1
Many of the data analyses and views in this video are given by Dr. Frank Mitloehner, who is partly funded by the livestock industry. That doesn't make what he says wrong, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.
0 fact-checkers
1 viewer
Add speaker...
Frank Mitloehner
Professor and Air Quality Extension Specialist
What I've Learned
YouTube Channel
Collaborative fact-checking of : Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why
Collaborative fact-checking of the video
Here, CaptainFact's members can quote video's moments that should be verified. Quotes have to be confirm or refute with sources. All verifications are displayed directly on video, on screen of all CaptainFact extension's users.
Learn more about extension
- Quote a video's statement with (+) button.
- Add sources or comments behind the statements.
- Rate sources quality with up votes or down votes.
- Get reputation for each up votes on your job and unlock new privileges on CaptainFact.
At
“
[Transcript and sources of the video]
Comments
1
The transcript and the sources of the video are available. The author specifies that the sources are his own, not Dr Mitloehner's, the specialist who is interviewed in the video.
At
“
the entire U.S. going vegan would be 2.6% [of reduction of greenhouse gases emissions]
Refute
0
No source refuting this statement yet.
Confirm
1
1
"The modeled system without animals increased total food production (23%), altered foods available for domestic consumption, and decreased agricultural US GHGs (28%), but only reduced total US GHG by 2.6 percentage units."
1
The paper tries to estimate the impact of stopping meat production in the US, by replacing it with an nutriously equivalent production of vegetables.
It doesn't try to estimate the impact of stopping meat consumption in the US, which could be very different from meat production.
That said, the annual meat production in the US (46 Mt in 2017) is quite close to the annual meat consumption (124.1kg per people in 2017 * population of 325.1 Mhab in 2017).
At
“
the water input that people assign to beef includes [for 94% of the total,] the so called green water. And the green water is rain water
Refute
0
No source refuting this statement yet.
Confirm
2
2
Page 402 : "the greenwater footprint refers to the rainwater consumed".
The table 1 gives us an average of 14,414 m3/ton of green water for a total of 15,415 m3/ton of water consumed, which makes 93.506%.
At
“
the water that goes into a beef animal, [a few hours later], it's urinated out. [This water] is going in and it's coming out.
Refute
2
2
It is misleading to suggest that the water the cattle absorb will be useful to the land again in the form of urine, without any negative impact. Cattle urine contains nitrous oxide, which is an important ozone-depleting substance and greenhouse gas.
Confirm
0
No source confirming this statement yet.
At
“
[diagram comparing nutrients, especially protein, between beef and rice]
Refute
4
4
Comparing the amount of protein provided by beef and rice is fallacious: in order to compare the beneficial and negative impacts of meat in terms of nutrients, it would make more sense to compare it to a vegetable protein source (e.g. legume). Moreover, it is not only the quantity of protein ingested that counts in terms of nutrition, but also the presence of substances that can be harmful to health, such as sodium or saturated fat, which are more abundant in animal products than in plant products.
Confirm
0
No source confirming this statement yet.
Sign up