Joseph Everett - WIL
10 HN recommenders · recommended in 11 months, 2021–2026
23:11 · 5.8M views · Apr 25, 2021
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.
HN commenters recommend it as a counterpoint to claims about beef's environmental cost, though some critique its methane argument.
17 comments from Hacker News
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
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.
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.
> 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.