Everything Wrong With Environmentalism In 11 Minutes Or Less!!

Most people care about the environment…at least enough to say they do on a study. And most people have faith that the top environmental agencies in the world are fighting the good fight to remedy the wrongs of humankind, certain that they’re focusing on the core issues with the greatest impact. Well, today we’re going to look at the top issues championed by the environmental agencies and the vast majority of environmentalists and see why they’re wrong. So…very…wrong. Hi it’s Emily from Bite Size Vegan and welcome to another vegan nugget, the first of the “everything wrong with” series. Way back in the day I did a video comparing the effectiveness of all the common “go green” tips to eating a vegan diet. That video’s up there if you want to check it out later. Unfortunately it was before I was very rigorous with citing my sources and I haven’t had time to cobble them back together for that post. So today is a bit of a revamp with new numbers, many even more incredible. I’m going to move more quickly in this video than usual but citations for every fact I state and additional information are available on the blog post for this video which linked up there and in the video description.

I will also track any errors that I or anyone else finds in this video there as well. I will also be far more sarcastic in this video but do not mean to say that other environmental issues have no importance. You have been warned. Let’s get the tally of wrongness up [which you’ll see is more of an art than a science] and start the clock after…. Issue One: Climate Change Environmental agencies focus on fossil fuels as the big bad baddy of greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming, suggesting alternative energy, carpooling, hybrid cars, and biking, but animal agriculture accounts for more CO2 per year than all transportation methods combined. A conservative 2006 study by the United Nations Food and Agricultural organization placed animal agriculture at 7,516 metric tons per year or 18% of annual global GHG emissions with a far more thorough 2009 World Watch study taking into account overlooked livestock respiration, land use, methane and other oversights of the FAO, with the ultimate outcome of at least 32,654 million tons of CO2 per year coming from animal agriculture.

That’s 51% of all global emissions compared to the 13% of all combined transportation. And what do the environmental agencies point to: reducing fossil fuel usage. If we completely stopped all use of gas, oil, fuel, electricity, et cetera, and never used them ever again, we would still exceed our carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 565 Gigatons by the year 2030 just with the impact of livestock alone. So not using fossil fuels at all, which would be the wet dream of every environmental agency, we’re still gassing out the planet with the one contributor, the main contributor, which they refuse to even address. In a similar vein, the focus is always almost exclusively on CO2 but methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 and has 86 times the global warming power. If we do reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere as all the organizations are calling for, it will take around 100 years to see an actual decline, whereas reducing methane shows results almost immediately with significant results within decades. So the proposed solutions are even farther from the mark than the actual constructive change.

Additionally, livestock is responsible for 65% of all emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas 296 x more destructive than carbon dioxide and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years. Put in comparative terms, your average car produces 3-12 kg/day of CO2. but to clear rainforest to produce beef for one hamburger produces 75 kg of CO2. Eating one pound of hamburger does the same damage as driving your car for more than three weeks. But is animal agriculture ever mentioned by any of the top environmental organizations or environmentalists in relation to global warming? No. They focus on alternative energy when converting to wind and solar power will take 20+ years and roughly 43 trillion dollars, and going vegan takes seconds and can be even cheaper than being non-vegan. Issue Two: Water Conservation Environmental protection agencies recommend to use less water, take shorter showers, use a low flow shower head. Now here is where you’ll find the greatest variation from my original calculations based on a 5 gallon per minute shower head.

This time around I found that the typical shower head after 1980 emits 2.5 gallons/minute with the low flow emitting no more than 2gpm. If you take daily 15 minute showers with a low-flow shower head you’ll be saving 2,737.5 gallons per year. If, instead, you forgo one pound of beef one time, you’ll save 2,500 gallons of water for ONE POUND OF BEEF. That is a conservative number as figures range all the way to over 8,000 gallons of water for one pound of beef. 477 gallons of water are required to produce 1lb. of eggs; almost 900 gallons of water are needed for 1lb. of cheese. and 1,000 gallons or liters of water are required to produce 1 gallon or liter of milk. Environmental agencies focus almost exclusively on curbing home water usage, but only 5% of water consumed in the US is by private homes, while 55% of water consumed in the US is for animal agriculture, and 20-33% of all fresh water consumption in the world today. That’s up to a third of the planets water for animal agriculture.

If you didn’t consume beef, eggs, milk, or cheese, not even counting other meats or other dairy items, based on American consumption habits from 2000 and the conservative figures of water per pound, you’d save 222,345 gallons of water that year. But the environmental agencies prefer saving 1,825-2,737.5 gallons a year by using a low flow shower-head. Oh and the little trendy Greek Yogurts out there? 90 gallons of water for a 6 oz. serving. And one stick of butter takes 109 gallons. If we added all forms of dairy and meat for the average American in 2000, which is less dairy and more meat than the data I had for my first video, and use a very conservative average of 1,500 gallons per pound for the remaining meat as each type varies and even more conservative 600 gallons for the remaining dairy, a vegan year would save approximately 724,925 gallons. Not only does that blow every water conservation recommendation out of the water, but with the new calculations, forget what I’ve said before about not showering.

You would have to not shower AT ALL for over 66 years if you took daily 15 minute showers or close to 100 years if you took daily 10 minute showers, both with a water saving shower head. And the advice of the supposed environmental champions: shower less, turn off the water while soaping your hands, run your sprinklers at night. Because that’s how we’re going to change the world. Issue Three: Fracking, no I did not curse… Fracking is the new golden child of environmentalists and their leading organizations. Fracking is destroying the planet! It’s polluting the waters. In the United States alone, fracking uses from 70-140 billion gallons of water. Keep in mind for the big numbers that a thousand seconds is 17 minutes, a million seconds is 12 days, a billion seconds is 31.7 years, and a trillion seconds is 31,709.

8 years. In the United States alone, animal agriculture uses from 34-76 trillion gallons annually. Taking into account the exponential difference between a billion and a trillion, animal agriculture in the United States consumes anywhere from 486 to over a 1,000 times more water than fracking, the largest threat to water according to environmentalists. Issue Four: Ocean Dead Zones and Over-Fishing Some of the worst human-created devastation is in our oceans. 3/4 of the world’s fisheries are exploited. 90 million tons of fish are pulled from our oceans each year. For every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill. We could see fishless oceans by 2048. And what’s the suggestion of the major ocean protection organizations? Sustainable fishing. There’s no way to make 100 million tons of fish by 2050 sustainable, especially given the 5 pounds of by catch for every one pound of fish. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of ocean dead zones with livestock operations on land having created more than 500 nitrogen-flooded dead zones around the world in our oceans.

Issue Five: Waste Management Environmental agencies focus on industrial waste and the sanitation of human waste while a farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people and it is entirely untreated. In fact, every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US alone. This doesn’t include animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction or in backyards, or the billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the US and it all has no proper management system leading to ground water and ocean pollution. Perhaps they don’t want to address the fecal issue because they themselves are full of…moving on. Issue Six: Species Extinction 10,000 years ago 99% of the biomass (i.e. zoo-mass) was wild animals, today, humans and the animals that we raise as food make up 98% of the zoo-mass, with wild animals comprising only 2%. Up to 137 plant, animal, and insect species are lost every day due to rainforest destruction, the leading cause of which, as we shall see, is animal agriculture. We are currently facing the largest mass extinction in 65 million years. The Alliance for Global Conservation estimates 36 percent of all species on our planet are in danger of extinction.

And what are the major species protection organizations recommending? Wildlife rehabilitation and conservation, fighting poaching, and breeding programs. Way to throw a bandaid on an open artery. I’m sure it will hold. Issue Seven: Habitat Destruction, Land Usage & Deforestation A third of the planet is desertified, with livestock as the leading cause. Nearly half of the contiguous United States is devoted to animal agriculture. 1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food and only 375 pounds of meat. The land required to feed 1 vegan for 1 year is 1/6th of an acre. It is 3x as much for a vegetarian and 18x as much for a meat-eater. You can grow 15x more protein on any given area of land with plants, rather than animals. 136 million rainforest acres have been cleared for animal agriculture with 1-2 acres of rainforest being cleared every second.

In fact animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction. A single quarter pounder burger takes 55 square feet of rainforest to produce. But what do the major rainforest protection agencies focus on primarily? Palm oil and pulp production. Now for the Too Long Didn’t Watch version: Animal agriculture is the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming, uses a third of the earth’s fresh water, up to 45% of the Earth’s land, is responsible for 91% of Amazon destruction with 1-2 acres being cleared every second, and is a leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, and habitat destruction. Environmental agencies not only do not focus on animal agriculture, the absolute most devastating and pervasive single cause of multi-dimensional environmental destruction, but they actually refuse to even acknowledge it. And individual environmentalists, by and large, perhaps as a consequence or by their own social indoctrination, aren’t even aware of this issue despite devoting themselves to championing the environment.

For the wrap up: The ACTUAL problem is animal agriculture and the ACTUAL solution is a vegan diet. A person who follows a vegan diet PRODUCES the equivalent of 50% less carbon dioxide, uses 1/11th oil, 1/13th water, and 1/18th land compared to a meat-lover for their food, and every day saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 square ft. of forested land, 20 lbs of CO2 equivalent, and one animal’s life. Given all of these facts, it’s abundantly clear that veganism is THE ONLY answer to the environmental crisis and the environmental organizations collective failure to recognize this fact leaves them with a wrongness tally total of: qualifying them for an ultimate score of More Full of Fecal Matter Than the 7 Million Tons Produced Every Second By Farm Animals in the United States! It’s time to get real.

You cannot be an environmentalist and a non-vegan. It’s now beyond “personal choice” and allowing everyone their dietary preference. The earth cannot sustain the way that we eat. It is a fact and it’s fast approaching critical mass. At this point there is no reason to keep eating animals other than the purely selfish reason of not wanting to change our habits. If we want our children to have a world to live on, we have to stop being so childish ourselves regarding our diets and cut out the crap. I hope you enjoyed this fact-riddled nugget. Please share it around to wake people up to the importance of this issue and feel free to tag any of the major environmental agencies when you share. The time it took to produce this video clocks in at about [68 hours] If you'd like to help support Bite Size Vegan so I can keep putting in the long hours to bring you this educational resource, please check out the support links in the video description below where you can give a one-time donation or receive perks and rewards for your support by joining the Nugget Army- the link for that is also in the iCard sidebar. If you enjoyed this video, please give it a thumbs up and if you’re new here, be sure to hit that big red subscribe button down there for more awesome vegan content every Monday, Wednesday, and some Fridays, and to not miss out on the rest of the “Everything Wrong With" series.

And hey, check out some of the related videos while you’re here for more information. And remember, citations for everything I talked about are in the blog post for this video which is linked up below and in the sidebar. Now go live vegan, save the world, and I’ll see you soon. Man, I feel like I was at an auction. You know…55!…45!…blahlala!….2 dollars! I should just keep doing this. Subtitles by the Amara.org community.

Food For Life – Ecological Farming in Kenya

Kenya. A country famous for its hard working people… …fertile soils and a tropical climate which ensures two rainy seasons a year. Ideal conditions for a healthy and prosperous agricultural sector. As climate change is making an impact across the continent… …African farmers are having to adapt rapidly to new and uncertain conditions. This film will be looking at the ways Kenyan farmers are increasing their climate change resilience… …by adopting ecological farming. With large scale farmers focusing on sale and export… …it is left to small scale farmers to produce the bulk of the food that feeds Kenyans. They have different incentives to embark on food production as Karen Achieng' explains. Agriculture contributes to the livelihoods and food security of over eighty percent of the Kenyan population.

That is why the country's policy makers are looking to agriculture as the main driver of national development. Irrespective of their motivation to get into farming… …farmers are all too familiar with a common set of challenges. In Kenya, the unpredicatibility of the weather and droughts… …are by far the most difficult challenges. Some farmers have turned to measures tailored to their specific situation… …in an effort to adapt to climate change. In Bungoma County, Prisca Mayende has taken up agro-forestry… …a method of growing crops in the forest. It has proven to be a measure that has greatly transformed her household… …as well as her community. Over in Machakos County, Francisca Mbuli is taking advantage of indigenous knowledge.

.. …by introducing crops on her farm that have adapted to local climatic conditions over time… …and are better suited to a changing climate. Most small scale farmers rely entirely on rainfall for their farming needs. Sometimes, it takes a great amount of resilience to get by… …something farmer John Wambua knows all too well. The water pan he dug at the beginning of the year stands empty. Every farmer's desire is to get higher yields… …address food security concerns, improve their livelihood… …and adapt to the difficult climatic conditions which are affecting food production. Organically increasing the fertility of the soil… …is one of the most successful means to improve productivity. Diversifying into different crops is a good strategy… …to spread risks and build in harvest guarantees. While the farmers are under pressure to conform..

. …to industrial models being sold across the region… …some Kenyans are raising the profile of ecological farming… …by proudly investing in research and knowledge generation. One such place is Manor House Agricultural Centre… …that is located in Kitale. Since its founding in 1984… …the centre has provided training and certification in ecological farming. More than three quarters of all agriculture in Kenya is carried out by small scale farmers. Their abilitiy to cope with a changing climate is of critical importance to feeding Africa. A large scale switch to small scale ecological farming… …will make farmers more resilient to the changing conditions. It is a transition that needs to happen collectively. Or as they say in Kenya: sticks in a bundle are unbreakable..

Why I Left Greenpeace

In 1971 I helped found an environmental group in the basement of a Unitarian church in Vancouver, Canada. Fifteen years later, it had grown into an international powerhouse. We were making headlines every month. I was famous. And then I walked out the door. The mission, once noble, had become corrupted — political agendas and fear mongering trumped science and truth. Here’s how it happened. When I was studying for my PhD in ecology at the University of British Columbia, I joined a small activist group called the Don’t Make a Wave Committee. It was the height of the Cold War; the Vietnam War was raging. I became radicalized by these realities and by the emerging consciousness of the environment. The mission of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee was to launch an ocean-going campaign against US hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska, a symbol of our opposition to nuclear war. As one of our early meetings was breaking up, someone said, “Peace,” A reply came, “Why don’t we make it a green peace,” and a new movement was born. Green was for the environment and peace was for the people.

We named our boat “The Greenpeace” and I joined the 12-person crew for a voyage of protest. We didn’t stop that H-bomb test but it was the last hydrogen bomb the United States ever detonated. We had won a major victory. In 1975, Greenpeace took a sharp turn away from our anti-nuclear efforts and set out to Save the Whales, sailing the high seas to confront Russian and Japanese whalers. The footage we shot — young protesters positioned between harpoons and fleeing whales — was shown on TV around the world. Public donations poured in. By the early 1980s we were campaigning against toxic waste, air pollution, trophy hunting, and the live capture of orca whales. But I began to feel uncomfortable with the course my fellow directors were taking. I found myself the only one of six international directors with a formal science background. We were now tackling subjects that involved complex issues of toxicology, chemistry, and human health.

You don’t need a PhD in marine biology to know it’s a good thing to save whales from extinction. But when you’re analyzing which chemicals to ban, you need to know some science. And the first lesson of ecology is that we are all interconnected. Humans are part of nature, not separate from it. Many other species, disease agents and their carriers, for example, are our enemies and we have the moral obligation to protect human beings from these enemies. Biodiversity is not always our friend. I had noticed something else. As we grew into an international organization with over $100 million a year coming in, a big change in attitude had occurred. The “peace” in Greenpeace had faded away. Only the “green” part seemed to matter now. Humans, to use Greenpeace language, had become “the enemies of the Earth.” Putting an end to industrial growth and banning many useful technologies and chemicals became common themes of the movement. Science and logic no longer held sway.

Sensationalism, misinformation, and fear were what we used to promote our campaigns. The final straw came when my fellow directors decided that we had to work to ban the element chlorine worldwide. They named chlorine “The Devil’s Element,” as if it were evil. But this was absurd. Adding chlorine to drinking water was one of the biggest advances in the history of public health. And anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry knew that many of our most effective pharmaceuticals had a chlorine component. Not only that, but if this anti-chlorine campaign succeeded it wouldn’t be our wealthy donors who would suffer. Wealthy individuals and countries always find a way around these follies. The ones who suffer are those in developing countries, people we’re presumably trying to help.

For example, Greenpeace has opposed the adoption of Golden Rice, a genetically modified variety of rice that contains beta carotene. Golden Rice has the potential to prevent the death of two million of the world’s poorest children every year. But that doesn’t matter to the Greenpeace crowd. GMO’s are bad. So Golden Rice must be bad. Apparently millions of children dying isn’t. This kind of rigid, backward thinking is usually attributed to the “unenlightened” and “the anti-scientific.” But I’ve discovered, from the inside out, that it can infect any organization, even those with names as noble sounding… as Greenpeace. I’m Patrick Moore for Prager University..

A Complete Disregard for Democracy: Greenpeace Condemns Trump’s Move on Pipelines & Silencing of EPA

I’m Amy Goodman. In addition to issuing presidential memos to revive the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, President Trump and his team have taken several other actions that have alarmed environmentalists. All references to climate change have been removed from the White House website. Reuters is reporting the Environmental Protection Agency has also been ordered to remove its climate change page, which contains links to scientific global warming research as well as detailed data on emissions. The EPA has also been prohibited from issuing press releases, publishing blog updates or even posting information on social media. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has abruptly canceled a major conference on climate change and public health. Joining us now from Berkeley, California, is Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace USA. Annie, as we wrap up this show, can you talk about the executive actions on Dakota Access pipeline, Keystone XL, and all of what we’re seeing right now in the new Trump administration? ANNIE LEONARD: Absolutely. You know, I’m actually very worried. I’ve been an environment activist for about a quarter of a century, and there have been many uphill battles.

But in the past, we were operating within a framework where there was some respect for democracy, some respect for science, a stronger grasp on reality than President Trump is indicating. His actions yesterday, both on the pipelines as well as trying to muzzle the Environmental Protection Agency, demonstrate a complete disregard for indigenous treaty rights, a complete disregard for environmental laws—that executive orders and memoranda don’t change; those pipelines still have to go through NEPA, through the Clean Water Act—a complete disregard for democracy. Millions and millions of people have voiced opposition to these pipelines. But perhaps most troubling is a complete disconnect from reality. The vast majority of the world’s scientists say that 80 percent of remaining oils needs to stay underground. The last thing we should be doing is investing in more pipeline. It’s terrifying that he thinks this is an appropriate direction to move our country in. AMY GOODMAN: And the argument he makes that this means more jobs? ANNIE LEONARD: Well, this is one of the few things I do agree with President Trump on, is that we need more jobs. But we need sustainable, healthy and safe jobs.

And the real way to get long-term meaningful jobs is through the transition to clean energy, whether it’s retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient, whether it’s building actual infrastructure for clean energy. There is an almost infinite number of healthy, sustainable, good jobs available, and that’s where we need to be investing in for this much-needed jobs delivery. AMY GOODMAN: You said in your statement, the Greenpeace statement, “A powerful alliance of Indigenous communities, ranchers, farmers, and climate activists stopped the Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines the first time around.” Protests have broken out all over the country right now around resumption of this. What do you feel the protest movement needs to do? And what does President Trump need to actually push these pipelines through? ANNIE LEONARD: You know, I’m not sure there’s anything that President Trump could do to actually push these pipelines through, because in addition to actual laws and environmental impact statements, there’s all of us.

There are people. The word that I’m hearing more than any other these days is “resistance.” Actually, the second one would be “unity.” All across the country, indigenous groups, climate groups, farmers’ groups, labor groups—all these different people are coming together and saying, “We will resist. We are not going to go away quietly. We’re actually not going to go away. We’re going to fight with everything we have, because what’s at stake really is everything that we love. It’s our democracy. It’s water. It’s our multicultural communities. We’re not giving up. We’re not going away. We’re going to resist.” AMY GOODMAN: Finally, it seems very likely that Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, will be the next secretary of state, already approved by the committee, now the full Senate vote.

Your response? ANNIE LEONARD: You know, for a long time, we have fought against or been very concerned about the influence of fossil fuel money in our democracy. This appointment is just stunning in terms of an absolute, complete merger with our government and the biggest fossil fuel industries in the country. It just shows that the onus on making sure that things are handled appropriately is now on the people. More than ever before, we need to be awake, we need to be alert, and we need to be involved. AMY GOODMAN: Annie Leonard, I want to thank you very much for being with us, executive director of Greenpeace USA..