Is Meat Really that Bad?

Summary

This script delves into the complex relationship between food, specifically meat, and climate change. It reveals that despite efforts to reduce emissions, food production accounts for 26% of global greenhouse gases. Beef is highlighted as a major offender, with a kilogram emitting 71kg of CO2 equivalents. The script questions the efficacy of buying local and touches on the environmental impact of different farming practices. It concludes that even the most sustainable beef has a higher carbon footprint than plant-based alternatives, urging viewers to consider their dietary choices.

Takeaways

• 🍽️ Food production contributes to approximately 26% of all human-made greenhouse gas emissions, making it a significant factor in climate change.
• 🥩 Beef, especially, has a disproportionately high carbon footprint, averaging 71 kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram of beef produced.
• 🐑 Emissions can vary greatly depending on how the cattle are raised, with the best practices resulting in as low as 9 kilograms of emissions per 100 grams of protein.
• 🌱 Plant-based foods generally have a much lower carbon footprint compared to meat, with potatoes emitting around 150 times less than beef.
• 🌍 Locally sourced food does not significantly reduce emissions when compared to the overall carbon footprint of different food types.
• 🚚 Transportation and packaging contribute only a small fraction (0.5% to 2%) to the total emissions of beef.
• 🐄 Methane released by cattle is a major contributor to beef's emissions, with methane being a potent greenhouse gas.
• 🌿 Grass-fed cattle can sometimes be less climate-friendly due to the larger amount of land required for their rearing.
• 🌳 A significant portion of agricultural land is used for grazing animals, much of which cannot be used for crop production, but this does not justify the high emissions from livestock.
• 🌱 A shift towards plant-based diets could free up vast amounts of land for reforestation or wild grassland restoration, helping to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

Q & A

What is the significance of food in our lives according to the script?

Food is significant because it is a daily pleasure, an expression of culture, a demonstration of parental love, and a means of celebration or comfort.

How does the script describe the complexity of the relationship between food and climate change?

The script describes the relationship as complicated, noting that even with advancements in technology, there are unavoidable emissions from food production.

What percentage of human-made greenhouse gas emissions is attributed to food production?

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

How does the script compare the emissions of beef to other foods?

Beef emissions stand out at the top, with an average of 71 kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram, while plant-based foods like potatoes emit around 150 times less.

What factors affect the emissions of beef production?

The script mentions that factors affecting beef emissions include the type of feed, whether the beef comes from a dairy herd or is dedicated to beef production, geography, and deforestation for farmland.

What is the significance of methane emissions in the context of beef production?

Methane emissions, released directly by animals, make up the largest share of beef emissions. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, contributing significantly to human-made warming.

How does the script evaluate the impact of buying locally produced beef on emissions?

Buying locally produced beef does not significantly reduce emissions because transportation and packaging account for only 0.5 to 2% of beef's total emissions.

What is the role of land use in the context of cattle farming as discussed in the script?

The script discusses that while half of the world's ice- and desert-free land is used for agriculture, most of it is grassland that cannot be converted to cropland, making it seem efficient for pasturing animals.

How does the script address the idea that cows can turn grass into food that humans can't digest?

The script refutes this idea as a marketing lie, stating that pastureland alone cannot support the ruminants living on it and that a significant portion of beef production relies on feed crops.

What potential benefits does the script suggest a shift to a plant-based diet could have for the environment?

A shift to a plant-based diet could free up land to grow forests or restore wild grasslands, which could help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

What is the script's final takeaway message regarding food choices and climate change?

The script concludes that while food is a significant driver of emissions, the type of food consumed has a much greater impact than where it is produced. It emphasizes that even the most environmentally-friendly beef still has a higher carbon footprint than plant-based alternatives.

Outlines

00:00

🍽️ The Role of Food in Culture and Climate

Food is central to human culture and enjoyment, but it plays a crucial role in climate change, especially meat consumption. While science can offer insights, researching the environmental impact of food, particularly meat, can be complex. Beef, in particular, is notorious for its high emissions, even when considering nutrient density. The best beef production methods still have higher carbon footprints than plant-based foods, raising significant questions about the role of diet in mitigating climate change.

05:04

🐄 Beef's Environmental Footprint: Beyond Local Sourcing

Buying local beef doesn't necessarily reduce emissions, as transportation accounts for only a small fraction of beef's overall carbon footprint. The majority of emissions come from methane released by cows. Methane is potent and has already contributed significantly to global warming. Different farming methods, from dairy cattle to factory farming, can influence emissions, but deforestation for pastureland is a major driver of high emissions. While factory farming is more efficient in some ways, it raises ethical and environmental concerns.

10:08

🌍 The Land Debate: Grazing vs. Agriculture

A significant portion of the world's land is dedicated to agriculture, with half of that used for animals, primarily through grazing. However, the idea that cows are efficiently using land unsuitable for crops is misleading. Only a small percentage of beef production relies solely on grazing, and most animals are fed crops like soy and cereals, which could otherwise be used for human consumption. Shifting to plant-based diets could free up enormous amounts of land for reforestation or other carbon-absorbing purposes, helping combat climate change.

📚 Taking Action: Learning New Skills with Skillshare

Change is always just one decision away, whether it's adopting a new diet or learning a new skill. The video promotes Skillshare, an online learning platform offering a wide range of creative courses. Kurzgesagt viewers can access these courses for free through a limited trial. With thousands of hours of content available, Skillshare provides a way for users to explore new interests, such as animation, and learn from experts, including Kurzgesagt’s own animation classes.

Keywords

💡Climate Change

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, primarily caused by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. In the video, climate change is the central theme, as it discusses how different food production methods, particularly meat production, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, which are major drivers of climate change.

💡Emissions

Emissions refer to the release of substances, especially greenhouse gases, into the atmosphere. The video emphasizes that food production, including both plant-based and animal-based foods, results in emissions. It highlights that while all food production emits greenhouse gases, animal agriculture, especially beef production, is a significant contributor.

💡Life Cycle Assessments

Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) are evaluations of the environmental impact of a product from its production to its disposal. The video uses LCAs to compare the emissions of different foods, showing that beef has a notably higher carbon footprint compared to plant-based foods like potatoes.

💡Beef

Beef is specifically highlighted in the video as a food with a high environmental impact. It is discussed as a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions due to the methane produced by cattle and the land use required for cattle farming. The video contrasts beef with other foods to emphasize its outsized impact on climate change.

💡Methane

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a significant global warming potential. In the context of the video, methane is a key emission from cattle, contributing to their high carbon footprint. The video mentions that methane, although it stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time than CO2, is very powerful in its warming effect.

💡Nitrous Oxide

Nitrous oxide is another greenhouse gas that is mentioned in the video in relation to food production. It is emitted when fertilizers and manure are used, contributing to the overall greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.

💡Carbon Budget

The carbon budget is the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted while still keeping global warming to a manageable level. The video uses the concept of the carbon budget to illustrate that even if all other emissions were eliminated, food production emissions alone would exceed this budget by 2100.

💡Local Food

Local food refers to food that is produced and consumed in the same region. The video discusses the common belief that buying local food reduces environmental impact. However, it is revealed that transportation emissions are relatively minor compared to the emissions from the production process itself.

💡Grass-fed Beef

Grass-fed beef is a type of beef that comes from cattle that have been raised on pasture and fed primarily grass. The video points out that while grass-fed beef might seem more environmentally friendly, it often requires more land, which can lead to deforestation and thus has a higher carbon footprint.

💡Deforestation

Deforestation is the removal of trees and forests, often to make way for agriculture. The video discusses how deforestation for farmland releases stored carbon into the atmosphere and reduces the land's ability to absorb carbon in the future, contributing significantly to beef's carbon footprint.

💡Skillshare

Skillshare is an online learning platform mentioned at the end of the video. It is used as an example of a service that viewers can engage with to learn new skills and potentially reduce their environmental impact by adopting more sustainable lifestyles.

Highlights

Food is a significant driver of climate change, accounting for about 26% of all human-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Beef has the highest emissions among all food items, averaging 71 kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram.

Lamb is also high in emissions, at 40 kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram.

Pork and poultry have lower emissions, at 12 and 10 kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram, respectively.

Plant-based foods, such as potatoes, emit around 150 times less CO2 equivalents than beef.

When comparing emissions per calorie, animal protein remains the most costly for the environment.

The best beef still has higher emissions than the worst plant-based food.

The method of cattle rearing can vary emissions significantly, from 105 kilograms to 9 kilograms of emissions per 100 grams of protein.

Buying locally produced beef does not significantly reduce emissions as most emissions come from the cattle themselves.

Transportation and packaging account for only 0.5 to 2% of beef's total emissions.

International food transport, such as shipping avocados, is surprisingly efficient and low in emissions.

Methane released by cattle is a significant contributor to beef emissions and has a strong warming effect.

Dairy cows tend to emit less methane due to higher quality feed and faster growth.

Geography and farming methods, especially deforestation for farmland, greatly affect beef emissions.

Factory-farmed cattle can paradoxically have a lower climate impact than those grazing on former rainforest land.

Grassland makes up 65% of agricultural land and is not suitable for crop cultivation, making it efficient for grazing animals.

Globally, only 13% of beef production is supported by grazing systems alone.

Feeding animals with crops means less than half of the world's cereals are used directly for human food.

A shift to a plant-based diet could free up significant land for carbon sequestration or restoration of wild grasslands.

The environmental impact of a burger is significantly higher than that of a veggie pattie, even if the beef is grass-fed.

Transcripts

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.

#  

1. 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.