4 ms·

> How do we feed people cheaply without fossil fuels (both as fertiliser & for crop transport)? Agriculture (even without fossil fuels) has a far greater impac

> How do we feed people cheaply without fossil fuels (both as fertiliser & for crop transport)? Agriculture (even without fossil fuels) has a far greater impact on the environment than all fossil fuel use combined. Why the focus on fossil fuels for all your points?

xdavidliu 6y ago
> Agriculture (even without fossil fuels) has a far greater impact on the environment than all fossil fuel use combined Can I get a source for that claim? A quick Google gives me the following: > Globally, fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 60% of human greenhouse gas emissions, with deforestation at about 18%, and animal agriculture between 14% and 18% (estimates from the World Resources Institute, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and Pitesky et al. 2009 https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to...
- SparkyMcUnicorn 6y ago
  Here's a full infographic with sources [0]. I did watch this documentary, and while I don't agree with some of the conclusions or outlook, it does serve up some facts I wouldn't have looked into had I not seen it. [0] https://www.cowspiracy.com/infographic https://www.cowspiracy.com/infographic
  - philipkglass 6y ago
    Cowspiracy's numbers on global warming are bull shit. That infographic attributes 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions to animal agriculture. The US EPA says that 24% of global emissions are attributable to all agriculture and land use changes as of 2010: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... The IPCC's more recent accounting says 23% of global emissions are attributable to all agriculture and land use changes: https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_s... Here's a detailed critical review of Cowspiracy from the Union of Concerned Scientists: https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/cowspiracy-movie-review https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/cowspiracy-movie-review According to Cowspiracy, the major source of global warming pollution isn’t fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, as the world’s scientists are telling us. No, it’s animal agriculture—not just eating cows, but all other kinds of meat, and eggs and milk and fish too. So the principal solution to global warming isn’t renewable energy. It’s for everyone to become a vegan. Central to Cowspiracy’s conspiracy theory is the supposed “fact” that a 2009 study found that 51% of all greenhouse gases are produced by animal agriculture. A good deal of the movie is taken up with interviews with people from environmental organizations, such as the Rainforest Action Network, Oceana, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, who don’t seem to accept this “fact,” and therefore must be part of the conspiracy to cover it up. Greenpeace politely declined, twice, to be interviewed, proving that they’re part of the cowspiracy too. ...
  - xdavidliu 6y ago
    Can you provide an alternate source? I'm not sure if cowspiracy is adequate for the claim you are making.

xdavidliu 6y ago

> Agriculture (even without fossil fuels) has a far greater impact on the environment than all fossil fuel use combined Can I get a source for that claim? A quick Google gives me the following: > Globally, fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 60% of human greenhouse gas emissions, with deforestation at about 18%, and animal agriculture between 14% and 18% (estimates from the World Resources Institute, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and Pitesky et al. 2009 https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to...

SparkyMcUnicorn 6y ago
Here's a full infographic with sources [0]. I did watch this documentary, and while I don't agree with some of the conclusions or outlook, it does serve up some facts I wouldn't have looked into had I not seen it. [0] https://www.cowspiracy.com/infographic https://www.cowspiracy.com/infographic
- philipkglass 6y ago
  Cowspiracy's numbers on global warming are bull shit. That infographic attributes 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions to animal agriculture. The US EPA says that 24% of global emissions are attributable to all agriculture and land use changes as of 2010: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... The IPCC's more recent accounting says 23% of global emissions are attributable to all agriculture and land use changes: https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_s... Here's a detailed critical review of Cowspiracy from the Union of Concerned Scientists: https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/cowspiracy-movie-review https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/cowspiracy-movie-review According to Cowspiracy, the major source of global warming pollution isn’t fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, as the world’s scientists are telling us. No, it’s animal agriculture—not just eating cows, but all other kinds of meat, and eggs and milk and fish too. So the principal solution to global warming isn’t renewable energy. It’s for everyone to become a vegan. Central to Cowspiracy’s conspiracy theory is the supposed “fact” that a 2009 study found that 51% of all greenhouse gases are produced by animal agriculture. A good deal of the movie is taken up with interviews with people from environmental organizations, such as the Rainforest Action Network, Oceana, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, who don’t seem to accept this “fact,” and therefore must be part of the conspiracy to cover it up. Greenpeace politely declined, twice, to be interviewed, proving that they’re part of the cowspiracy too. ...
- xdavidliu 6y ago
  Can you provide an alternate source? I'm not sure if cowspiracy is adequate for the claim you are making.