Yeah, lost a few points of respect for this channel with this presentation. Monbiot is saying something important here and not at all what this bullshit clickbait implies.
PoliticsJOE, ditch the stupid title guys. You are misrepresenting him horribly as you know. This message is too important to poison with a click bait title. C'mon.
Yea, destroying and anointing Lorax are very different things. Although he is probably doing it intentionally to draw in the ejits that actually need to hear this.
I don't think it's fair to misrepresent his argument to get a clickbait title. You can't be against all farming because we need to eat. My understanding is he is against animal agriculture and practices in arable farming which lead to pollution which is why he discusses organic farming methods Regenesis.
Yeah, this was a stupid title and thumbnail that undermines Monbiot's very sensible message about opening our eyes to the lies about the sustainability and environmental viability of modern 'eco-farming', greenwashing in other words. And will set people up to disagree before hearing a word.
At least Russell brand isn't on the thumbnail to this video... lol they Don't need to resort to click bait tactics when you've got george monbiot doing an interview surly... just giving talk TV ammunition with titles like this .
This is an excellent interview. Please stop using polarizing language such as "destroy". Progressive politics needs to use constructive, solution focused language that promotes dialogue and opt out of this kind of destructive and divisive discourse that plays into the hands of the same regressive political forces you are trying to critique.
I’m afraid that George and excellent are not aligned. He has a vested interest in us all rejecting rural life and farming practices to eat some manufactured gloop. He peddles the same old sound bites and bitches openly about farmers and farming. I’ve must attended a Monbiot v Batters session at Hay and there are no lengths to which he will stop to denigrate UK farmers so please don speak of constructive, solution focused, non-divisive discourse, George Monbiot does none of that.
Vertical farming in Germany of wheat has found that they can grow 10 times the amount of wheat with 80% less resources. So we need to fundamentally reform the way we produce food. Argophotovoltaics are another method for producing up to 300% more yield from a crop.
agrisolar does not, on the whole produce 300pc of comparable yields in the vast majority of circumstances, certainly not in the UK. It's disingenuous to suggest such being possible in the UK, but I'd place it to enthusiasm for future tech than anything else.
I have recently done some googly-research on vertical wheat farms (because it's considered one of the "impossible" species), and I noticed that for Germany there's 1 company that keeps popping up called Infarm, and I also noticed that aside from their very bold claims, they never post any research results, or even a description of their process. No photo's, no videos, nothing. No statement on the costs, on the energy consumption and on the price compared to field grown wheat, and that made me quite suspicious. It wouldn't be the first time that people pushed their hopeless projects and walked away with tens of millions in funding. Did you find out more than I did? Some specifics maybe?
Actually a lot vertical farms just don't work. I mean there litterally using Leds rather than the sun which is free. This energy exchange doesn't work.
From the different clips Politics Joe have created of the same interview, this has the most clickbait-y title of the lot. It was a really interesting discussion, or at least what George had to say was interesting, but that title is undermining it.
We, as a species, are JUST learning what it means to be human after bumbling through 100,000 (+/-) years. But some (multinational corporations, multimillionaires and billionaires) have done so badly that we may not live long enough to benefit from what we’ve learned.
Though ... most major religions have a part of their Holy Books describing how to avoid this sort of catastrophe ... But... That didn't stop us turning Africa from forest to tundra, the 'Fertile crescent' (the middle east) into desert, or the American Midwest into dustbowl. It's not farmers that are responsible. It's bankers and the ruling rich - who can always squeeze that little bit more ouit of their subjects.
Sure, but saying that doesn't change anything. It needs people to see that buying a cheap Tesco chicken has a further consequence. At the moment the causal link isn't there for most, that buying that chicken 3 times a week conflates with pollution and climate change. Please substitute your own choice of value led supermarket brand and your own farmyard animal. If we can eat it, then at some point we'll shove it in a box no bigger than itself and force feed it rubbish
Im a self made livestock farmer, My dad was a herdsman and ive done it without any state or private funding and its damn hard. Mr Monbiot doesnt live in the real world an ex Stowe public school/ Oxford University. He has never had any real hands on experience of farming. I get no subsides and neither do a good few others of any description as Bliar changed the rules and subsidies go to the landowners. That is why hedge fund managers, bankers and the rich buy farms and land. Its money for nothing and they then rent the land out again! A total cock up by Bliar looking after the city, This country needs to produce food we do it but with a urban population that is now totally separated from its food production. This is a bad thing and sows the seeds misinformation. The supermarket strangle hold is killing farmers and yet people flock to them. People talk about animal welfare and fruit and vegetables grown sustainably yet buy the cheapest battery eggs, 6 week chickens and fruit and veg from the continent with countless air miles and cheap milk sold as a loss leader. We need to eat seasonally and sensibly we waste far too much food look at supermarket waste and home waste its disgraceful and a national disgrace. Until Mr Monbiot and the rest of the urban anti farming movement sit down and speak to real farmers not the NFU that represents 18% of farmers the big boys. But small and medium tenant /rent/owners. We might start getting somewhere, Mr Monbiot was offered the chance to speak to the NSA membership " National sheep Association " but refused? We have to work together but it takes two to tango but if this continues the misinformation about us how do you expect us to trust you? I suggest our critics try our to produce food and do it as a business its damn hard and the subsidies myth is just that it goes to the land owner not the person who farms it. Lets try and get some common ground and start respecting food and its production. We need to sit down and talk,listen and respect each other. Thats not happening its all anti farming and thats wrong.
He once lived in Machynlleth town, right in the centre of one of the most rural and sheep raising areas in the UK. He couldn’t hack it and some farmer must have told him some home truths for which he has never forgiven farmers in general. He makes no attempt to show how food would be produced for the masses when about 70% of all UK farmland is not suitable for anything other than grazed grass. He is right that people are very far removed from where their food is produced, however his one skill is in convincing the gullible that he is even half sane and to actually waste their money buying his fantasy books.
@Huw Williams to the original comment: your point about subsidies doesn't change the fact that we need to change the way we interact with the planet to survive in the long run. Business point: if more people were vegan it would be easier to sell vegan products. The problem here is that people currently aren't living their lives in a sustainable way but they have to change. To your comment about land usage: Did you know that 95% of the soy grown in Brazil is used to feed cattle. If we no longer need to feed cattle etc (who eat more crops than us) we could actually save on space used to grow crops as well. The fact that 70% of UK farmland isn't suitable for anything other than grass doesn't suggest that we don't have enough space to grow food (not meat etc). It actually shows how inefficient our current food production system is. Do you know anyone where 70% of the food they eat is meat? 🧐
@@jackdiamond931 Absolute rubbish. The planet is doing very well and barring a catastrophic event unrelated to humans, such as the inevitable advance of the next ice age peaking [we are still in an ice age but in a relatively short semi=melt] the planet will continue to balance itself. You have been indoctrinated by the doom-mongers in the grand religious tradition, hook, line and sinker.
Sense at last. George will never sit down with sheep farmers, he is on record and again yesterday at Hay festival, for saying that sheep have rendered the hillsides of Wales a barren wasteland. Which is utter nonsense, but he want us all eating manufactured gloop to line the pockets of investors who want to control our lives through food. He is n a mission and his open attacks on farmers and farming us unedifying. Minette Batters did put up a good fight tho.
@Jack Diamond jack then come and join the farming industry ? Im self made never given a penny by anyone if i can you can. Then buy or rent arable land and have a go its hard work for little money. You will need phosphate fertiliser unless you can get muck of livestock farmers. The best way is mixed farming sadly nearly destroyed by the EU. Their is nothing stopping you having a go? Try eating seasonally and stop eating imported out of season foods something vegans forget food milage , phosphate ferilizers etc
7.04: “just animal farming produces more GHG than all global transport.” Can anyone tell me where he’s getting his math from? A quick image search (global greenhouse gas emissions by sector 2020 ipcc) seems to me to suggest that while agriculture accounts for more than transport, livestock is a fraction of this and no where near transport… Any suggestions greatly appreciated..
Yes he’s peddling the same old stuff having been taken to task on the data time and again. Agri emissions in U.K. are about 1per cent of total emissions whilst in USA 4%. It’s fashionable to cite agriculture because of competing interests n terms of what George is peddling and Beyond Meat etc the fact is that the consumer has rejected al lot of the processed vegan foods and the investors are after them for misrepresenting projected returns. It’s a money game.
On Wiki you can get some data: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_agriculture On this counting it is ca. 25%, and it is still somewhat underestimated. I saw somewhere other, more minute calculations, which estimated it into more than 30%. Anyway, half of that is animal production, and that' how you get at Monbiot's thesis.
@@OgrodLesnyOstatnieWzgorze Thanks. There;'s always a difference between those who deny facts and those who simply look 'em up. The ones who look for information are campaigning to save our world. The ones who can't be *rsed to look up anything are complaining about laws that put childrens lives above more dangerous cars.
We need vegetables, herbs, berry bushes and fruit trees planted on every estate in Britain, so we are not reliant on profit-hungry supermarkets and can source natural organic food locally. It isn't difficult as this was the case in the 70s when I grew up. Both sets of grandparents had gardens full of food and we used to forage for a plethora of edibles on our doorstep... Now we have food banks?
It's always good to grow food for yourself, but it's entirely unrealistic to shake your reliance on "supermarkets" that way. It would take way more than a small back yard to even get close to sustaining yourself (and an enormous amount of people don't even have one), not to mention an expert knowledge of preservation solutions. The only reason we have access to most greens through winter and spring for example is importation, are you going to be handling that individually too?
@@Arbaaltheundefeated We already import 46% of our food. We have thousands of miles of roads and council estates filled with decorative trees and bushes. Preservation including salt pickling, fermentation and pickling in vinegar has provided seasonal foods all year around for centuries. Modern farming methods such as hydroponics, aquaponics and verticle gardens provide many multiples of food per square meter.
@@steveparker8065 Oh, right, so in your world it's really simple and cheap for just anyone to farm pounds and pounds of greens *per day* and store it all to cover the year, maybe we should all be making our own vinegar and salt, grow our own sugar and breed our own yeast cultures to preserve it with since it's all so easy? Get your head out of your neo-primitivist clouds and listen to Monbiot, these are pipedreams fit for a world with a fraction of the population we have to contend with, and incompatible with our entire model of civilization.
@@tisFrancesfault Yeah, by all means people should definitely endeavor to grow food for themselves as and where they can. A nice vegetable garden is both an environmental boon and a great hobby that can bring a lot of mental wellness. But thinking backyard parcel agriculture is a solution to the future of feeding humanity is nothing short of delusional.
Re-distribution of farmland and the borrowing secured on them ? Farmers are the biggest subsidisers of food in the country. Shall E re-distribute your assets? No, thought not.
Funnily enough this is what every successful Asian country did. Japan, SK, and Taiwan all had extreme land redistribution policies. It caused a huge boom in food production and massive economic growth. Source: How Asia Works - Joe Studwell
Alas, the removal of public benefit regulation from this island was funded by offshore tax-avoiding finance as a means to remove all regulation and asset-astrip the country all the quicker. Most UK property is now passing into the hands of offshore finance - as are the ownership of most of the island-born workforce. We were sold. The rumours of it being a unicorn-sale were exaggerated.
@@mowilliams2517most farmland isn't owned by farmers. It's owned by billionaires like Dyson or The Crown. The former are only interested in maximum returns for minimal investment. The latter keep their land because they're better than all of us because someone said so
What an idealogue. "Pay farmers to restore the land". Im still trying to figure out his realistic plan to feed us all. He says we should focus on concentrating farming in fertile soils etc....and removing it from infertile locations. Firstly, this sounds very much like superfarms, and secondly, thats exactly what we are already doing. And then finally, he d rather we just ate some soup of stinking bacteria.... I'm all for perennials Even idealogues can accidentally come across 1 or 2 good ideas without completely destroying them. Conpletely agree with him regarding the very final bit.
It's typical that a Guardian journalist favours a food system in which all our food is controlled by a small number of super massive companies, in secret. He fails to recognise that if one of those super massive labs were to fail, or have a disease outbreak, that would cause mass extinction
I agree. Even though I usually find George Monbiot to present fine arguments for his case, this does not square. He wants high intensive food production of perennials without using artificial fertilizer or animal dung from livestock. He cannot feed the world population and be at odds with the fossil fuel and fertilizer industry at the same time. And then your point exactly, if he is for a increased democratization of our political and social systems (which he clearly presents as a desirable alternative in other talks) then why he is lobbying for a greater concentration of power in the hands of industry when it comes to food? Government is never ever going to accept ordinary people using fermentation process to produce food in their own privately made labs for human consumption. Just think of all the expensive licenses and bureaucracy needed for anyone to get that kind of business up and running. Ordinary people can own livestock and recycle that dung into fertility for their market and kitchen gardens. It’s a more democratic way of producing our food. Just like Mark Lynas I’ve had much respect for their opinions and arguments regarding other topics, but when it comes to food and feeding the world I cannot see how their visions present a fairer, more just and ecologically sound food system.
What i dont understand is the conflation between places which already seem to be naturally growing beef on pasture like the uk and ireland which seems quite low impact, vs brasil or america where either massive deforestation is happening or the beef are fed corn
Exactly. Eradicate the fast food industry and we'll be fine. Also, having worked in hospitality for 35 years, restaurants and corporate events could take a look at themselves.
Yet we make our UK farmers lives impossible to then Import meat from these places doing real harm to the environment. All little farms and abattoirs going under, meaning more imports from places that don't have our standards and treat animals in a very cruel way.
Exactly, “seems quite low impact” that’s what they want you to think. The point is these animals diets are supplemented, even the grass in their fields is fertilised with ammonia, this is why much of our countryside is the same colour as a golf course. This is not good for our native species, even the dung is so full of pesticides from various preventative treatments nothing can live off it. We’ve already got rid of most of the trees here to make way for animal ag, Brazil is just doing the same now. Should we judge them?
there's nothing natural about the land used for agriculture in the UK. UK went through massive deforestation and wetland draining to create all our agricultural land. Also most grass fed cattle in the UK are also fed supplementary livestock feed, which are man-made dry pellets, usually containing a high proportion of soy grown in countries like Brazil which cut down large areas of rainforest for this purpose (to grow soy for livestock feed), as well as other crops like corn and wheat. And the pasture which cows are grazed on in the UK usually predominantly comprises Italian ryegrass, a non-native species which outcompetes most other species, essentially creating a monoculture. Almost all modern livestock pasture is very low in biodiversity, contributing very little in terms of ecosystem services beyond feeding livestock. Compare that to a woodland, which contributes to flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, air purification, water purification, crop pollination, pest control, recreation and wellbeing etc.
Climate change is NOT caused or cured by zero carbon! Silvo pastures have restored and regreened arid desert lands. North Africa was once lush and green until the Roman empire deforested and culled the wild animals there, sowed wheat and other crops causing it to turn to desert. Many other examples of 'rested' land that over time became barren without animals. So animals are a must!, part of a balanced system so vitall, not to be removed especially in arid lands. Science must observe real life and learn from history not just accept controlled tests and studies from people of institutions in lovely buildings.
George Monbiot is a journalist. His willingness to talk about subjects he has no real knowledge about shows his level of arrogance. Industrial agriculture is the problem. But it’s not the only type of agriculture. What about regenerative agriculture?
Poor George.,i bet he feels he is in a minority of a fraction of a percent of truly conscious and intelligent beings.He is a legend,he has been banging his head against a brick wall for years.Hopefully the tide will turn soon due to his efforts and others like him.We owe him a huge debt of gratitude for bringing these issues into the public realm.Thank you George
I watch a lot of this channels content, and I think the way the title frames George's argument is egregious and unfair, you don't need to resort to this, be the change in journalism we all want to see, not fall victim to media hype bullshit.
I think it's important to point out that when you're eating animal products, you're contributing to deforestation, because animals are mostly fed soya beans and corn. We hear people saying that you shouldn't eat soya because it is being grown on deforested land, but a very small proportion of soya is for direct human consumption.
One thing has become clear from the diets of the rich world - industrialised food production does not have good health outcomes. Medicine still does not understand well how different foods are digested or exactly how the microbiome works. What is clear is that unprocessed meat is far healthier than processed meat, fermented food is great and humans cannot live healthy lives on powdered food. His plan for us to eat this protein sludge is extreme when you think that we have no idea how our bodies will handle it. At the end of the day governments are most likely to introduce a form of GHG tax which if properly accounted for will make meat very expensive. At that point people will be forced to shift to other sources of protein and George will probably get his way. Sad as it is for everyone's taste buds - at least the UK doesn't have far to fall in that respect.
This nonsense about not farming animals has got to stop. The first vegan boom occurred concurrently with the lion's share of deforestation in the Amazon and Indonesia. Vegans rabidly try and protest that the majority of the deforestation has been to clear rainforest for pasture-based beef farming; how would that work then with the jaguars, anacondas and other predatory animals native to rainforests who are going to gobble up the farmer's cattle as soon as their backs are turned? Also, if you leave the land on which we currently graze livestock, it'll get overgrown, the grass will grow over one season and begin decaying in the next; that will emit as much methane as would be released if you grazed cattle on it. This scapegoating of livestock farming is a smokescreen for shale gas drilling (which provides the majority of novel methane emissions), and vegans are its gullible supporters.
I would like to know what George thinks of things like the Chinampas of Mexico, that land is incredibly diverse and incredibly productive. I am not saying he is wrong, just building on his points. However, the scientists of yesteryear were all solving problems by further distancing humans from nature, with unforeseen consequences. However, maybe an EVEN deeper change of slowly reintegrating humans with nature is the key. Of course, urban centres will always require the kinds of intensive factory farming he talks about, thus requiring another land to produce a surplus to support them. But his system further requires the concentration of humans in small areas. If we simultaneously focus on the economic (and ecological) development of developing nations to help slow the birth rate of humans, while also starting permaculture agriculture in less dense areas, adopting vertical farming methods outside urban centres, and creating a protein-rich food solution by fermentation and perennial plants would also be a part of this as well (although I remain reserved on the nutritional consequences of those). Then I believe there is a solution in there somewhere. I think any solution that posits a uniliteral description of the solution is suspect (Vegan vs Carnivore both seem equally as silly for example). The truth is in the nuance; humans require resources, and the way society is currently structured is a one-way damage to the planet for the resources, but to say there are no other options is a tad presumptuous. Also, the title is degenerate and really devalues this important conversion and the interview, this guy is a legend in the game. @PoliticsJOE
It's very easy to get your proteins if you eat the amount of calories your need, whatsoever your diet is relaying on, even on a plant based diet. Do the maths and you will see. As a vegan, and doing so for ecological reasons, I was a bit worried not to get the right amount of proteins required. But when I did the maths I realised I was eating 100g of protein per day and it's a bit to much. So I reduced the amount of leguminous and cereals. And i'm still eating around 75g of protein per day. It's almost impossible to fall under 50g. No need of these fake meats or proteins produced in an industrial way! Just eat the cereals, grains leguminous ,and so on , which are given to the cattle, pigs, chickens , and cut the middle man. And it's even healthier, if you don't forget to take a vitamine b12 supplement. But , in another way , it's difficult to produce all the food we need without animals, because of the manure which helps to improve the soil, unless we use our own manure, which is possible on a personal level ( c.f the book of joe jenkins: 'Humanure') but a bit difficult for a farmer 😅 Better using the cattle to feed the fields than using the fields to feed the cattle. Sorry for my poor English writing.
"Conspiracy merchants..." he proceeds to obliquely elaborate on a conspiracy after having already elaborated on yet another conspiracy. It's a conspiracy sandwich with Monbiot's hypocritical bullshit wedged in between.
Such a generalistic argument. Yes aspects such as mega dairy farms (in UK up to 2500 cows) have a huge negative impact on the environment. But on a smaller scale, this is both sustainable, animal friendly and environmentally friendly. Blame America for the large scale farming that parts of the UK have adopted!
It is all of those things, but crucially it is also inefficient to the point of irrelevancy, when it comes to the real question of feeding humanity. You don't need more than basic math skills to work that out. Sure, pasture fed beef and dairy can continue to exist... but it really would have to do so as luxury goods along the lines of single malt whiskey and caviar, if we're to do it in a non-destructive way.
@@Arbaaltheundefeated sorry but we already produce so much food that it has to be destroyed in vast quantities, the biggest problem is unfair distribution of food, and the market theory which keeps the food prices high. The UN recognise the benefits of small farms that practice rotational farming methods but people like Monbiot with his profile and platform use selective arguments to further their hidden agenda of supporting chemical based farming and food corporations with patents for plant based gloop protein.
@Aid this may be your experience but it certainly isn't my experience of being around farms, admittedly not factory farms but smallish farms, on speaking to the farmers they have all been devoted to their animals wellbeing and welfare. The IPCC believes that small farms are the future of farming, and regenerative farming is essential to restore soil biodiversity and stop desertification which increases land temperatures, it isn't simply about food. I am against industrial agriculture for many reasons including the belief that animals are not machines and monocrops are unsustainable, there are much better alternatives. Also the amount of food wastage that is allowed needs to be addressed.
Love the clickbait title. Draw the idiots in with something fantastical like “eat the babies” then force them to sit there and listen to a reasonable argument.
I like George. He makes A LOT of sense across a variety of topics but he has, for me got this wrong. I agree with a lot of his sentiments e.g. intensive farming is bad, as is our over reliance on cheap, unsustainable meat. However, before we release the next silver bullet can we please consider the long term impacts. We don't know the long term impacts on our health of this huge dietary shift. We can't, because we haven't tested it over a sustained period of time. Lets not do what ee always do and leap in to find horrific consequences when it's too late. I also believe extensive, sustainable and woodland farming are all valid and indeed beneficial ways forward for our planet. I base this on solid daya, built up over generations of experience - not some new fashionable idea
I watched a film called "Mr Jones" last night. It was about the 1930s welsh journalist Gareth Jones. Let's just say the political apple doesn't fall far from the marxist tree.
People eat far too much meat these days. I ate well in the 50s and 60s but we didnt eat meat or fish at every meal as many people seem to these days. I stopped eating meat 40 years ago and dont miss it . I do still eat fish though sometimes. I like Quorn but too much of it upsets my stomach.
It sadly sounds like he’s never been on a regenerative farm yet lumps all types of agricultural together. I agree with him that we really need to get out of industrial monocultures. But he seems to not grasp that non-domesticated herbivores exist. Bison and zebras still impact their environments, allowing for grasslands to exist. Regenerative farming follows nature’s methods in this way. Feedlots and conventional farming goes against nature. I really want him to spend time on a few regenerative farms. While they are all different based in their places and contexts, I think he would see that these types of farms really do heal the soil and ecosystems.
Free Julian Assange💚💚💚 Credit where credit is due to George but after watching him throw some of the greatest documentry filmmakers and investigative journalists under the bus whilst he goes after Brand has damaged George's scant credibility beyond repair for many.
HOW MUCH FOOD IS JUST THROWN AWAY IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, THE EXPIRY DATE WAS PROBABLY MADE COMMON JUST TO KEEP THE FOOD PRODUCTION WORKING OVERTIME. WHILE THE POOR LIVE OFF THE GARBAGE. HOW DISGUSTING CAN HUMAN SOCIETY GET? HOW GREEDY CAN BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN GET?
Also, as for his slagging off this so-called neo-peasant "bullshit", actually there's quite a lot we could accomplish if everyone took to doing a bit of farming. If you've got a problem with factory farming chickens, anyone with a garden can keep laying hens and, with even a few, you'd end up with more eggs than you know what to do with. No one said you to eat the eggs. And I've never heard vegans keeping chickens. Doing it on that scale would be far better for the animals, better for the environment, and it'd be a pretty effective way of utilising the large areas of space currently given over to people's gardens and public areas for agriculture.
Just a very minor point: he says that livestock farming causes pretty much all wild organisms "except those that eat cow dung" to lose out, actually thanks to avermectins (wormicides routinely given to cattle and other livestock to prevent them developing parasitic worms) even animals which eat cow dung (such as dung beetles) lose out, as they tend to die from eating the toxic avermectins excreted in the dung
Absolutely loved this interview, listened to it on Spotify. I was however shocked that a podcast decrying green washing oligarchy and corporate fossil fuel lobby ran a green-washing ad from ARAMCO of all companies!!???!!! Would be worth looking into who is sponsoring your content.
Great interview, although very depressing. As an example, I can see how you can persuade people to reduce or get rid of fossil fuel burning transport. However, to persuade people that they need to change their eating habits (away from meat) is even more difficult, even though it's actually very simple. Luckily there's some good news on the perennial seed front, that's the good news.
It is far from simple as many vegans who have had to revert to meat n health grounds can testify. The diet doesn’t suit everyone and as for reproductive health the first advice from Gp Is ear some meat.
Wasn’t it so obvious when you look around. Leave a city, go into what we call nature, take a good look around, or drive around like I have done in my camper for 7 years, and all you can see is farms farms farms. Would you trust the water around farms? NOPE. That already tells you enough. But it’s not just the water, it’s the soil, the air, all the ecosystems around farming that go against the balance of nature. Also, why is everyone SO OK about them putting poison in the very food that goes into your children. It baffles me how people can be so docile into thinking farmers are good. Like, it’s mental. If it weren’t for farmers, you’d look around today and see forests as far as the eye can see. Look how much forests they have destroyed to grow some poisoned crops or torture thousands of animals. Also the natural animals have nowhere to go. Deers are constantly in fear. And if it weren’t enough destruction for these farmers, the very same people go out hunting anything that moves!! …I know the agenda of WEF isnt for our good, but I really dont mind the indirect good they are doing making many go bankrupt. They’re ok with ending lives everyday, but as soon as the table is turned a fraction, they get so upset! We need a whole revolution, and the very vegans you tormented are the ones driving it from the beginning. There will be some chaos, but what change that is worth it, will come without some chaos? LET GO.
What's with the BS title on this video? Monbiot never talked about "destroying farming". In fact he has gone on record saying that humanity can't and won't exist without farming. His point is that our current farming systems (especially animal farming) have a very high impact on many aspects of the environment and are unsustainable. How are we supposed to take your media outlet seriously if you resort to cheap clickbait tactics like this? Not only is it manipulative, it completely undermines what your guest is discussing.
What’s doubly sad about this topic is that it’s very hard to discern what data from what study is not aimed at ‘proving a point’ and is just the data presented in an unbiased way. There are studies that prove either way the effect of agriculture on the environment. There is huge money backing everything he’s saying which was also a criticism he had about the FF industry! What makes him not see the hypocrisy in that?
I'm a farmer's wife. I personally do not eat meat. One thing no one has ever explained to me is this: what would we do with all those animals. People do not keep pet cows, which is a shame. They are very affectionate. Would George Monbiot, etc, rather see them all slaughtered? Does he have a pet cow? If you have pet cattle (cow, bull, steer, etc), drop a 🐄 in response & and give the name of the breed. Also, what would we feed our pets? What about the ecological benefits of grazing?
Yes the argument is that 95+% of all the animals will be killed. Over the production cycle most of the meat production animals are killed anyway, only breeders live a couple of years past their production time. So the only functional difference is that breeding would be drastically reduced until there there is only a fraction of domesticated animals left, which would make ecological space for wild animals. For multiple reasons, I do not think this will happen to anywhere near 95+%, but that is the argument.
Are you suggesting that all those farmed animals bred into existence on farms aren't already going to be slaughtered? The solution is very obvious. As demand ramps down the need to breed animals to supply that demand ramps down. Just stop breeding them into existence. If your concern is more about the potential of making these farmed animals extinct then you should know that animal agriculture is the number one leading cause of biodiversity loss and extinction on the planet.
This was a fantastic interview, but you are taking the mickey by republishing 3 times in under 24 hours with just a couple of edits’ difference…oh! And the clickbait cheapens your content as opposed to making it more interesting.
He is simply wrong that smallholders use more land/use land less efficiently. You only need to visit a farm and then visit an allotment to see how wrong he is...
Um ...Whitney Webb has published exactly whats happening actually. And every so called conspircy theorist Ive listened to, incl Mr Brand , does repeatedly report on the issues you say they dont look at Monibot. They also provide reliable sources and stats to back up their reporting. Unlike you.
This guy is way more educated than me but him like many others don't realise how big the earth actually is and how nature works,factory farming is a cruel abomination organic farming to me is the way forward with bigger control on animal welfare,trouble is nobody just wants an ordinary life now we are taught to worship the millionaire lifestyle
Crops that can stay in the ground for a long time? If only we had a plant like that, maybe one that doesn't completely fail in a drought. Oh yes, we do... grass
Wo betide the western world, if we do not invest in this. China is in a bid to become self sufficient. If they master it, they will export it to the global south and reap the benefits
I can’t decide if the click bait title is for or against George Monbiots preposition that farming should be destroyed. I.e. Is the click bait title trying to make George out to be a total lunatic or themselves
Immediate environment local environment global environment the environment is all around us ,nothing wrong with the word or the use of the word environment .
Cherrypicking Knepp Estate to strawman the agroecology movement as unproductive is embarrassing and insulting. 1 milion smallholdings producing, veg, fruit, eggs, milk and meat amongst other services would be an amazing countryside to live in.
I expect better from this channel than a misleading click-bait title considering the usually excellent discourse. I assume it was meant tongue-in-cheek but nevertheless it's cheap and doesn't help anyone.
This is a stupid clickbait title, but in some respects maybe reflects some of his inner beliefs. I am so tired of hearing this argument about animal farming being as being a driver of global warming/heating (really what it means is changing the composition of the atmosphere so that it absorbs more infrared light which raises the amount of energy in the atmosphere). He never address the biogenic cycle of of living things. Cows (and all life) are carbon based, meaning they are made from carbon. They get that carbon from the vegetation they eat, the vegetation they eat gets the carbon from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide). The carbon dioxide gets there from both animals exhaling (as well as being released tectonically) and also comes from the breakdown of methene (takes 10 years) which is release from anaerobic digestion of plant material (cellulose). Methene comes from lots of different sources, rotting vegetation, industrial activities and yes cow burps. To keep the effect of atmospheric warming down you have to keep the amount of carbon in the atmosphere low. That has been increased by releasing trapped carbon from coal and oil and gas from the earths crust that was laid down million of years ago. Now its true that some animal farming has other side effects of pollution run off into rivers but this is the same for all intense industries. A return to old fashioned methods of farming/pre industrial would make a dent in that problem but would probably come at the cost of more expensive food. We would return to pre industrial farming. This is also a problem for industrial crop agriculture with the (fossil fuel produced) synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. I'm not convinced that without these products crop agriculture in the UK can feed us and remember that the monocrop approach of industrial farming destroys all life in a field. Go visit an arable field after harvest, it reminds me of pictures of 1st world war no mans land. If you want to actually reduce your food choices impact on carbon emission, buy local, by seasonal. Try buying seasonal veg grown organically in the winter in the UK, see how you get on. Gorge also ignores the fact that humans are obligate carnivores who can survive on plant based diet (with industrially produced supplements), but can't really thrive. Our digestives systems evolved away from primate ancestors such that we have a much reduce ability to digest plant material (i.e. ferment in a cecum). There is some statistic that 3/4 (or more, I can't remember) of vegans quit after a few years and the vegans that remain are either under weight and malnourished, or overweight due to the amount of processed vegan "health" food they eat. Of course there are some that make it work - I can't claim to know the percentages but this doesn't affect the fact of our biology. I've noticed that that Politics JOE is far more left wing than I first realised in recent weeks and this video is further evidence that they are a little out of touch and are starting to embody that metropolitan elite notion that the Brexit crowd shouted about. Not sure if I will continue to follow as they sometimes do a good job of pointing out the idiocy of the conservative government but I don't want to support a channel that is so misaligned with my views on some very important topics.
@@steviemac2681 What he means by returned to nature is planted with trees. There isn't anything unnatural about oxen eating pasture - other of course than their movements being controlled by humans to ensure they don't destroy said pasture; and they are protected from predators (not that there are any on this island). Granted that one aspect that is unnatural is the mono species or very few species that we have on pasture. We can mix oxen and sheep and chickens, but their presence doesn't preclude other wild animals (foxes and badgers are a bit of a problem of course) from also living on those pastures and in the hedgerows and wooded areas that are intermingled with pasture fields. The same can't be said of monocrop agriculture as the nature wants to eat that crop.
Don’t give up on Joe just because of one or two interviews that you don’t like. Even if you don’t agree it’s good to hear ideas from others, even if the only outcome is that it reaffirms your own opposing beliefs on the matter. The algorithms have conditioned us to only accept information that is completely aligned to our current view point and to cry out when we are challenged with an opposing view point. We need to be able to say that wasn’t for me without completely writing it off entirely. That is how we have gotten to such a polarised state and a burgeoning culture war
