Good videos, with context.
Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why

Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why

Joseph Everett - WIL
10 HN recommenders · discussed 2021–2026
Open YouTube ↗

About this video

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.

Why it appears in the archive

HN commenters recommend it as a counterpoint to claims about beef's environmental cost, though some critique its methane argument.

AI-generated summary and labels from the source dataset; verify important details against the video. Source & credits.

From the Hacker News discussion

AI_Overlord_ · 2021-04 · strong rec

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. [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗
iptpus · 2021-05 · strong rec

This video changed my mind in the opposite direction. [VIDEO] Stopping meat consumption would make a negligible difference in emissions. It's more valuable to focus on minimizing food waste instead.

Read original comment ↗
ibeckermayer · 2021-04 · rec

Misleading -- 94% of the water that's "used" to produce beef is just rainwater, see here: [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗
hourislate · 2021-05 · rec

>90% less greenhouse emissions, 99% less water, and 93% less land This was a great video concerning those claims above.... [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗
JohnWhigham · 2021-06 · rec

YT channel What I've Learned goes in-depth into inflated carbon footprints like these and can explain it more concise than I can. [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗
emacsen · 2021-08 · rec

> taking space that we now use for growing animal feed There was a recent Youtube video that explained how this isn't quite accurate: [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.

Read original comment ↗
spydr · 2021-10 · rec

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 [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗
taejavu · 2021-11 · rec

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: [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.

Read original comment ↗