2011 Nature)? In fact, I am curious why those reviewers did not focus on the most salient points, which came from studies conducted by the World Health Organization and the United Nations? November 2019. But the film’s premise is based on badly flawed—and almost unanimously rejected—interpretations of science. Producing milk through cows might not be the most efficient process, producing human digestible foods directly from grass will be just a few percent points better -if ever-. If we believe that an irreversible runaway global warming effect will occur soon if global warming is not reduced quickly then the shorter time-scale is critical. The filmmakers have done some research and have found that all the things humans can do to reduce their carbon footprints and reduce water use are a tiny drop in the hat compared to the impact that farm animals have on the environment. I agree with the movie in regards to the baseline thesis that excessive livestock agriculture – like most excessive things in live – creates problems. Why do they do this? I guess you just have to conclude that the makers of Cowspiracy¸ despite its narrator’s claims of extensive research, just didn’t manage to find any of this work. It’s a fact that most regions can support livestock. Unfortunately, in the process these methanogenic microbes convert some of the carbon into methane (CH4), which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Momentanes Problem beim Laden dieses Menüs. The idea that leading environmental agencies are wholeheartedly involved in the biggest cover-up since the fake moon landing seems borderline insane. CON 356 Final Project. Bitte versuchen Sie es erneut. They do not apply the virtual water concept correctly and misinterpret it as an environmental indicator which it is not. Diese Seite funktioniert am besten mit JavaScript. "The experts interviewed in the film seem to be vegan and have little knowledge or understanding of agriculture or the environment, especially with regards to raising cattle. The film presented Oppenheimer as “Dr.” and noted he was an environmental researcher, somehow implying that Oppenheimer has a PhD in the topics he was discussing. The conflicting (and larger) figures that Goodland and Anhang report (50 and 56 billion) are based on a different concept (total number of animals slaughtered) which differs from standing populations (the number of animals alive at a point in time) due largely to the brief lives of broiler hens (which aren’t a major source of methane). Dezember 2016. 6 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich, Rezension aus Deutschland vom 3. The biosphere is basically powered by the photosynthesis done by plants, which take up CO2 molecules from the atmosphere and use the sun’s energy to link those molecules together, making sugars, starches, fats, and (adding in other elements) proteins, DNA, and all the other parts of the living world. And they themselves note that foregone potential sequestration doesn’t involve any actual emissions. Lots of my friends who seen the movie start to develop healthy behaviors about food, and that means something. By itself, leaving a significant amount of tropical land used for grazing livestock and growing feed to regenerate as forest could potentially mitigate as much as half (or even more) of all anthropogenic GHGs. My understanding is that they didn’t recalibrate any of the other numbers for sources of methane to the higher CO2 equivalencies is because they simply claimed this would require “further work.” Obviously if only one sector is recalibrated higher and the others aren’t, that one sector will have a much greater value on a percentage basis. Plants which took the carbon out of the atmosphere. What they’ve done is exactly the kind of inconsistent accounting tactics that one would use to produce an inflated figure. Today I'm vegan. Boucher’s case against that approach is poorly argued. And even as you say that would get balanced in terms of carbon in and out, most (if not all) the animals in the meat industry are fed by soia and other feed which have been cultivated for the purpose, causing deforestation and other social and environmental issues. Hier wird wunderbar dargestellt, welche Auswirkungen unser modernes Nahrungsverhalten wirklich hat und was dies alles mit Klimawandel und Umweltzerstörung zu tun hat. Agreed. (I’m not suggesting you or anyone else will be interested in reading the articles.). The Most Important Documentary Since Zeitgest, Brilliant documentary on the consequences of massive livestock. Search on YouTube for “Pachauri Goodland” and it will come up. It also increased the figure for 20 years from 72 to 86 (with climate-carbon feedbacks) and 84 (without them). That doesn't mean we should just do nothing. The name says it all. Instead of using the standard method that estimates the global warming impact of gas molecules over a century, they only count its impact, as well as CO2’s, over a 20-year period. (2012), Climate-Friendly Land Use (2013), as well as in scientific papers and the 2012 book Cooler, Smarter. Coming up next: As I mentioned in my last blog post, I’m going to do a short series of reviews on recent books and movies related to beef and climate change.