COWSPIRACY: the sustainability secret (or Meat Industry vs The World)

[moon]

Have you seen Cowspiracy?

I'm interested in starting a debate (or a discussion, to begin with) on whether rigorous (meaning normal in our world) meat consumption is really a sustainable way of living nowadays, or if we really SHOULD change our ways. Possibly become vegetarians or even vegans. Cowspiracy pretty much sums this up.

The World's largest environmental organizations are failing to address the single most destructive force facing the planet today. Follow the shocking, yet humorous, journey of an aspiring environmentalist, as he daringly seeks to find the real solution to the most pressing environmental issues and true path to sustainability.

Fancy yourself an environmentalist? Eat meat? Well, according to "Cowspiracy" it's time to either put your money where your mouth is and step away from that burger, or find another way to self-identify. The revelations made in this film are brutally inconvenient, for all types of eaters.

Whether you're a vegan, vegetarian, Meatless Monday supporter, pescetarian, or an organic-loving meat eater, after watching this film you'll be left thinking, a lot, about your everyday food choices and how those choices impact the sustainability of our planet.

This film has a simple thesis (based on reports by two international and independent institutions): What is being done about the impact of animal agriculture on our environment? The answers, or lack thereof, will astonish and bewilder you. If that isn't enough, the information presented about consequences of agribusiness and its direct relationship to the degradation of the environment on a global scale will make you think twice before reaching for that pork chop.

Looking past the Michael Moore-isms, sometimes-hyperbolic interviewees and the familiar outline of other progressive documentaries with an axe to grind, the facts are laid bare. The bottom line is that the ramifications of animal agriculture, as presented in this film, are not being adequately addressed by major environmental groups, the media, or the government, and finally someone has put together a cohesive collection of information for public viewing and opinion.

One of the films many gasp-worthy moments comes from a stated statistic: 75% of American's consider themselves environmentalists. Well, as the facts in this film prove, you can't be an environmentalist and eat animals, or fish. Less than 3% of Americans are vegan.

This documentary isn't about discounting the efficacy of environmental groups, government-funded environmental initiatives, nor is it vegan propaganda; it's about bringing further awareness to how our everyday choices impact the environment. Some things to remember (despite what might be indirectly suggested at times during the film): 1) All environmental issues are important, 2) Every little bit that one does for the environment counts, and 3) the impact of agribusiness on the environment deserves more consideration.

The film ends far from where it begins, and on the 85-minute journey you'll experience many harsh realities, but several soft ones too. If you're an environmentally conscious person, you'll go into this film thinking, "I'm good. I'm doing my part."—If only it were that simple. If you're a vegetarian, get ready for a shock in terms of your negative environmental impact; pescetarians (ugh)—enough said; and eaters of grass-fed beef, free-range chickens and/or pigs, you will not be able to justify the negative impact your food choices have on the environment and the rest of us. Even being a vegan doesn't exempt you from contributing to meat consumption. How? Well, you'll just have to see the film and find out.

If you have seen it, has it changed your views on meat consumption? Or did you know about this already but chose to keep eating meat? Or do you perhaps not believe what the film makers are claiming?

If you haven't seen it, are you aware of how much meat industry (especially beef) are ruining our environment and hastening the climate changes? Or do you perhaps not believe that meat industry could possibly be so harmful?


You can read some about the movie and facts behind it here: https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

Note that myself, I'm not even sure of what I think about the movie. It really got me thinking and I have been eating less meat since. But I am not completely comfortable with becoming a vegan, as there are many differing studies and reports suggesting that you actually do need proteins and stuff from meat in order to grow and live properly. But vegans and vegetarians do live long lives too, from what I have seen... So I guess it would mostly be for the sake of the environment I'd cut down on meat. Because that's pretty darn important, especially if it's as bad as Cowspiracy makes it out to be.​

 

[gimmepie]

I'l have to do some further research later, but I don't think animal agriculture is the biggest concern in regards to environmentalism. Certainly here in Australia at least, we aren't constantly producing more farmland or anything and animals are a renewable resource, we aren't about to run out of cows.

I think bigger problems are deforestation because of population increases, business developments and the logging industry and of course, our use of fossil fuels as a power source and the related carbon emissions.

 

[moon]

I'l have to do some further research later, but I don't think animal agriculture is the biggest concern in regards to environmentalism. Certainly here in Australia at least, we aren't constantly producing more farmland or anything and animals are a renewable resource, we aren't about to run out of cows.

Animals are indeed a "renewable" resource, but the problem isn't that. The problem is actually mainly that cows produce so much methane gas that it's responsible for a bigger part of global warming than many know (or want to acknowledge, apparently). Also:

I think bigger problems are deforestation because of population increases, business developments and the logging industry and of course, our use of fossil fuels as a power source and the related carbon emissions.

This is quoted from wikipedia even: "Deforestation, clearance or clearing is the removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is thereafter converted to a non-forest use.[1] Examples of deforestation include conversion of forestland to farms, ranches, or urban use."

So basically a lot of deforestation is done in order to produce more farmland. Which means more cattle. Which means more global warming. Deforestation is part of the problem at hand. I think in the movie they also mention that a lot of deforestation is done to give more area to grow soy and other produce that we use as food for cattle... While we could just be eating it ourselves instead of going the long way around through animals (who don't even convert a large percentage of the energy in soy to what we get out of eating their meat).

 

[gimmepie]

Animals are indeed a "renewable" resource, but the problem isn't that. The problem is actually mainly that cows produce so much methane gas that it's responsible for a bigger part of global warming than many know (or want to acknowledge, apparently).

They do yes, but that's not nearly as bad for the environment as an excess of carbon dioxide or monoxide, or nuclear waste. Besides, the cow population is somewhat controlled by our eating of them. If we stopped eating them we'd have to cull them, so we might as well at least use the dead cows.

This is quoted from wikipedia even: "Deforestation, clearance or clearing is the removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is thereafter converted to a non-forest use.[1] Examples of deforestation include conversion of forestland to farms, ranches, or urban use."

So basically a lot of deforestation is done in order to produce more farmland. Which means more cattle. Which means more global warming. Deforestation is part of the problem at hand. I think in the movie they also mention that a lot of deforestation is done to give more area to grow soy and other produce that we use as food for cattle... While we could just be eating it ourselves instead of going the long way around through animals (who don't even convert a large percentage of the energy in soy to what we get out of eating their meat).

I never said that deforestation for farmland isn't a thing, I just doubt it's as significant contributor to environmental destruction as the things I listed earlier. Also, just because the creation of farmland is listed as an aspect of deforestation in the definition, you shouldn't assume that automatically makes it particularly significant. Killing for food is still killing, but it's not quite as significant as a murder for example.

 

[moon]

They do yes, but that's not nearly as bad for the environment as an excess of carbon dioxide or monoxide, or nuclear waste. Besides, the cow population is somewhat controlled by our eating of them. If we stopped eating them we'd have to cull them, so we might as well at least use the dead cows.

Isn't it? That depends on what studies you consult, perhaps. From Cowspiracy creators' research, we can read:

"Reducing methane emissions would create tangible benefits almost immediately."
- U.N. Press Release, Climate Summit 2014.

"Animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation."

"Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions."

"Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas. Once emitted, methane remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is about 21 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100 year period." Another study estimates methane as being 25-100 times more effective over a 20 year period.

Livestock activities contribute considerable amounts of all three greenhouse gases (CO2, nitrous oxide, methane).

"US Methane emissions from livestock and natural gas are nearly equal."

"Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2 limit by 2030, all from raising animals."


and so on. Take note that I have learned most of this from the movie and related sources - before I watched it I really had never payed much attention to whether meat and diary production (and related activities) affected the climate much or not. They didn't teach me this in school. So I am wondering how trustworthy Cowspiracy's sources are - however, I have little reason to doubt the interesting interviews with dodgy organizations they showed us.

 

[gimmepie]

Isn't it? That depends on what studies you consult, perhaps. From Cowspiracy creators' research, we can read:

"Reducing methane emissions would create tangible benefits almost immediately."
- U.N. Press Release, Climate Summit 2014.

"Animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation."

"Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions."

"Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas. Once emitted, methane remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is about 21 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100 year period." Another study estimates methane as being 25-100 times more effective over a 20 year period.

Livestock activities contribute considerable amounts of all three greenhouse gases (CO2, nitrous oxide, methane).

"US Methane emissions from livestock and natural gas are nearly equal."

"Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2 limit by 2030, all from raising animals."


and so on. Take note that I have learned most of this from the movie and related sources - before I watched it I really had never payed much attention to whether meat and diary production (and related activities) affected the climate much or not. They didn't teach me this in school. So I am wondering how trustworthy Cowspiracy's sources are - however, I have little reason to doubt the interesting interviews with dodgy organizations they showed us.

You might be right about the methane actually, it's twanging strings in my memory. I still think though that common logic says that simply not eating meat is not going to be of much benefit to the environment.

 

[Nah]

I sure as **** ain't gonna stop eating meat, environmental degradation or no.

The movie's goal is probably just simply to raise awareness on this particular issue, but awareness means little if action isn't taken in response (with the ultimate action here being everyone stops eating meat/the meat industry shuts down). But no action will be taken. Besides the fact that the majority of people only every superficially care about anything (that doesn't have a significant direct impact on them) or are just armchair activists, there's a fair bit of $$$ to be made in the meat industry. And because of that nothing will happen. It's like how cigarette companies are still going strong after decades of people knowing that cigarettes and such are awful for your health; there's too much money involved.

That said, is there not anything else that can be done to perhaps mitigate the effects the meat industry has on the environment?

 

[gimmepie]

That said, is there not anything else that can be done to perhaps mitigate the effects the meat industry has on the environment?

Making an effort on other fronts is probably the best help anything could be I'd say.

 

[Kanzler]

Beef isn't the only kind of meat out there. Why not encourage the consumption of pork, chicken, and fish? Beef is like the go-to meat for white people everywhere, and releases one of the highest amounts of emissions, pound for pound. But there's so much potential in other meats - pork for its taste, and chicken and fish for their healthfulness.

Anyways this is a field where your high school chemistry knowledge comes into play. What is the relative contribution of individual greenhouse gasses to global warming? Is this calculated in terms of mass or moles or CO2 mass equivalents? Because methane is a much lighter particle than carbon dioxide, 1kg of CH4 contains about 2.7 more particles than 1kg of CO2. And if it's already calculated in terms of CO2 mass equivalents, then you don't need to do any more math in order to make a direct comparison.

According to a report from the IPCC in 2014: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf, on page 7 of the document there is a graph that compares the relative contribution of greenhouse gasses in terms of gigaton of CO2 equivalent per year. Methane makes up about 16% of the global contribution of greenhouse gasses to global warming, so even though it's the second most important greenhouse gas, it's a far cry from being as important as CO2 (65%). Pikachu cites a contribution of 18%, which is similar enough.

It seems to me that reducing the consumption of meat wouldn't be as effective as reducing CO2 emissions, and let's face it, if we're considering ending our consumption of tasty animals, we'd want to ensure we're getting a significant benefit from it. If the entire world cut their meat consumption by 50% (which likely isn't going to happen, probably over the course of hundreds of years if it does), we would only reduce the impact of our emissions by 8 or 9%. The EU has reduced its emissions levels over 20% over the course of 25 years, so I daresay that reductions in meat consumption did not play a big role in that. Actually, meat consumption there has been increasing over the past 10 years (with the noticeable exception of beef).

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I feel that like Blackfish, this is nothing more than a propaganda film for vegans to convert viewers into vegan themselves by using methane as a culprit, which is latter debunked by Kanzler's post. Besides, isn't the lack of trees and algae that absorb greenhouse gas due to deforestation and water pollution the true cause of Global Warming?

 

[twocows]

Somehow I doubt that radical vegan "environmentalists" are going to present a fair and unbiased picture of the effects of the meat industry on the environment.

 

[Somewhere_]

I know the facts lead to that we should stop eating meat and producing it. But hamburgers with bacon.