The Fallacy of Sustainable Meat

mate. Where would we be without it?

It is Sunday afternoon, and you have in the family

ever for a barbecue.

Everyone's happy and bonding over the delicious results with stakes

frying up.

Then someone offers you an organic vegan vegetable petty as

a substitute to the meat currently fry up and you

think to yourself, This is ridiculous.

Just enjoy the normal mate.

This is a constant train of thought that many of

us have experienced.

There is something inherently primal in the consumption of meat

for many of us, and we would be, it would

be it would be remiss to think that we didn't

a great deal to me.

Sustainable agriculture is pivotal to the sustainable growth for the

planet, and ensuring an environmental damage is minimised.

The beef industry, in particular, is responsible for environmental destruction.

So you must see and ask ourselves what can be

done to help alleviate this?

And what is the future for the meat industry?

A consumption of meat began as soon as we stop

swinging from the trees of sub Saharan Africa, but it

really became inaccessible commodity to many of us at the

advent off the wonderful Green Revolution so much of human

history. Much of the world's land was rudeness.

Forests and grasslands dominated the landscape.

But over the lost few centuries, this has changed dramatically.

As the 1st 2nd and third green revolutions began as

grain and rice production became more efficient, land cleared up

for the expansion of agriculture, which has now become humanity's

largest impact on the environment.

I lost for more efficient land use techniques, hurried extinction,

millions of species and it isn't looking to stop.

The green revolution was good for the global economy and

show, and it didn't show up.

Food production and output could increase to feed the world

starving population.

And we do know, see a world where world hunger

is only a fraction of what was initially now 29%

of the waters land, with 71% of it habitable off

That 71% 50% is used for agriculture.

Off that 50% 77% is used.

Flash stock, 26% of Earth land area and which is

consumption of ledge.

The calorie content of meat in a diet is only

18% compared to the 82% from plant based arts it

is not economical in a land based approach to farm

livestock, it damages the environment, consumes a great size of

agricultural lynch in a while, providing a fraction of the

calories in approaching.

We get from food minimal to start, some more damaging.

For the meat industry to create one kilogram of steak,

a typical beef cattle needs to consume 25 killers of

grain, and a whopping 15,000 liters of water is estimated.

With that amount of resources, we could nourish an additional

3.5 billion people a year, if only we ate the

plant based foods that we give to these animals.

The environmental impacts of today's main industry is astounding, as

well as accounting for a huge chunk of global greenhouse

gas emissions.

70% of all fresh water that is extracted is used

for agricultural went, and another statistic that is not often

mentioned is a global ocean pollution that is being caused

to this day.

A whopping 78% of global ocean pollution is from the

food business.

When we look at ocean pollution, we often think of

polluting gas and oil giants such as BP rear genter,

but not much he's ever said about the Agra busy

agribusinesses. Impact on the environment.

Sure, it is talked about, and there has been Law

was implemented by the Queensland state government.

But when we think of ocean pollution, we drew often

think about oil companies 94% off.

Memo by Mess is from the animal industry and is

not going away any time soon.

And all this is just looking at it from a

database standpoint, without incineration off the huge ethical boat off

killing billions of animals a year.

All of this is terrible for the environment or that

could be predicted.

This is early looking to get worse.

Did you know that one of the strongest determines how

much meat people eat is how rich they are?

This is true when we make cross country comparisons.

When the relationship between per capita meat supply an average

GDP per capita is examined, it is easy to see

a strong relationship between wealth and the amount of meat

someone normally eats as a both.

The planet continues to grow exponentially with a middle closet

is growing out of control, especially in Asia.

It can be understood why there is a court of

panic as a meet demand is sure to continue to

rise. The ethical dilemma of killing billions of animals is

also out of control, with numbers skyrocketing each year.

Right now is estimated that we kill one billion sheep,

one billion pigs, 1.5 billion cattle and a whopping 23

billion chickens a year.

These numbers a huge and they've early doubled in the

last 20 years.

The ship Me thing production that is ramping up increasing

cattle farming is particularly particularly unsustainable.

Has been currently credited as one of the main causes

for man made climate change.

Every country is seeing huge growth in the consumption of

animals. New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, the US,

Canada, Iceland, the UK, Nigeria, Turkey, Russia, China, India actually

know India.

Man, the world has seemed to me is not society,

and animals are being forced into increasingly inhumane conditions to

meet demands and to find the quarters.

The answer conditions Animals appointed to means that rights of

affection from close contact with each other is high.

Antibiotics are important tool to treat animals with disease, with

any where they put the fruit of all cattle on

a daily basis.

This is impacts on human, animal and environmental health as

up to 90% off the antibiotic parent compounds can be

directly excreted, and this can lead to antibiotic resistance developing

in the environment.

It is estimated that 73% of antibiotics use worldwide are

consumed by kettle.

This is a huge threat, as any biotic resistance is

considered to be a serious threat to the future of

the human race, as Angie Byron resistant bacteria increases the

numbers of anybody resistant infections.

There is good news for this, though, as any Brianna

Hughes and cattle farming has been banned in Europe and

assigned to see you come in the USA, this isn't

it, not the case for South America, Australia and Asia.

With a current growth in beef farming worldwide, though, is

likely. This wish issue will continue to persist.

It brings for the notion that while what is going

on is terrible for livelihood, the animals, the implications on

the survival of our planet are huge and even more

Jesse implications on the survival of the human race, an

antibiotic resistant anti bacterial virus, is not just a possible

threat, but unlikely reality for the future the current kervin

pandemic that is sweeping the globe.

You're showing the sheer cost of a deadly virus, making

it clear that any efforts to curtail the rise of

a superbug must be prioritised.

It seems unethical.

Be looking at curtailing meat production when world hunger remains

at large.

Are we jumping the gun but trying to reduce meat

consumption when people are still struggling to get their daily

meal? It is important to people's livelihood that they can

continue to farm and make money.

Humans have a lot to hurt me, and it's important

to know how we are the culture.

So what can we do?

There are a few things that we know.

One is that people across the globe up becoming increasingly

concerned about climate change.

Eight in 10 people with the climate change is a

major threat to that country, so linking food production and

especially the over farming of cattle as a main course

of climate change can see positive affirmative action.

Three Production is responsible for 1/4 of the world's greenhouse

gas emitting gas emissions, and more people are becoming aware

of this.

There is rightly a growing awareness that diet and free

joins have a significant impact on our carbon footprint.

What can you do to really reduce the carbon footprint

off your daily meal?

Eating local is a recommendation.

You're here often even from prominent sources.

Such a ZX, The World Health Organization.

Well, while it might make sense intuitively, after all, transport

does lead to emission reductions, it is one of the

most Miss garden pieces of advice.

Eating likely would only have a significant impact if transport

was responsible for a large share of to foods.

Final carbon footprint for most for is this is actually

not the case.

Greenhouse gases grass emissions from transportacion make up a very

small amount of the emissions from food, and what you

eat is far more important than where your food traveled

from. The most important insight from this study is that

there are massive differences in the greenhouse gas emissions of

different foods.

Producing a kilogram of beef emits 60 kilograms of sea

off greenhouse gases, or sierra too well a kilogram of

keep off peas, and it's just one kilogram Overrule.

Animal based foods tend to have a higher footprint than

the plant based cannot pots cheese, for example, emits more

than 20 kilograms.

Poke 20 kilograms of sear to ho kilogram of weight,

while chicken and pork have lower footprints.

But it's still higher than most plant based foods at

six and seven CIA, too kilograms, respectively.

Transport is a small contributor to overall C two emissions.

For most pre foot food products.

It accounts for less than 10% and it's much smaller

for the largest greenhouse gas emitter.

Me. Amid is in beef from beef herds is estimated.

The transportation of the cattle really can fit 0.25% off

the total emissions.

And this is not just transport, but all processes in

the supply.

After the food left the farm, such as the transport,

the packaging, the harvesting off the animal, they all campus

a very small share off the actual end off time

emissions. Sir, what can we do about the meat industry?

First obvious option is to go vegetarian, but for many

this is just unrealistic.

Let's face it.

Burgers, steaks, de boned chicken stuffed into a deeper and

duck further stuffed into a deeper in turkey.

Minister Doc in is delicious for many of us simply

cutting out meat all together seems like a mammoth task.

What one can do is to start looking at meat

substitution in looking at ways you can reduce your intake

of beef in particular, maybe once a week swap at

a state enough for a meat free bowling days, there's

millions of substitution and a way to inflicting.

Positive change on the world begins with small dietary changes.

If everyone in Australia swept out one meal awake for

a vegetarian option that is 25 million list serves of

meat a week.

You scale this toe a global scale.

The the impact would be inconceivable.

That would show a sizeable impact on the global demand

for meat production and, in turn, reduce water consumption.

Three wasted and importantly, me saying that foot there is

another future for the meat industry, and that is lab

grown meats.

Many startups have successfully created lab grown meats that unidentified

indistinguishable to the real deal.

But there are issues and scaling to mass production as

of right now.

But it is expected that in the future, lab grown

meats will be a more competitive substitute to meet too

many of us that we feel that our impact on

this planet is money and didn't realistic sense.

That is correct.

But three small changes.

Great changes are made possible.

The current rate of mix assumption is clearly unsustainable.

But with small changes in a diet, it is possible

that we culturally could enter a time where meat consumption

isn't a necessity with every meal, just adoption.

Thank you for listening.

The Fallacy of Sustainable Meat

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated