t weight though,it’s nutrient density. A kilogram of beef

would keep you alive much longer than a kilogram of potatoes– so how does the ranking change

if we compare emissions per calorie or protein? Not much. Animal protein is still the most

costly for the environment and beef and lamb are also outliers in emissions per calorie.

But is this fair? After all, not all beef is the same. There are all sorts of ways to rear cattle,

from pure grass fed to factory farming. The worst beef comes in at 105 kilograms

of emissions per 100 grams of protein – the best at only 9 – a tenfold difference.

In contrast, most other foods, especially plant based,

have a much narrower spectrum. Still, the best beef is worse than the worst plant.

Ok but this seems promising – can we buy the right beef and lower our emissions?

Maybe by buying locally produced beef to minimize our footprint?

2. Does Buying Local Food Actually Matter?

Let us stick with beef since it is such an outlier.

By buying locally, you are trying to avoid emissions from transportation and packaging.

But it turns out these only account for 0.5 to 2% of beef’s total emissions.

Actually, transport and packaging combined are only about 11% of all food emissions.

Nearly all food transport emissions are produced over the last few miles,

the regional travel on the road supplying the markets and shops in your area.

International food transport happens mostly on freight ships, which are insanely efficient.

For example, shipping one kilogram of avocados from South America to Europe

generates about 0.3 kilograms of CO2 equivalents in transport emissions

and around 2.5 kilograms overall – while one kilogram of beef from your local butcher will

come in at 18 kg in CO2 equivalents at least . So even when shipped great distances, emissions

from almost all plant-based foods cause lower emissions than locally produced animal products.

Ok, so if transport doesn’t play a big role,

what causes the vast amounts of emissions from beef then?

By far the largest share of beef emissions consists of methane released directly by the

animals. While CO2 hangs around for centuries, methane only stays in the atmosphere for decades.

But in these short periods, it is very powerful. All in all, methane has already caused 23 to 40%

of human-made warming so far. There is controversy about how bad this is exactly and we don’t want

to dive in too deep here – but the way things stand, any kinds of extra emissions are not great.

Still – all cows burp and fart to similar degrees – what explains the spectrum of beef emissions?

There are a couple things:

It makes a difference if the beef comes from a dairy herd or one dedicated to beef production.

44% of the world’s beef comes from dairy cows, sharing its footprint with dairy products. Dairy

cows tend to get higher quality feed, which makes them grow faster and emit less methane.

Geography also plays a role, because it determines which farming methods are possible.

The worst factor by far is the destruction of forests for farmland. Not only does this

release the CO2 that was bound in the flora, it sets free carbon that was

stored in the soil and destroys its ability to store it in the future.

This aspect accounts for much of the range of emissions in beef:

the worst emitters are farms burning down rainforest for farmland, especially in Brazil.

There is a sinister truth hidden here: The more animals suffer, the better they are in

terms of climate change because they are way more efficient. They use less land and their food is

brought right to them, and so they grow faster and don’t expend energy on things like walking.

Cattle in a factory farm that never get to roam pastures can sometimes be less destructive for

the climate than cattle grazing peacefully on a formally lush piece of rainforest.

But isn’t it a bit out of touch with reality to demonize cows so much?

Some of the land these animals are grazing on isn’t suitable for crops anyway.

By grazing on pastures they can turn things we can’t digest

into food. Isn’t farming animals just a smart way to make the best use of unused resources?

#3 Don’t Cows mainly use Land that we can’t use for agriculture or other things?

About half of the world’s ice- and desert-free land is used for agriculture, an area the size

of the entire Americas plus China. Half of all agriculturally used land is dedicated to animals.

Most of it is grassland, 65% of which can not be converted to cropland, so pasturing animals is

actually a very efficient way to use those areas, since we can’t grow human food there anyway.

There are a couple of catches here though.

While the idea of cows turning useless grass into steak is nice, it is a marketing lie.

Even though it is so massive, pastureland alone can’t support the ruminants living on it.

Globally, grazing systems sustain only 13% of beef production. So if we were to switch to 100%

grass fed, we’d simply have to eat much less beef – in the US

beef production would crash by some 70% if it were to exclusively rely on grass.

The only way to sustain our high demand for meat is by growing crops and feeding them to our

cattle. And we haven’t even talked about chickens and pigs, who exclusively eat feed crops .

Because of this feed demand, less than half of the world’s cereals are used directly as human food.

41% is fed to animals. The same is true for soy. There is a lot of talk about Amazon

deforestation for soy production, which makes us think of soy milk and tofu. But only 19%

of global soy production goes towards products for humans. About 77% is used to feed animals.

Besides, land without food crops isn’t automatically ecologically useless.

A beef free diet would free up around 2 billion hectares, a vegan diet would

free up around 3 billion hectares of land. We could use this land to grow forests or restore

wild grasslands – basically anything that could suck carbon out of the atmosphere. If we spared

3 billion hectares of land, it could remove about 800 billion tonnes of CO2 from the air over 100

years. By comparison we emit about 50 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year at the moment.

Ok to summarize.

Food is a huge driver of emissions. Meat but especially beef is the worst food in

terms of emissions. Buying locally does not have a big impact on food emissions

compared to the type of food you are consuming. When it comes to beef,

cattle that are grass fed can sometimes even be counterproductive because they just need

much more land. Even if you find the most environmentally-friendly beef in the world,

your burger still comes with a significantly higher carbon footprint than a veggie pattie.

You can decide for yourself what you want to do with this information.

In fact, you are always only one decision away from making a change.

You could start learning a new skill or dive into a new interest today – it’s up to you. If only

that first step wasn’t so hard to take. We have something for you to make it a little easier.

We are big fans of Skillshare, an online learning community that offers thousands

of classes for all skill levels in tons of creative disciplines like Illustration,

Animation, or Film and Video. There is something for everyone really.

Unlimited access to all the classes is less than ten dollars a month with

an annual premium membership. The first 1,000 kurzgesagt viewers to

click the link in the description will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare.

Since we started working with Skillshare, you, our viewers, have taken over 100,000 hours of

classes – including our own three Skillshare classes on how we make our animations!

In them you will learn all the basics like how to set up your project and layers,

but also more details about how we work with tools and timing. You will get to re-create

typical Kurzgesagt scenes with our very own illustrations and get a sneak-peak into the

work process of our animators. If you’ve always been curious about Animation, give it a try.

But anything that makes you feel excited and sparks new ideas is a great first step.

If you want to get creative with new skills and support kurzgesagt, give it a go.