George Monbiot vs Simon Fairlie - 'Vegan vs. Mixed Organic Agriculture' debate

[@jakhan4203]

What an inspiring and genuine man... Monbiot should lead the country ❤

[@davephillips1987]

he is delusional

[@the0point]

Some of the questions at the end were not really questions, just those who needed to vent on their given subjects. I am not sure a question takes minutes to word and put across. Well done to Monbiot for the gentile handling.

[@mythtree6348]

gentile ?? gosh that was freudian :(

[@petergoreau3884]

This is worth watching. Thank you Dartington Trust for making this debate available

[@andyswarbrick9991]

A truly outstanding opening.

[@Vscustomprinting]

Imagine talking about how human slavery is terrible and that we can have a better society without it, and your opponent keeps suggesting that some slavery isnt a problem and that slavery is sustainable in certain systems.

[@roselleangwin8755]

@Vscustomprinting I am SO glad you said this. It's apposite.

[@martinaheller-krug3065]

I know Simon from our life together in south of France ( long time ago) where he for some time lived in a small cave over the winter . He was admired by my little son ( who is now 50 Years old himself) for NOT fixing his shoelaces and NOT brushing his teeth ! By the way , he did do it later , though ! If you get a chance to read this : All my best for the time coming ! Martina Came down with Peter, lived on Les Combes , gave birth in the Shrubs to Olaf , my second son . I have 4 boys now ……

[@kevinhansenexpcommercial]

Right around 32:10 George said "You can not extrapolate from one small farm and look at the global food system through that lens". In my view it is the very large scale operations that pose the problem. But I guess I'm biased because I would like to have my own small subsistence farm and feel that it could be balanced with nature.

[@jakhan4203]

Not talking about balance at that point...rather that shareholder style farming simply will not feed us all now, let alone in the future as population rises.

[@petegreenway8953]

@@jakhan4203 data suggests otherwise, I believe its still the case that the majority of food produced world wide is done so by small family farms and over and over again it is demonstrated that small farms manage land to produce more food per acre

[@frenchiepowell]

Such a wonderful and civil debate as far as debates go! Love the respectful disagreement. That being said, as a farmer, I can produce much more food on less land without animals than I can with animals, and it's much easier to maintain soil health with perennial crops than with livestock.

[@andrewtrip8617]

Sounds like you are on some good land ,or importing fertility .I’ve found the opposite to be true in a less favoured area .

[@VeganPermaculture]

Very interesting debate and some excellent explanations from George on the position he takes. Thanks for sharing!

[@Vscustomprinting]

Your ego is apparent in your user name... Permaculture is just a white washing of sustainable agriculture practices while forcing the idea that animal commodification is still suitable for the system. Its affluent bullshit.

[@guydauncey]

I recommend watching from 25' to 45', when George Monbiot is speaking, with absolute clarity. Also from the 57' mark onwards. "“The absolute heart-breaking horror of seeing the natural world getting ripped apart and going down the toilet in our lifetimes in front of our very eyes - the great wonders of the only planet that we know that supports life, just going, vanishing, at extraordinary speed in this sixth great extinction.” - George Monbiot (1'07")

[@the0point]

Good call. I had to skip the other bits as well. But GM always has something interesting to say. Some of the questions were um bawdy?

[@simclardy1]

George is a slick. The technocrats got us into this mess and you think this Nuclear fanboy will get us out? Leave me out of your utopia.

[@someguy2135]

I listened to the full video, but sped up the part where his opponent was speaking. That saved time, and my sanity.

[@editing5157]

I agree with that, and we have to do so while knowing that whether we want it or not (I don't) our lifestyles and cultural institutions are fundamental to producing that destruction every day. I suppose I get some solace in the knowledge that all things are impermenent, including our ability to control and exploit most other forms of life. Nevertheless, very worrying with the direction of AI and automotation how we are looking to extend that conrtol. This conversation is taking place against the backdrop of other emerging trends which are likely to complicate the picture even further. 'Climate smart' and big tech farming is one of the most worrying applications of these techs. Masquerading as a climate solution, it is really an attempt to extend the use of farming systems reliant on chemicals and heavy genetic modification, rather than care, diversity and space for evolution. It is mostly to continue the profits of those corporations involved in driving the current industrial farming system.

[@andreblum]

I highly, highly recommend George’s newest book Regenesis.

[@rebeccaslater1398]

George Monbiot is a hero for the planets future.

[@Vscustomprinting]

No, he a member of the species that refuses to stop putting their ambitions over logic and reason.

[@pregnantpedestrian2112]

Heroes are induviduals who stand out, against all odds, to make a positive change. George is the very definition of a hero. Albeit I agree on the generalization on our species.@@Vscustomprinting

[@robertjsmith]

George Monbiot is one of a few honest journalists

[@Vscustomprinting]

People just cant wrap their heads around the fact that that "connecting with nature" doesnt mean commodifying animals.. Its because they dont want to.

[@jamesshirtcliff4388]

113:45 Jhoti Fernandes making the points Simon needed to!!

[@simclardy1]

She nailed it! I think Simon is too kind. He refused to see the absolute venom George was oozing......to his credit. The meek shall inherit the world. But Jhoti and that other farmer who spoke at the end where excellent. Sadly, George's message will resonate with the wealthy aristocrats and "leaders". The last thing the laptop class want to admit, is the consumer culture they love, is killing the world.

[@skarathanos]

George made some very good points in his response to Jhoti's concerns.

[@someguy2135]

@@simclardy1 You-"the consumer culture they love, is killing the world." Consuming animals and what comes out of them is a big part of that. On an individual level, switching to a fully plant based diet is the single most effective way to minimize your environmental footprint, according to Joseph Poore, the lead author of an Oxford study on the effect of food production on the environment. It was the most comprehensive study of its kind. Dr. Poore switched to a plant based diet after seeing the results of his study.

[@editing5157]

@@skarathanos He did, but also didn't completely satisfy his point. He basically said that he wanted to focus on those he saw as having the destructive power in the system (a good aim to my mind), but perhaps needs to be more humble. I agree with him that in fighting isn't fruitful, but perhaps he should take the criticism on board that he can be a bit more nuanced in his messaging, and since he is targeting industrial farming - admiting that the industrialisation process is fundmentally the problem - then should be no issue with giving a bit more generous. But I also agree with many of his points, for instance research has been done on nature attitudes, and farmers often have the most hostile attitudes towards wildlife.

[@andrewtrip8617]

@@editing5157 "farmers often have a hostile attitude to wildlife " Where exactly did you get that little gem from .I've found the opposite to be true from personal experience .reasearch usually reflects the prejudice of the researcher rather than the reality on the ground .

[@lesleywills1]

I remember Simon from years back from the early Glasto days and then tinkers bubble. He has adapted his outlook on living with the land through his on going observations then adapting and writing about it. As time goes on I have grown to admire his stance on the way forward from his own work with communities and small scale farms, plus he is a dam fine scyther if that is a word (I have brought one of his scythes) great piece of kit. He walks his talk and I have huge respect for his stance I hope we get to agree to disagree as time goes on otherwise it’s another separate group fighting there corner and that pleases the powers that be re we are distracted from the real issues.

[@jiggersotoole7823]

1k views in a few days. That's how many views a macdonalds advert gets every second.

[@Vscustomprinting]

Yep

[@iutubiutampoc]

Great Monbiot as usual!!

[@GreenOilBike]

Does anyone else want to see more on the cow methane issue? What are the papers they refer to? Simon wrote in his book that it's only animals on high protein grain which emit methane - on grass and silage they do not. SN

[@someguy2135]

"A number of past studies have found lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with the feedlot system. One reason is that grass-fed cows gain weight more slowly, so they produce more methane (mostly in the form of belches) over their longer lifespans."-NPR I did a quick Google search for this. There are others I could cite.

[@GreenOilBike]

@@someguy2135 Interesting, thank you.

[@someguy2135]

@@GreenOilBike ​ @GreenOilBike My pleasure. If you care about our environment you should know this= Switching to a fully plant based diet is the single most effective way to minimize your environmental footprint. "The new study, published in the journal Science, is one of the most comprehensive analyses to date, looking into the detrimental effects farming can have on the environment and included data on nearly 40,000 farms in 119 countries. "Lead author Joseph Poore said: “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use." “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he explained, which would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions."-The Independent Title-"Veganism is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce our environmental impact, study finds by Olivia Petter"

[@someguy2135]

If you don't switch to a fully plant based diet, but instead reduce for our environment, the most effective way to do that is to boycott beef, and preferably also dairy, since cows have the biggest impact, not only on greenhouse gasses, but also deforestation and wasted fresh water. Each vegan saves 219,000 gallons of fresh water every year!

[@user-iw7gb6hx2j]

He didn't say that only grain fed animals produce methane. Rather the problem with the animal methane emission idea, is that animals only emit the carbon the plants they eat take from the air. They do emit some of that as methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas, but methane naturally breaks down back into C02. So these animals are actually carbon neutral, which is why Mammoths and Bison weren't causing global warming. Where the carbon emissions come in is when you emit carbon producing food for those animal to grow. Producing grain for animals to eat, using lots of oil to run tractors and produce fertiliser, obviously emits a fair bit of carbon. Grazing the cows on grass however doesn't so is the better option.

[@the0point]

Did George bring his waterproof bike bag with him? Classic :D

[@shaneelliott9045]

One of these people has done extensive research and has a great understanding of the topic at hand the other is here to defend a lifestyle which we cannot sustain

[@andrewtrip8617]

Couldn't agree more .years of living off the land is no substitute for looking stuff up on the Internet and putting your faith in untested technology that's o ly acessable and controlled by the the rich multinationals .

[@Caladcholg]

Simon Fairley this is so embarrassing, why would you come to something so unprepared, or if you have such trouble public speaking, why do it? I understand it's difficult and in your head it probably makes sense, but god man, it doesn't matter how correct you are or how good your information is if this is the delivery. 1:18:16 wow, good job by that lady, get her to debate this misanthropist

[@andyswarbrick9991]

George at his best.

[@nandanugent]

George is completely correct based on good statistical analysis. When you consider most of the energy ingested by animals is dissipated in the form of heat then animal agriculture by definition is vastly less efficient then the protein supplying capacity of a crop like beans. As a comparison meat production yields only 87.5 kg protein per acre per year while beans produce 550kg in four months on the same acre of land.

[@andrewtrip8617]

Yep I’ve grown beans and I’ve raised meat .I can assure you that in the real world the ecological foot print is directly related to the protein extracted . Beans are far more depleting to the soil ,than the meat in your scenario..when you’ve harvested your beans you are left with a bare field to relay using fossil fuels.when you’ve harvested your beef you are left with the same pasture plus the fertility the animal added .Its a no brainer for ecology.of the field .This is before you examine the byproducts and vitamins etc of the two protein sources .

[@KelpandFern]

@@andrewtrip8617 time to give vegan organic a look in to, just one of the many ways to re-introduce "fertility" in to the ground without the use of animal slaves and the extreme amounts of waste they create.

[@roselleangwin8755]

@@andrewtrip8617 Beans produce nitrogen for the soil. Also you can grow a green manure crop directly afterwards, or mulch; and vegan growers, or growers sympathetic to vegan diets, are more likely to use such systems to replenish nutrients than meat farmers. Plus unless that meat is organic, the cattle are returning pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics and growth hormones to the soil. There are more vitamins (you mentioned them) in beans than in meat, too; and as much protein with little waste. What are the byproducts of meat, other than manure and in some cases leather? Kilo for kilo they are better nutrients for humans, and need a great deal less growing area (given also that most cattle are indoors for the winter and fed vast quantities of beans and maize with the fossil fuel needed for transportation). Meat in fact is an extremely inefficient use of land to produce protein; and did you know that 82% of the world's starving children live in countries where the main crops, soy beans and maize, are grown to feed to CATTLE for meat in the affluent West? (No, only 4-6% of soy beans go direct to human food worldwide.)

[@andrewtrip8617]

@@roselleangwin8755 i prefer both beans and beef for a balanced diet .Agriculturally beans are a good crop for the soil and as cattle feed .. Have you ever wondered why so many cultures have high regard for cattle yet you are hard pushed to find any with a high regard for beans .?

[@petewright4640]

​@@andrewtrip8617Where do the animals get the "fertility that they add" ?!

[@bodgerliz5138]

George is very eloquent with his Eco-modernist stance, but we know from previous Modernist trends that Nature is damaged by that approach to problems. Simon, focusing on small-farm production rightly challenges George's data, as it applies to the UK. Global data is a global average largely, and how is that going to benefit policy-makers that have very different landscapes to deal with across the world? George also misses out the illnesses associated with the vegan diet that is coming to light now. Simon has listed habitat for biodiversity that is integral to small-mixed farms. And what I hear is that his fields is ideal for sequestering carbon.Please all read Jake Fiennes, 2022, 'Land Healer, How Farming Can Save e Britain's Countryside.' Witness Books. Well done Simon, you make a lot of sense. The badly-managed cattle production and lands that George refers to, is terribly bad. No doubt about that. And, that can be corrected with principle and policy, and consumer power, but the vegan diet will not be any solution. Arable, grain production (a vegan diet) also uses forest clearance and kills wild animals . Both methods can be terrible if we continue to let i. And, the profit-motivated corporates must be just loving this distraction of veganism as a global diet so they can just continue their bad practices. George's point about waste is valid at the global level, but why is he blaming farmers and not the food commodity corporates. George's attachment to Veganism does not do his arguments any good. He is very ignorant about good small-farming practices and the benefits of the organic principle. IT IS ALL ABOUT ACCEPTING THAT BAD AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT IS THE PROBLEM. What has been going on in the last Century and this, is a disastrous Modernist approach that farmers were forced into by government/corporate Modernist politics, which has done the damage. But he purports more Modernism. He doesn't tell us about the embodied-energy involved in Eco-Modernist food production. Bonkers.

[@lesleypapworth335]

Have you read the book? Do you understand the numbers? It's not George, his vegansism, or his opinions. He is merely a messenger telling us that earth systems, (our kidneys, our lungs, our heart, our arteries), are all in a perilous state. The facts and numbers are telling us we have very little time, and very few options, to save the planet that sustains us. What's your answer, backed by real evidence, on how we might feed a population of 8 billion without wrecking the only planet that supports us? Both extensive agriculture (low inputs and low yields but uses lots and lots of land - oh those beautiful farming pictures) and intensive agriculture (the type that kills rivers and causes ever increasing dead zones in our oceans) do not provide the answer to that question. That's what the planet is telling us, that's what the numbers are telling us. Again, what's your answer to this massive question? Think about it. Try to wrap your brain around the enormity of what is at stake and how close that precipice is to every living thing, everything! you know.

[@bodgerliz5138]

@@lesleypapworth335 See my other comment, below to help answer. And yes I have the book and I spend a lot of time studying the subject. The numbers are severe absolutely, but there is a tremendous amount happening around the world that proves that Agro-ecology is already adapting and working at restoring ecosystems. Feed lots are undoubtedly wrong, and we need to eat less meat absolutely, but to look to a future 'fermented meat (etc) industry' with high levels of embodied energy as a technological solution rather than appreciating the ecological solutions already in progress, is questionable. And, especially when there are real health issues at stake in veganism. Monbiot has been right about stuff for so many years but I fail to see how he has arrived at the conclusions he has on the science he references. Other science counters his conclusions like the research that Jane Buxton references in her book - The Great Plant-based Con, Why eating a plants-only diet won't improve your health or save the planet, Piatkus Press.

[@someguy2135]

You-"George also misses out the illnesses associated with the vegan diet that is coming to light now." Citation needed. The largest organization of nutrition professionals officially declared- "It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. *Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.* Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements." -Full abstract from the position paper as found on PubMed from the National Institutes of Health

[@someguy2135]

You-"how is that going to benefit policy-makers that have very different landscapes to deal with across the world?" Cimate change is a global emergency. We should follow the guidance of the UN for mankind to switch to a more plant based diet. That should result in a more plant based food system. They found that animal agriculture produces more green house gasses than all transportation combined!

[@someguy2135]

You-"his fields is ideal for sequestering carbon." Carbon sequestration from certain forms of animal ag ends at the point when the soil becomes saturated. After that, no further capture can be done on that land.

[@someguy2135]

Composting food waste greatly decreases methane that would otherwise occur in landfills. That compost can be used for growing crops. Veganic farming methods use compost instead of manure or artificial fertilizers. This composted fertilizer is called "green manure" but is (surprisingly) not produced by animals. They use that phrase in the debates, which can be confusing if you don't know that. Everyone who can, should compost their food waste. I do. Easy and fun.

[@someguy2135]

"Much like certified organic farmers, veganic farmers use no synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or genetically modified ingredients. Veganic farmers take it to another level by not using any manures or slaughterhouse byproducts. They don't even use organically approved pesticides."- NBC News (repost of an AP story) Jun 21, 2008 Some U.S. farmers are picking up a technique seen more often abroad: veganic farming that uses crop rotations and composted plant matter - or "green manure" - to fertilize crops."-NBC News from an AP story (Title- "'Green manure' keeps these farmers happy.") "This is a particularly interesting time to expand research on veganic agriculture given changing attitudes toward animal agriculture. In the Global North, recent years have seen unprecedented criticism of the greenhouse gas contributions, resource use, and threats to food safety and security linked to industrial animal agriculture; and an intensified moral reckoning with the production and consumption of animals as food. The COVID-19 pandemic has cast a spotlight on the relationship between animal consumption and public health, as well as the labor conditions in industrial slaughterhouses. There are rapidly growing markets for plant-based milks, eggs, and meats, and expanding research and development for cultured meats. Some industries, such as dairy, are now contracting. All of this raises questions for the future availability of the dominant animal-based fertilizers, and points to an impetus for further research into veganic production methods: the practicality of having well-articulated plant-based agricultural methods ready for mass deployment." - Agric Human Values. 2021; 38(4): 1139-1159. Published online 2021 Jun 7. doi: 10.1007/s10460-021-10225-x PMCID: PMC8184056 PMID: 34121805 Veganic farming in the United States: farmer perceptions, motivations, and experiences Mona Seymourcorresponding author1 and Alisha Utter2 As found on PubMed from the National Institutes of Health

[@user-iw7gb6hx2j]

You can go one better if you feed that food waste to an animal, eat and otherwise use the animal products (wool etc) then you can have the food from them, and the manure too.

[@stephengill-jb1jn]

Simple, stop slaughtering animals to satisfy your taste preferences.

[@andrewtrip8617]

Your making things up ! Composting is a process that can apply to a combination of animal waste mixed with plant waste Or to plant waste alone . Green manures are crops typically (grass clover mix ,field beans ,vetches etc )grown and ploughing or harrowed back into the soil to feed the soil for the next crop or so .

[@someguy2135]

@@andrewtrip8617 Not according to the first definition that comes up when Googling "green manure"- " Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more green ma·nure noun a fertilizer consisting of growing plants that are plowed back into the soil." The only thing I deleted was the pronunciation. Try it yourself.

[@bonnielyrae6971]

Great talk. Thank you both. Interesting to note the difference in the depth of integrity here: a man speaking from direct experience (Simon Fairlie) and a man who spends most of his life in front of a screen (George Monbiot). George became quite defensive when confronted with the tough questions from both Simon and members of the audience (who also spoke from direct experience). George also skirted around the issue of Scientistic Epistemological Corruption and Simon did not go there at all. What they both have in common and where they are both wrong is that they both remain enthralled to global-warming theory/ cult of carbon-net-zero. The ecological discourse and the ecology movement in general has been almost completely hijacked by this gigantic red-herring that also happens to be a nice little ruse for increased social-control as well as a big fat corporate money-spinner. Big up to HARE (The Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology) and people like Cory Morningstar and others who are keeping it real. My sense is that both Simon and George will come around to seeing sense eventually and this is not to detract from each's contribution. Many thanks for recording this and posting. Much appreciated.

[@veganevolution]

This is pretty low nutrient density rhetoric from you I am sensing. Monbiot constantly states that land use is the best metric for planetary health. Environmentalist vegans are the first and most knowledgeable group to step up an get a look at where the damage is occuring: on Earth. Yet GHG emissioms are an issue, the ratio of GHG emissions to aerosols determines atmospheric opacity.

[@veganevolution]

You discriminate against Monbiot for the nature of his work? Read his first book, Feral. The whole first few chapters is about hunting and killing fish out in the ocean in a canoe. Monbiot loves the outdoors and has unique, explicit life experiences to provw he has an honest message and a way of livinf that guides his understanding, and not necessarily the other way around.

[@Vscustomprinting]

@@veganevolution so he kills animals for fun? Or are you saying he used too..?

[@Charlie-UK]

Excellent discussion, highlighting the urgent need to remove, Fossil Fuel fertilizers as fast as possible from Western agriculture. Reform of Agricultural subsidies to promote far less use of Fossil Fertilizers is urgent. The Black Tractor Mark should become manditory for all Fossil Fuel agriculture...

[@andrewtrip8617]

How fast do you want to watch half the worlds population starve . 1 There isn’t the volume of alternate fertility available to support the population . 2 There isn’t the retained knowledge amongst farmers to produce from natural fertility. 3 We have made our seed stock dependent on fossil fuels . 4 Most economies won’t stand the shock of the massive price hike that results from abandoning artificial fertilisers. 5 Fossil fuel fertility is depended on to feed the entire world not just westerners ,why would you single them out ?

[@Charlie-UK]

@@andrewtrip8617 What we can't afford to do is to continue turning our Rivers & Lakes into Fetid, Open Sewers. Because we failed to act on Phosphate & Fertiliser pollution. Killing the Environment, because people don't give a toss about factory battery farming of animals is criminal...

[@user-iw7gb6hx2j]

Monbiot again refuses to address the carbon neutrality of livestock methane, which is carbon wise the carbon the plants they eat have extracted from the air, and quickly reverts back to CO2. The problem is when food is produced using fossil fuels.

[@mythtree6348]

his aim seems to be to remove domestic cattle which will i assume be replaced by wild ungulates ..

[@andrewtrip8617]

@@mythtree6348 what would be the point of that ?

[@mythtree6348]

@@andrewtrip8617 its rewilding.. restoring the flora and fauna which belong and work best for the region ..

[@andrewtrip8617]

@@mythtree6348 in my area that would be wolves aurochs and deer .starting in the Neolithic we started replacing the aurochs with sheep and cattle ,and the wolves with people ,we still have the deer .we can’t swap the cattle for aurochs ,or the hungry people for the hungry wolves . .Is the idea that we pretend to rewild and become even more dependent on fake processed foods out of factories .

[@andrewtrip8617]

@@mythtree6348 what work is rewinding doing “best for the region “ exactly .,in regards to methane emissions swamps wetlands and rainforests are all emitting far more methane per square km than any pastured cattle and possibly more than feed lot cattle .If scientists are to be believed the termites alone put out more methane than all the worlds cattle .

[@veganevolution]

Does cheese constipate your brain?

[@bonnielyrae6971]

Hi, I wouldn't know about that. I'm wondering also presumably as a vegan you are not vaccinated. Is that correct?

[@roselleangwin9526]

@@bonnielyrae6971 I agree with Caleb. Also read Regenesis. Monbiot is ALSO speaking from direct experience, just different experience. His research is impeccable. You are eliding veganism with other political stances. I'm a vegan, for many reasons (animal welfare, land use, the environmental aspect esp including loss of species and deforestation, human starvation, human health etc), and although I think there are reasons to question the vaccine and the vaccination programme, I am vaccinated. There is no connection between the vaccine and eating animals. You are making them both out to be conspiracy issues, I believe, but this is neither correct nor fair. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that global warming is not a problem?

[@veganevolution]

@@bonnielyrae6971 first off, check your syntax, because apparently, you are presuming yourself to be a Vegan. Clearly you have a dangling preposition, and as such i know you made a mistake. That's okay, they don't teach kids this stuff, nor do any public institutions teach us about what true health for our bodies and our planet, really entails about food sourcing. Vaccinated, but i could make due without.

[@veganevolution]

@@roselleangwin9526 i wish he would talk a little more about the power of plants to restore the earth. I really think we could do it that way, because i think that's more appealing than the bacteria ooze, though I'm sure that will be essential tech in the future and for space travel

[@simclardy1]

@@roselleangwin9526 So, do you think it fair for George to call Simon a climate denier? There might be a connection between food future models and covid models, and worth considering. You must agree that the imperial collage model was a disaster. Should we not question the next time an "expert" with a slick tongue an "science" on his side tries to change the world in a revolutionary way?

[@alkhemiegypt]

I've watched a few of these debates where George Monbiot explains the principles of his book Regenesis (which I'm currently reading). There's a definite pattern of livestock farmers or livestock farming exponents using their own very specific examples as a reason why livestock farming is the answer to our serious global environmental issues. What George Monbiot has done is to gather all the available scientific information and apply it to first the UK and then the globe. He clearly shows that the kind of farming Simon describes, as ecological and idyllic as it sounds, cannot provide the food needs for the whole population. Questioning the scientific data just doesn't wash as an intelligent rebuttal. Not everyone has the gift of public speaking, but if you're going to debate George Monbiot you need to bring your A-game. Simon Fairlie is clearly well-meaning, but he's just not done his homework and he's not convincing. I was actually quite concerned for him as he doesn't seem very well in this video.

[@editing5157]

I agree with much of what you said, but you can also apply the opposite logic. Geogre is taking a systems perspective, now to how to apply that logic in many different contexts where you will face different challenges. I think he is facing the power of the agri business with what he views as a solution at the same scale. One of the issues I have with some of what he is promoting, is that it is amenable to highly concentrated corporate control, particularly the production of lab based food substances. Not that I am against their increased production, particularly in and for urban contexts, but that leaning further into the tech has parallel potential of trending towards even more abstract and even less democratic control of the food system. George's solutions like any others, rely on how they are implemented as much as what is being implemented. I mean George also advocates strongly for reconnection with nature, but as an urban ecologist and also a small holder, I think people need meaningful activities to make that connection powerful and deep. Engaging with the food system is part of that, and of course that is possible without significant levels of cattle and other domestic animals. Personally, I think part of the solution to our homogenising and concentrating agricultural system is a more mixed, diverse and decentralised system. I know George is concentrated on solutions that he believes can be deployed at scale over a reasonable timescale, and that is part of his leaning in hard to tech solutions to agriculture - what he views as pragmatism. But as with the application of many other technologies at scale, I would say that there must still be questions around how they are deployed and who controles them, etc. Otherwise, they continue to perpetuate the trend towards concentrating power I have mentioned, which is another process that has played a role in nature as well as people exploitation

[@alkhemiegypt]

@@editing5157 I don't feel that any of your points disprove George's main thesis. He has agreed that control of food production should not be allowed to be monopolised by a privileged few. But that's addressed by building a more equitable system from the beginning. And there would still be a need for locally grown fruit and vegetables. He also advocates for public access to the countryside. Those who are critical often focus on the technical side which has only ever been one part of the solution.

[@pauladdae3130]

Be good to see Monbiot try to debate Chris Smaje rather than go for strawman arguments against Savory. Monbiot has some ideas which need to be questioned, such as his simplistic and partisan promotion of precision fermentation and other genetically modified lab-grown alternatives. Not to mention Monbiot's approach itself which is rooted not only in a techno-optimism which buttresses the financial desires of phila-capitalists to monopolise the food supply. Phila-capitalists who donate millions to media outlests, such as the outlet for which Monbiot writes, The Guardian. Some commentators have also suggested that Monbiot's mythical notion of a 'pristine wilderness' is rooted in a white supremacist concept as it ignores lessons that can be learned from indigenous communities and how they have lived on the land and interacted with their environments.

[@h.e.hazelhorst9838]

I believe Simon’s way of raising cattle is not the way that wrecks the earth… You may still oppose killing animals for meat, though. The problem is in the number of people and the way each of us is accustomed to live. If we in the west would limit our consumption to a max of 80g of meat per week, much of the problems would be gone. But we don’t. That said, George is having this discussion with the wrong people. Still interesting!

[@andrewtrip8617]

I think you meant 800g per week .

[@h.e.hazelhorst9838]

@@andrewtrip8617 I meant eighty grams of meat per person per week.

[@andrewtrip8617]

@@h.e.hazelhorst9838 That’s about 1 sausage a week ..How do you arrive at that minute quantity .?

[@h.e.hazelhorst9838]

@@andrewtrip8617 Very simple: one sausage a week! No more. The rest of the week, you eat something that is not meat. That’s the whole point.

[@andrewtrip8617]

@@h.e.hazelhorst9838 for the vast majority that would not be enough meat to maintain a healthy life .Tho I concede there are plenty of people who could benefit from limiting their meat intake .

[@commentarytalk1446]

There's valid argument made by both gentlemen from different perspectives and different scales. To illustrate for clarity: * Monbiot = 6% Deciduous in UK is INSANITY. Uplands need to be converted in vast areas into Temperate "Rainforest" for Regional Climate Stability (along with much of North Western Europe). He's right here. * Fairlie = Right about small-scale farms at the "JOINT-UP-POLICY" Level of Communities, Producers/Agri/Permaculture and Natural Wilderness/Rewilding. The one area that I wish Monbiot as the resident Policy-Spokesman on macro-politics-poicy would F! well speak out about is Mass Immigration Population increase onto England. Many problems long-term go down with reduced human population AND reduced resource usage in tandem with BIOSPHERE engineering aka rewilding at planetary scale to regulate via biological feedback systems various cycles eg water, carbon etc etc. His lab grown gruel, plant-based diet is all due to large populations.

[@alessandropangia697]

And why would he speak out against the hand that feeds him? Either he is complicit or too blind.

[@TheDevonblacksmith]

Is it not a fact that only %25 percent of the world's food comes from big agriculture and %75 comes from small substance or family farms such as Simons this fact alone is in contrast to that which George says .

[@andrewtrip8617]

George is a seasoned activist ,campaigner and journalist .its his job to sensationalise and distort facts in order to promote his causes and earn his keep .

[@roselleangwin8755]

REALLY? Can you back that up, please?

[@MoistVegan]

Same old crap from the non vegans. Full of anecdotes and conspiracies. Never gets old

[@mythtree6348]

veganism is currently a health disaster. that dairyman basically saved my life after long term vegan sickness. Once you make the diet work for *anyone you maybe may have a leg to stand on ..

[@andrewtrip8617]

The same can be said of the vegans .Parasitically feeding off the environment crises .while feeding themselves with the products of fossil fuel farming .

[@Manic.miner2077]

When you look at the science and numbers, arguing with people who think this is bad is like arguing with a gun owner in the U.S about banning weapons in civilian hands.

[@jennyfernandez895]

Nobody has mentioned the health implications of a meat and dairy heavy diet. Looking at Simon Fairlie i would suggest he could do with consuming considerably less flesh from his poor pigs and breast secretions from his slave girls.

[@mythtree6348]

it doesnt exactly 'want' to be rainforest .. i used to believe that. Large areas are naturally bog, or bare rock or long term impenetrable brambles etc .. we can assist the rewilding and interact with the process of succession .

[@simclardy1]

George refuses to make a distinction between livestock farmers, and when farmers are offended he claims they want to kill 4 billion people! For all the Georgie fans, did you notice his utopia includes nuclear power. In fact Georgies world depends on nuclear power. I have never seen Simon or George before but George strikes me as an eloquent technocrat. Simon strikes me as a hard working kind soul. I would not have been as kind in light of the derision and insults of George. To be called a climate denier, and equated with exxon and big ag is pathetic. "With friends like that, who needs enemies".

[@fly-dive-arrive]

George also thinks that anybody who doesn't believe the official 9/11 narrative is a "conspiracy idiot" and a "moron", just saying.

[@wyliehj]

I’m not convinced on regenerative animal farming being bad but what’s wrong with nuclear power?

[@someguy2135]

@@wyliehj I am a vegan who used to be opposed to nuclear power due to the radioactive waste generated by it. Unfortunately, the climate situation demands it to be able to stop burning fossil fuels.

[@someguy2135]

@@wyliehj "Regenerative" animal agriculture only sequesters a certain amount of CO2 into the soil before the soil becomes saturated. After that, cattle on that land will produce the same amount of methane and nitrous oxide as any other pasture fed cattle, which is actually more than factory farmed grain fed cows! "A number of past studies have found lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with the feedlot system. One reason is that grass-fed cows gain weight more slowly, so they produce more methane (mostly in the form of belches) over their longer lifespans."-NPR

[@wyliehj]

@@someguy2135 yeah but i find the argument that the cow methane being part of a nbatural cycle and way less bad then made oput to be to be a lot more compelling.

[@bodgerliz5138]

Many years ago, the UN produced data that the route to stop global warming is the cooling effect of small-holdings and small-farms that feed local communities. This can be done with urban farming and rural farming. Let's get on with it instead of introducing something new, that profit-motivated corporates will take over and continue and need fossil fuel to produce.

[@someguy2135]

Things have changed since then. We now need to take more drastic action than that.

[@andrewtrip8617]

@@someguy2135 the only thing that changed was the model inputs and programmers .The data is saying there is less reason to make radical changes than at first thought .

[@pauladdae3130]

Be good to see Monbiot try to debate Chris Smaje rather than go for strawman arguments against Savory. Monbiot has some ideas which need to be questioned, such as his simplistic and partisan promotion of precision fermentation and other genetically modified lab-grown alternatives. Not to mention Monbiot's approach itself which is rooted not only in a techno-optimism which buttresses the financial desires of phila-capitalists to monopolise the food supply. Phila-capitalists who donate millions to media outlests, such as the outlet for which Monbiot writes, The Guardian. Some commentators have also suggested that Monbiot's mythical notion of a 'pristine wilderness' is rooted in a white supremacist concept as it ignores lessons that can be learned from indigenous communities and how they have lived on the land and interacted with their environments.

[@pauladdae3130]

Be good to see Monbiot try to debate Chris Smaje rather than go for strawman arguments against Savory. Monbiot has some ideas which need to be questioned, such as his simplistic and partisan promotion of precision fermentation and other genetically modified lab-grown alternatives. Not to mention Monbiot's approach itself which is rooted not only in a techno-optimism which buttresses the financial desires of phila-capitalists to monopolise the food supply. Phila-capitalists who donate millions to media outlests, such as the outlet for which Monbiot writes, The Guardian. Some commentators have also suggested that Monbiot's mythical notion of a 'pristine wilderness' is rooted in a white supremacist concept as it ignores lessons that can be learned from indigenous communities and how they have lived on the land and interacted with their environments.

[@roselleangwin8755]

Can you show some evidence for your statement that The Guardian is supported by - your words - 'phila-capitalists'? My understanding, from their own declaration, is that they don't accept such donations. If you have read Regenesis, you will see that Monbiot's ideas are very far from simplistic. While I don't agree with his conclusions on lab-grown foodstuffs, it's a brilliant and well-researched book.

[@carinaekstrom1]

And the only reason people are not doing what Monbiot wants, is because of habit and greed.

[@user-iw7gb6hx2j]

Not at all, if I stopped eating local meat, my carbon emissions would go up a lot. A fair bit of it wild that has to be controlled to preserve plant crops, so would be culled anyway. Growing more plant crops to replace the protein grown from permanent pasture would emit far more carbon.

[@carinaekstrom1]

@@user-iw7gb6hx2j Since links are usually not accepted in comments, please google this: "You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local" - Our world in data

[@user-iw7gb6hx2j]

@@carinaekstrom1 firstly this doesn't apply to wild meat harvested in crop protection, secondly I am aware of this, and it is based upon an easily demonstrable falsehood, the methane produced by animals is only an emission of the carbon the plants they ate extracted from the air. Methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, but methane naturally breaks down quickly into C02. Which is why Mammoths and Bison weren't causing global warming.

[@carinaekstrom1]

@@user-iw7gb6hx2j Firstly, people don't have to kill already born animals for crop protection. You don't get a free card because of what others do wrong. Secondly, "The extinction of megafauna (indicated by red shaded region) closely coincides with an abrupt drop in atmospheric methane concentration at the onset of the Younger Dryas (indicated by blue shaded region). Time is given in kiloannum. Scientists estimate that prior to the extinction event, large-bodied herbivores in the Americas released about 9.6 Tg of methane to the atmosphere annually. The loss of these species could be responsible for 12.5 to 100% of the overall methane decline." "A drop of 9 to 12 degrees Celsius is believed to have occurred within the Younger Dryas stadial, or the “Big Freeze,” which came between the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs." - Killing of methane-producing megafauna may have caused cooling 13,000 years ago - In Animals, Research News, Science & Nature / 4 June 2010 Also you should read this: Bison vs Cow Greenhouse Gas “Emissions” Paul K. Strode September 21, 2019

[@mythtree6348]

@@carinaekstrom1 nonsense.. many other factors too. Scientific disagreement, social responsibility, the fact that vegan diets dont work etc etc ..

[@viking722nj]

George seems to have no clue about the difference between pasture and feedlot, or tillage vs. no till. He makes no distinction between HOW things are done and just lumps everything together.

[@tysonpuraty3098]

'PromoSM' 💐

[@geeezer9]

georgie best

[@Flobb1t]

Simon has so many flaws in his position, I couldn't even begin to type them all out here.

[@mythtree6348]

Monbiot has many flaws too and is kind of full time on the subject.. the truth as usual is some way in the middle. Round about where jane goodall and i concluded about 20 years ago in fact . lol.

[@clivepierce1816]

An erudite and eloquent synopsis by George Monbiot. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the contributions made by his opponent. He made a series of schoolboy errors - cherry picking evidence, failing to reference supporting, published, peer reviewed research, drawing inferences at national and global scales from locally sourced data .. This highlights a fundamental flaw in this debating format - the absence of any fact checking by the moderator. Who is the audience to be believe if the moderator is not in a position to challenge the contributors on the accuracy of their evidence and the validity of their arguments? PS. Regarding the fallacious argument about stable herds of cows not contributing to climate change, this is, as Monbiot says, yet another climate denialist argument. It commits a basic accounting error. Globally, GHG emissions are growing with livestock numbers . The fact that the organic dairy herd size in England is broadly stable is irrelevant. Remember, the U.K. is a signatory to the Paris agreement. As such we are legally committed to the principle of equity in our collective goal to deliver net zero. We cannot expect developing nations to commit to reduced meat and dairy consumption unless we do the same.

[@fly-dive-arrive]

You do realise that you yourself emit quite a lot of co2 and will probably be next in line for a cull because from where I'm standing that looks like the plan for us.

[@simclardy1]

I failed to see the peer reviewed "proof" George provided for his utopia. Simon on the other hand was advocating a time tested lifestyle. what better evidence? By the way, conflating big ag sins with best practices works well in a debate, but looses my respect. George is certainly eloquent, but that has always been the story. The cunning serpent beguiled Eve.

[@fly-dive-arrive]

@@simclardy1 Like me, you may be suffering from "slick presentation fatigue" where actual content gets thrown out in favour of sponsored truth and dodgy statistics. cheers

[@andrewtrip8617]

Your critique sounds awfully like the climate deniers critique of Michael Mann’s hockey stick ,and the debunking of the global surface temperature data ,Or for that matter a critique of the studies by the Oxford Martin carbon footprint of food . I don’t think it’s fair to pretend a debate is a reasonable place to judge people’s scientific validity when neither are scientists . Simon was relating his experience of sustainable land management and George was pursuing his political campaigns . There is no need for references in a debate as anyone with a device can instantly check the scientific validity of claims made ,yet the comments are full of people like you challenging people to provide proofs ,as if wasting their time was a positive activity or a valid criticism of their views . George was indeed erudite and eloquent but his argument and proposals were based on fraudulent science and a lack of understanding of climate and ecology. As to the Paris agreement ,that was just another attempt at green colonialism that never stood a chance of delivering .

[@MirandaBond]

Terrible performance by Simon. Would have been really good to see a proper debate here.

[@stephengill-jb1jn]

Omg who is this angry woman?

[@andrewtrip8617]

Yeh yeh very funny ,your not the first person to misgender George because you don’t like his politics .

[@timothyhume3741]

Cities are the problem It is not cows

[@someguy2135]

Those of us who live in cities should boycott animal products. Studies have found that we cannot avoid exceeding 1.5 or even 2 degrees of global warming without revolutionizing the food production industry. "Eating a vegan diet could be the “single biggest way” to reduce your environmental impact on earth, a new study suggests. Lead author Joseph Poore said: “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use." “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he explained, which would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Researchers at the University of Oxford found that cutting meat and dairy products from your diet could reduce an individual's carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent. If everyone stopped eating these foods, they found that global farmland use could be reduced by 75 per cent, an area equivalent to the size of the US, China, Australia and the EU combined. Not only would this result in a significant drop in greenhouse gas emissions, it would also free up wild land lost to agriculture, one of the primary causes for mass wildlife extinction."-The Independent Title, etc- "Veganism is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce our environmental impact, study finds Avoiding meat and dairy could reduce your carbon footprint from food by nearly three-quarters Olivia Petter"

[@spiral-m]

Evidence? Anyone can claim anything. And why exactly? Goes against scientific consensus

[@commentarytalk1446]

Population growth via IMMIGRATION projected 1,000,000 more this year incoming. Should be reduced human numbers atst as increasing biosphere recovery and changing food production systems.

[@someguy2135]

@@spiral-m 100%. As Carl Sagan passed on, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until then, we can file the OP claim in the circular file under Hitchens' Razor.

[@Vscustomprinting]

Says the dumazz who is addicted to eating animals.

[@carinaekstrom1]

I agree with Monbiot about land use, except I really don't think we need the large predators. There are better ways to have balanced ecosystems. Balanced for who, anyway? Nature is in constant flux, and changes its balances continuosly.

[@someguy2135]

Predators like wolves keep herbivores like deer populations in check. I am a vegan, but I do not favor trying to stop predators from doing what they do naturally. I do favor outlawing hunting, however.

[@carinaekstrom1]

@@someguy2135 I know it's a difficult subject, and i know there will always be predators, birds eating insects, fish eating fish, etc. I still think suffering in nature can be worked on. I don't believe in killing already born animals though.

[@someguy2135]

@@carinaekstrom1 I agree that it is a difficult subject for us vegans who are also environmentalists. I plan to watch George's video about how wolves help the environment. As I see it, the predator prey relationship has worked since they first evolved, but I turn my head during nature documentaries. I don't like it, but it works. On the other hand, once mankind breeds animals into existence, they become our responsibility.

[@carinaekstrom1]

@@someguy2135 Eco systems seem to always work out ways to thrive. i don't take much stock in that film about wolves, that's just one tiny example of how things can change. They can also go in the opposite direction, and it depends on a lot more variables than what predators are doing or not doing.

[@someguy2135]

@@carinaekstrom1 The eco system as a whole continues, but the loss of biodiversity has been dubbed the "6th Mass Extinction!" Not exactly thriving! Animal agriculture is a major cause of biodiversity loss. George said it is the biggest cause!

[@gwenbutler9687]

Sorry george you're very convincing but you seem to be explaining how shite the laws are, not that all animal agriculture should stop

[@iamtheyorkiemom]

There's no point in listening to George Monbiot if you have any capacity for critical thinking or sensemaking. For me, it's like listening to Donald Trump and JD Vance... just one lie or exaggeration after another!

[@agrarianrevolution1259]

As a farmer, I’m happy to listen to Simon who really knows what it means to raise animals and grow crops.

[@andrewtrip8617]

@ojusthool8457 few farmers are good at spewing hot air ,something George has got down to a fine art .I know which one could put food on my plate .

[@roselleangwin8755]

Well, George, while not raising animals for meat, is hardly a stranger to fishing for his own food, orcharding and veg growing.

[@Manic.miner2077]

I’m interested to know this, should the west ignore democracy and the freedoms of people to do what they want with their lives for this cause?

[@someguy2135]

I live in the USA and do not favor a prohibition on animal products. That didn't work for alcohol, or even most drugs. I favor the approach our government took with tobacco. The first step would be to end the heavy subsidies and promotion of animal products now done by the US government. Studies have found that we cannot avoid exceeding 1.5 or even 2 degrees of global warming without revolutionizing the food production industry.

[@Manic.miner2077]

@@someguy2135 yea, my thought would be to do what you suggest but also allow this new tech to compete alongside factory farming, if it’s as good as they say it is surely the markets/ people would decide? The problem with any of this though is time, which we don’t seem to have. I will add that my knowledge of any of this is extremely limited so I could be talking absolute rubbish.

[@someguy2135]

@@Manic.miner2077 One problem with competing in the marketplace against the products of factory farming is that currently the US government heavily subsidizes and even promotes animal agriculture products. Products like Beyond Meat would be a lot more successful if it weren't for the currently higher price for them since they don't get the subsidies or promotion. Promotion is done through mandatory checkoff programs for animal agriculture industries.

[@someguy2135]

@@Manic.miner2077 "Conclusion Without taxpayer-funded subsidies, the prices of mass produced animal-derived products would more closely reflect their true production costs. Government subsidies dedicated to the animal-derived food system hugely abet the climate crisis, which is inconsistent with our claimed goals and international commitments-as it should also be to our survival instinct. Despite how our elected officials and hopefuls currently protect their constituents’ cognitive dissonance and the industry’s profit margins, it is wholly unrealistic to address climate change without considering the impact of the food industry. Modern animal agriculture causes unprecedented levels of greenhouse gas emissions, reduced food and water supplies around the world, the mass extinction of species, and diverse ecosystems to be bulldozed to the ground- this is just the tip of a melting iceberg. "-Columbia Journal of International Affairs Title, etc- "Removing the Meat Subsidy: Our Cognitive Dissonance Around Animal Agriculture CHRISTINA SEWELL /FEB 11, 2020"

[@spiral-m]

@@someguy2135 it worked on smoking in public. It also pretty much worked with Covid measures although one can argue as to their various merits!

[@spiral-m]

Simon Fairlie quotes the FAO report which failed to consider carbon opportunity loss (e.g. loss of forest). So a totally unrealistic message. From the new leaked IPCC report: The overall report ranks the shift to a plant-based diet as having the greatest disruptive potential (Page TS-98). landwirtschaft jetzt en ipcc-report/

[@user-iw7gb6hx2j]

It isn't unrealistic, in terms of Europe most of the woodland lost was lost in the Neolithic. Secondly well managed grazing can sequester carbon faster than woodland, do so while still producing food, and can lock it into a more stable form of carbon storage than wood, which is soil.

[@spiral-m]

​@@user-iw7gb6hx2j Only works short-term and effectively on degenerated soil. Then levels off and is carbon positive with commercial extractive system (unless very low number of livestock). On the topic of grass-fed working or not: "Returning to the ‘main’ extreme scenario - if this vision of the future were not so implausible, things would look very promising indeed for food security. Until, that is, one considers the GHG implications: this level of livestock production will naturally also generate a concomitant increase in methane emissions, which requires sequestration levels to be high enough to compensate. Assuming three animals per hectare, each producing 50 kg of methane per year, methane emissions would amount to 150 kg per hectare. Using the GWP over a 100 year time horizon as a metric, at three animals per hectare the rate of sequestration would need to be 1.1 tonnes carbon/ha (4.2 t CO2/ha) - higher than all the peer-review estimates shown in Section 3.5 - to compensate for methane emissions alone. This rate would need to continue for as long as the livestock continued to be reared (which is impossible) and not be reversed either by human activity or by changes in the climate (which cannot be guaranteed). Of course, for a full GHG assessment one would also need to include N2O emissions from excreta and CO2 from fossil fuel use. And then there are the trade-offs to consider. Considering environmental objectives alone, in some contexts and up to a point, improvements in pasture productivity and soil organic carbon levels will go hand in hand with biodiversity conservation and enhancement, but higher productivity can also work against biodiversity (a point to be discussed separately in our biodiversity report), particularly when nitrogen fertilisers or ‘improved,’ more productive grasses are used. In short, this does not seem to be a solution, even if it were achievable." "But more land overall is used - and it is worth reiterating the point that grasslands are not an ecologically cost-free resource. Many grasslands receive fertiliser applications and other inputs, they may be ploughed periodically, and the pasture may be managed as a perennial monoculture. A production system that uses less arable but more grazing land may be less, but it may equally be more, damaging to the environment (across a suite of environmental indicators - with the net GHG balance just one of them) than one which uses more arable but less grazing land, depending on the specifics of the management regimes." p112 source: oxfordmartin fcrn gnc report

[@spiral-m]

@@user-iw7gb6hx2j "in terms of Europe most of the woodland lost was lost in the Neolithic." What is your point here?

[@spiral-m]

@@user-iw7gb6hx2j "can lock it into a more stable form of carbon storage than wood, which is soil." Only in unscalable scenarios, i.e. tiny number of livestock. So not recommended by such studies. That is just a dood source for the rich

[@user-iw7gb6hx2j]

@innerrevolution1 that isn't the case at all normal sensible stocking levels produce soil, this is why so many farmers put leys on their arable fields, the field produces more value as arable, but they regularly cycle it back into grazing in order to maintain soil fertility. This even works on intensive modern farms, the big arable farms in East Anglia had stopped their ley rotations and got rid of sheep and cows 50 years or more ago, becoming big arable only holdings. They have recently been bringing sheep rotations back, because of the loss of soil and fertility. But even on these very commercial intensive farms they have found putting a sheep rotation back in creates more soil, and this is on the most intensive specialist arable farms which had disavowed livestock 50 years or more about.