Original subtitles

Please support this film www.COWSPIRACY.com

Advertise your product or brand here contact www.OpenSubtitles.org today

The world's climate scientists tell us that

the highest save level of emissions would be around 350 ppm CO2

of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and we're already at 400.

They tell us that the safest we could hope to do without having perilous implications,

as far as drought, famine, human conflict, major species extinction

would be about a 2°C increase in temperature.

We are rapidly approaching that

and with the all the built-in carbon dioxide that's already in the atmosphere,

we're easily going to exceed that.

On our watch we are facing the next major extinction of species on the earth

that we haven't seen since the time of the dinosaurs disappearing.

When whole countries go under water because of sea level rise,

when whole countries find there's so much drought that they can't feed their population,

and as a result they need to

desperately migrate to another country or invade another country...

We are gonna have climate wars in the future.

What about…

what about livestock and animal agriculture?

Well, what about it.. I mean...

My name is Kip.

This is me.

I had a cliché US American childhood.

My mom was a teacher,

my dad was in the military,

and I have one sister.

I played all the sports growing up but always loved the outdoors and camping.

Life was simple.

Not a care in the world.

And then this guy showed up.

Like so many of us, I saw his film "An Inconvenient Truth"

about the impacts of global warming and it scared the emojis out of me.

In Al Gore's film he describes how our earth is in peril.

Climate change stands for the fact that all life on this planet,

from monster storms,

raging wild-fires,

record droughts,

icecaps melting,

acidification of the oceans,

to entire countries going underwater,

that could all be caused by human's demands on the Earth.

With scientists warning that unless we take drastic measures

to correct our environmental footprint

our time on this planet

may be limited to only 50 more years.

I wanted to do everything I could to help.

I made up my mind right then and there to change how I lived

and to do whatever I possibly could to find

a way for all of us to live together,

in balance with the planet

sustainably,

forever.

I started to do all the things Al told us to do.

I became an OCE.

"Obsessive-Compulsive Environmentalist"

I separated the trash and recycled,

I composted,

changed all the light bulbs,

took short showers,

turned the water off when I brushed my teeth,

turned off lights when leaving the room,

and rode my bike instead of driving, everywhere.

But as the years went by it seemed as if things were getting worse.

I had to wonder:

with all the continuing ecological crises facing the planet,

even if every single one of us adopted these conservation habits,

was this really going to be enough to save the world?

It just seemed there was something more to the story.

I thought I was doing everything I could to help the planet.

But then, with one friend's post, everything changed.

The post sent me to a report online, published by the United Nations

stating that cows produce more greenhouse gases

than the entire transportation sector.

This means that raising cattle produces more greenhouse gases

than all cars, trucks, trains, boats, planes combined.

13% compared to 18% from livestock.

This is because cows produce a substantial amount of methane

from their digestive process.

Methane gas from livestock is 25-100 times more destructive

than carbon dioxide from vehicles.

I'd been riding my bike everywhere to help reduce emissions

but it turns out there is more to climate change than just fossil fuels.

I started doing more research.

The UN along with other agencies recorded that

not only did livestock play a major role in global warming,

it is also the leading cause of resource consumption

and environmental degradation destroying the planet today.

How was it possible I wasn't aware of this?

I thought this information would be plastered everywhere in the environmental community.

I went to the nation's largest environmental organisations' websites.

350.org, Greenpeace,

Sierra Club, Climate Reality, Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch…

and was shocked to see they had virtually nothing on animal agriculture.

What was going on?

Why would they not have this information on there?

It seemed the main focus for many of those groups was natural gas and oil production,

with fracking being the latest hot issue, due to water usage and contamination.

Hydraulic fracturing for natural gas uses an incredible amount of water.

A staggering 375 billion litres of water is consumed each year in the US.

But when I compare this with animal agriculture

raising livestock just in the US consumes 130 trillion litres of water.

And it turns out the methane emissions from both industries are nearly equal.

Living in California, a state plagued by drought and water shortages,

water use is a major concern for many of us.

(PACIFIC INSTITUTE) The average Californian uses about 5700 litres per person, per day.

About half of that is related to consuming meat and dairy products.

Meat and dairy products are incredibly water-intensive,

in part because the animals use very water-intensive grains,

that's what they eat.

So all of the water embedded in grain, and that the animals eats

is essentially considered part of the virtual water footprint of that product.

I found out a one 110 gram hamburger

requires over 2500 litres of water to produce.

Here I'd been taking these short showers trying to save water,

to find out that eating just one hamburger

is the equivalent of showering two entire months.

So much is attention is given to lowering our home water use,

yet domestic water use is only 5% of what is consumed in the US

versus 55% for animal agriculture.

This is because it takes upwards to 9500 litres of water

to produce 450 grams of beef.

I went on the government's department of water resources' "Save Our Water" campaign,

where it outlines behaviour changes to help conserve our water.

Like using low-flow shower heads, efficient toilets,

water-saving appliances and fix leaky faucets and sprinkler heads

but nothing about animal agriculture.

When I added up all governments' recommendations, I was saving 180 litres a day.

Still that's not even close to the 2500 litres for just one burger.

I wanted to see if I could somehow talk with the government about this.

Just calling to see if we could schedule an interview.

Yeah, that would be good.

What does your schedule look like this afternoon or tomorrow afternoon?

Tomorrow afternoon could be good.

(Chief Water Use and Efficiency Branch) For the urban environment there are a lot of things that can be done.

Indoors, using low-flow shower heads,

low-flow faucets, efficient toilets,

efficient water-using appliances.

All those are really good areas can help quite a lot.

But the biggest water savings is from outdoors.

We have to be mindful about the way we use water.

We have to use it as efficiently as possible.

We have to protect its quality and have to be good stewards of the environment that depends on water.

And checking the sprinkler. A lot of times we get leaks and broken sprinklers…

Things like that wastes water.

Those are the areas where there is a lot of room for conservation.

It kept on coming up a lot was about animal agriculture…

Can you comment on that at all about how much that

plays a role in water consumption and pollution.

That's not my area…

There's one study that found that producing a pound of beef...

9500 litres of water.

- Yes. - Yes.

Eggs 1800 litres of water. Cheese almost 3400 litres.

Isn't it simple, why isn't it on "Save Our Water"?

It's kind if you went to someone's house

and my neighbour has a faucet dripping

and then you see a giant hose turned full blast

until 2500 litres of water shout out in the street

flooding the entire street.

I think I would say: "Hey, you know, turn that off, please."

Seems it could be a huge thing that we could be doing,

by far more than anything else.

If that is really the case.

I think that the water footprint

of animal husbandry is greater than other activities.

Without a doubt.

That would be really powerful.

Rather than waiting until we really are in a drought, just start now

and tell whoever is in charge of "Save Our Water", say

"Let's start to encourage people to eat less meat

because these studies are coming up."

- I don't think that will happen. - Why?

- I don't think that'll happen. - Why?

Because the way government is organised here.

It's interesting, why though?

One is water management, the other behaviour change.

Behaviour of taking showers

and not watering your lawn, that is behaviour.

Yes.

Clearly the government did not want talk about this issue.

Their inability to answer

along with the environmental organisations' silence

on animal agriculture,

made it seem something more was going on.

I started investigating more about the impact of livestock

and found that the situation was worse than I had thought.

In 2009, two advisors from the World Bank released an analysis

on human-induced greenhouse gases,

finding that animal agriculture

was responsible not for 18% as the UN stated,

but for 51% of all greenhouse gases.

51%.

Yet all we hear about is burning fossil fuels.

This devastating figure is due to clear-cutting rainforest for grazing,

respiration and all the waste animals produced.

This makes animal agriculture the number one

contributor to human-caused climate change.

But not only that, I found that raising animals for food

consumes 1/3 of all the planet's fresh water,

occupies up to 45% of the Earth's land.

Is responsible for up to 91% of the Amazon destruction,

Is the leading cause of species extinction,

ocean "dead zones",

and habitat destruction.

Yet the world's largest environmental groups

that are suppoed be saving our world didn't mention this anywhere.

I had to speak with environmental organisations to find out why they weren't addressing this issue.

I sent off dozens of emails, made call after call.

Spent hours on hold.

Days became weeks and weeks became months

and for some reason, no-one wanted to talk to me about this.

So bizarre.

I supported these organisations so long and now I was met with silence.

I was however able to connect with a handful of environmentalist authors

and advocates that were willing to address this issue.

I took my old trusty van Super Blue out of retirement and hit the road.

So my calculations are that

without using any gas, oil or fuel, ever again, from this day forward,

that we would still exceed our maximum carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions,

565 gigatons, by the year 2030.

Without the electricity sector or the energy sector even factoring in the equation,

all simply by raising and eating livestock.

If you reduce the amount of methane emissions, the level in the atmosphere goes down fairly quickly.

Within decades.

As opposed to CO2, if you reduce the emissions to the atmosphere

you don't really see a signal in the atmosphere for a 100 years or so.

The single largest contributor to every known environmental ill known to human kind:

deforestation, land use, water scarcity,

destabilisation of communities, world hunger… The list doesn't stop.

It's an environmental disaster that's being ignored

by the very people who should be championing.

Free-living animals 10,000 years ago made up 99% of the biomass.

Human beings made up only 1% of the biomass.

Today, only 10,000 years later, which is only a fraction of time,

we human beings and the animals we own as property,

make up 98% of the biomass.

And wild free-living animals make up only 2%.

We basically have completely stolen the world, Earth,

from free-living animals to use for ourselves,

and our cows, pigs, chickens and factory-farmed fish

and the oceans are even more devastated.

Concerned researchers of the loss of species agree

that the primary cause of loss of species on our earth that we are witnessing,

is due to overgrazing and habitat loss from livestock production on land

and by overfishing, which I call fishing in our oceans.

We are in the middle of the largest mass extinction of species in 65 million years.

The rain forest is being cut down at 4000 m2 per second.

The driving force behind all of this is animal agriculture.

Cutting down the forest to graze animals and to grow soya beans.

Genetically engineered soya beans to feed to the cows, pigs, factory-farmed chickens and fish.

91% of loss of rainforest in the Amazon area thus far to date

91% that has been destroyed is due to raising livestock.

The leading cause of environmental destruction is animal agriculture.

I just couldn't understand why the

world's largest environmental organisations weren't addressing this

when their entire mission is to help protect the environment.

That's the thing too, they say:

"Use less coal, ride your bike…"

- What about "eat less meat"? - Yeah.

I think they focus-grouped it and it's a political loser.

They are membership organisations.

They want to maximise the number of people making contributions

and if they are getting identified as anti-meat

or challenging people on their everyday habits, something that is so dear to people,

it will hurt with their fundraising.

They don't want to address the primary driving cause of environmental devastation,

which is animal agriculture, because they're businesses.

They want to make sure that they have a reliable source of funding.

I got invited to a meeting with Al Gore some years ago now

and met his methane arguments but he was really push-back.

That's just his argument:

"It's hard enough to get people to think about CO2."

"Don't confuse them."

I think that the problem with a lot of the organisations is that they're focused

and have a laser focus, they don't go off-message because they don't want to piss off

another whole group of people that will make their lives difficult.

If you listen to the majority of the major environmental organisations, they're not telling you to do much,

besides "live life the way you've been living it, but change the light bulb from time to time,

drive less, use less plastic, recycle more…"

It's better for their fundraising and better for their profile

to create a victim- and-perpetrator sort of plotline.

It's like when we talk about the fact that when we have a dysfunctional family.

The father is an alcoholic. It's the one thing no one talks about.

Everyone goes around that,

yet it's the one thing that causes the devastation in the relationships in the family.

Because nobody wants talk about it.

How can these organisations not know?

The issue is right in front of them, unmistakable at this point.

And just like these organisations fall over themselves to show the general public

that climate change is human-caused

and in doing so completely fail to see what's right in front of them:

that animal agriculture, raising and killing animals for food

is really what's killing the planet.

That was it. No more e-mails, no more phone calls, I had enough.

I realised that if I wanted answers,

I would have to go to these organisations headquarters in person.

GREENPEACE San Francisco Headquarters

- Hi, how's it going? - Good.

We're doing a full-feature documentary.

It's on sustainability and animal agriculture.

And we're here to talk with David Barre.

- With Barre? - Yeah.

- OK. Do you have an appointment with him? - We've been trying for almost two months.

- We didn't even have one receptive email, or anything.

- Sure. - .. to see if we can set something up.

- Let me... So.. They sent out their PR person instead.

She refused to be filmed and told us to turn off the camera,

but promised someone from the rainforest, ocean

and climate change department who would all speak with us. Finally.

Next stop was to give Sierra Club a visit.

Turns out they were a bit more receptive to me showing up at their doorstep.

How's it going?

With climate change, what is the leading cause of that?

Well, it's basically burning too many fossil fuels.

Coal, natural gas, oil, tar sands.

Oil shale…

All new fuel exotic fuels that are kind of hybrids between them.

That's basically what is loading up the atmosphere,

we have this greenhouse effect where the heat is trapped

and the temperatures are soaring

at a rate that never existed in the history of the Earth.

What about ...

what about livestock and animal agriculture?

Well, what about it.. I mean...

We ...

... did research

A couple of UN reports say animal livestock accounts for more emissions

than all transportation put together.

A recent 2009 Worldwatch report:

"Livestock causes 51% of all greenhouse gas emissions…"

Well...

It is a big issue and we need to address that as well

but, you know, there are so many potential sources of methane and carbon emissions…

If the number one leading cause is animal agriculture and meat consumption

then doesn't it mean to be the number one focus, if not, the number two?

Well, that's your assessment, our assessment is different.

That was bizarre.

Greenpeace got back to me today and said:

"It was great to meet with you yesterday."

"I've spoken with various people here at Greenpeace about your request,

but I'm afraid we're not going to be able to help this time."

"Thanks again, and best of luck."

Greenpeace's response reminded me of the statistic

that 53.000 kilograms of farm animal excrement

is produced every second in the US alone.

That is enough waste per year to cover every square foot of San Francisco,

New York City, Tokyo, Paris,

New Delhi, Berlin, Hong Kong, London,

Rio de Janeiro, Delaware, Bali, Costa Rica and Denmark combined.

Livestock operations on land has caused more than 500 nitrogen-flooded dead zones

around the world and our oceans.

It comprises more than 245.000 km2 of areas completely devoid of life.

So any meaningful discussion about the state of our oceans

has to always begin by frank discussions

about land-based animal agriculture,

which is not what our conservation groups, Oceana being the largest one in the world,

and the most influential,

and others - at the apex of their discussions.

I went on my favourite oceans protection organisation's website,

Surfrider Foundation, to see what they were doing about this.

Mostly what I found were campaigns about plastic bags and trash

but nothing about animal agriculture.

What is the number one coastal water quality issue polluter?

A lot of it...

We call it the "toxic cocktail."

Because it really is this diffuse source.

It's heavy metal from tyres, brakes and cars, heavy metals,

herbicides and pesticides.

Really picking up everything we leave on the ground,

collecting it together and pushing it out into the ocean.

It's hard to actually target one thing.

We're doing research on this particular one, and run-off

and increasingly, as we're interviewing more and more people,

what keeps coming up, is animal agriculture

as being the number one water polluter.

Considerably far more than any other…

Yeah, interesting, I guess it depends on the regions you focus on.

Like the urban areas, like where we are in southern California where we are,

we don't see that, because there are not a lot of agricultural farms

but look in the mid-Atlantic

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,

I know there are many poultry farms, a lot of hog farms

and it's a huge waste issue.

I was surprised that they not only not focus on farm run-off

they also didn't mention in any campaigns

about how our oceans are in near collapse.

The UN reporterd that the 3/4 of world's fisheries

are overexploited, fully exploited or significantly depleted,

due to overfishing.

The oceans are under siege like never before and marine environments are in trouble.

If we don't wake up and do something about it

we have fishless oceans by the year 2048.

That's the prediction of scientists.

The fact that when people look at fishing sometimes,

they look only at the animals that are consumed by humans,

not necessarily looking at all the animals who are caught in the drift nets

All the others animals killed in the industry,

Even the shrimping industry has done a lot to devastate the planet as well,

breaking down natural barriers that we have to protect the islands.

We're at over 28 billion animals that were pulled out of the oceans last year.

They are never given a chance to recover.

They don't multiply that quickly, we don't give them the opportunity.

The oceans are in complete collapse,

the large fish specie are near extinction.

The way fishing is done today, to feed the deman dfor 90 million tonnes of fish,

fishing is primarily done with massive fish nets.

For every pound of fish caught,

up to 2,2 kg of untargeted species become trapped,

such as dolphins, whales, sea turtles and sharks, known as by-kill.

If we imagine the same happening on the African savannah,

targeting the gazelle

but in the process scooping up every single lion, giraffe, ostriche and elephant

nobody would stand for it.

Yet, this is what's happening in our oceans every single day.

Between 40-50 million sharks are killed every year

in fishing lines and fishing nets as by-kill.

Then their fins may b cut off or not cut off

but they're caught initially as by-kill.

And it's from fishing. From fishing in a sustainable manner

in many cases for fish that are labelled 'sustainable', by for instance Oceana

and these sustainable certified organisations.

So my thought is why would we stop at banning shark fin soup

if you're concerned about sharks?

Which these organisations are, and most of the public is now.

If we're really concerned about sharks, we would ban fishing.

I went on the world's largest ocean conservation's groups website,

Oceana to see what they do about this.

On their site, along the TED Talk by CEO Andy Sharpless,

I was astounded to read they actually recommend that one of the best ways to help fish

is to eat fish.

With the world's fish population in near collapse,

this seems like saying that the best way to help endangered pandas

is to eat pandas.

I couldn't understand how Oceana could say

we could remove close to a 100 million tons of fish per year

and this could be sustainable and good for our oceans.

In many species that are near extinction,

have done so and

haven't recovered on the watch of Oceana

and on the watch of Marine Stewardship Council,

and on the watch of Monterey Bay Sea Food.

I mentioned in one of my lectures they are aptly named, because

they are watching this happen, instead of aggressively halting it.

According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation

three-quarters of all the fisheries

are either "fully exploited or overexploited".

So there are not many fish stocks out there

that you might consider at healthy levels for the ecosystem.

Watching Andy's TED Talk about feeding the world…

In 1988, the fishery peaked at 85 million tonnes.

How can we sustainably catch 100 million tons in 2050?

Regardless if it's in a farm or in an ocean, if

for every pound of fish you take out

you essentially take out 2,2 kg of wild fish,

no matter whether it's a pond or if it's in the ocean.

How can that be sustainable?

The ultimate question is that there is a tremendous amount of natural

production that comes out of the oceans all the time.

We have a massive upwelling from our ocean conveyor belt

that brings ancient nutrients

and our ecosystems are turning that into fish.

Yes, they're eating each other and you're losing some of that production

every step up in the food chain, but you get more every year.

You can fish, take some out and next year there will be more.

And if we do that right, without hitting the fundamental driver…

It's like living off the interest, right?

As long as you don't bring the principle down

if you invest in something,

and the principle remains high, you can live off the interest forever.

That's the basic idea with fish.

With our population right now…

75% of the fish is depleted.

It's a good analogy with money,

We are not living off interest, we are in extreme debt.

And if our population is trying to live as a family

on the same amount of money

and it's increasing by 35 percent to 9 billion people.

Isn't it just: "Hey, we have to stop spending money"?

- Yes. - "Let's not eat fish."

If you can bring the principle back…

Fishing of any type is depleting not only the species,

you get into this serial depletion, where one fish species will be minimised

and the fishing industry for that fishery will move on to the next species.

It's called serial depletion, aptly named.

In the process fish is lost,

but the next in line is lost,

the mechanism is still extremely destructive.

They lose the fish species,

but they also destroy habitats.

They came up with the term "sustainable fishing" to make ourselves feel good about eating fish

and continue to take fish from the oceans.

In fact, Sea Shepherd says

that there is no such thing as "sustainable fishing".

Sea food is not a protein source for the planet.

Nobody wants to hear it because it

makes them feel they have to act.

Many people don't want to

disclose because it's uncomfortable to tell others what to do.

But we are at a point where we must all be rational,

and have to realise we have to take action.

Our founder captain Watson says:

"If the oceans die, we die." It's not a tagline, it's the truth.

Perhaps the only ecosystem that is being destroyed at such a rapid rate

are the rainforests.

Our global rainforests are the planet's lungs.

They absorb CO2 and release oxygen.

4000 m2 of rainforest is cleared every second.

To create pastures and cultivate animal feed.

The equivalent of a football field cleared every second.

It is estimated that every day

over 100 plant, animal and insect species are lost

due to rainforest destruction.

Rainforest Action Network Headquarters, San Francisco

What is the main cause of rainforest destruction?

(Executive Director) Human intervention,

either by logging or agribusiness.

The top global drivers

varies somewhat depending on the forest

but the way we use these natural resources,

on an industrial scale is the main cause.

When I went to the Rainforest Action website

I couldn't believe there was nothing about cattle.

But there was a big campaign against palm oil.

Palm oil plantations cause tremendous deforestation in the Indonesian rainforest.

It is estimated that palm oil is responsible for

10 million hectares of being cleared.

Though, livestock feed crops

are responsible for 56 million hectares of lost rainforest today.

But I was shocked to find that on their website cattle was not included

as one of their four main issues.

Instead, they focused on palm,

pulp and paper, coal and tar sands?

How can can they not have the leading cause of rainforest destruction?

I had to wonder: why focus on fossil fuels and not cattle?

Is it more more fuel fossils or is it more animal agriculture?

I don't know why we have to choose.

I just want to know which one is it?

I don't necessarily know what it is.

Could the executive director of one of the largest rainforest

protection groups really did not know what is happening?

Or even worse, hid something? If so, why?

I immediately went to Amazon Watch to see what they would say

what the leading cause of rainforest destruction.

The most biologically and culturally diverse place on the planet,

is under massive attack right now.

The Amazon forest could be gone in the next ten years.

What is the leading cause rainforest destruction?

The main cause of rainforest destruction…

Say ...

To put Amazon Watch in context ...

There are many drivers of deforestation.

Many reasons and ways to destroy forests.

The main cause that cause the most damage

are mega projects.

Such as oil and gas pipelines. Mining projects,

such as mega dam projects. We're not talking about ...

I felt like walking in circles with all of these groups.

As if caught in some "Cowspiracy" Twilight Zone

where nobody could talk about cows.

I couldn't believe these organisations just wouldn't say

what the leading cause of rainforest destruction truly is.

I had to ask one more time.

It's hard to say what the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon

because they are all destructive: oil and gas, mineral mining, dams, agriculture,

But in terms of land use, in terms of the amount of land destroyed…

When we talk about in comparison to all the causes of deforestation

what is causing the most trees to fall, for example...

It think it would definitely be agriculture.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest causes of deforestation

definitely in the Brazilian Amazon, is agribusiness.

Cattle grazing and soy production in particular.

This is what really is going on.

Why do you think ...

Nobody, like Greenpeace, will

say the whole story?

Yes.

I think you raised very good points,

why is anyone doing anything about it.

I think in Brazil, especially when we look at

what happened after Forest law was passed

people stood up against the lobbyists and private interests:

the cattle industry, agribusiness…

what happened to them, many of those who spoke out were killed.

If you look at Ze Carlos, Claudio

People who put themselves out there

and said cattle ranching destroys the Amazon

a lot of people who put themselves out there

like Dorothy Stang, a nun who lived in Para

... was killed.

Many people will speak up, many people stay silent

because they don't want to be the next to end up with a bullet to their head.

Sister Dorothy Stang was an American nun

who lived in the heart of the Brazilian rainforest.

She dedicated her life to protect the Amazon.

She spoke out openly against the destruction of the rainforest

and cattle ranching for years.

Walking home one night she was brutally gunned down at point blank range

by a hired gun of the cattle industry.

After Greenpeace initial denial for the interview

I wrote again, begging they reconsider.

Greenpeace got back again and said again:

"I'm afraid we explored the options in terms of helping you

and are not going to be able to help this time."

You mentioned you would also speak with Oceana,

I'm sure they will be able to give you some great quotes

about the ocean-related issues.

Thanks again for thinking of us."

Unbelievable.

With Greenpeace unwilling to be interviewed

I had to find a different avenue to get answers.

There's something really fishy going on over there.

Fortunately, I found a former Greenpeace board of director

who now speaks openly about the industry.

Environmental organisations like other organisations are not telling you the truth

about what the world needs from us as a species.

It's so frustrating when the information is right before their eyes.

It's documented in peer-reviewed journals,

it's there for everybody to see,

but the environmental organisations are refusing to act.

Nowhere you find in the policies

or Greenpeace mission,

that diet is important.

That animal agriculture is the problem.

They refuse, like other environmental organisations,

to look at the issue.

The environmental community is failing us and they're failing the ecosystems.

It's so frustrating to see them do this.

"NRDC, the Earth's best defense"

Alright, they actually do have a few things on animal agriculture.

The leading cause of environmental degradation is too much pollution.

Too many engines churning too fast The main cause of environmental degradation is too much pollution.

Too many engines churning too fast

in too many places around the globe.

In late 2009, a Worldwatch report:

livestock causes 51% of greenhouse gas emissions

and transportation is about 13%.

On the low end there's the UN between 18 and 30%,

which is more than all transportation together.

Nationally ... or internationally?

- Or nationally? - Worldwide, yes.

I think energy production and transportation

are still the major sources so I think ...

I'm guess I'm not going to comment on that, because I'm not familiar with those numbers.

So don't quote me on this, but that's cow farts.

I think what that is.

I think that's cow fart.

Well, that's part of the story.

Methane production from cows and other livestock flatulence

is a major contributor.

But mostly it is due to deforestation and the waste they produce.

Which exceeds 130 times more than the waste of all humans.

Almost all without the benefit any waste treatment.

The NRDC absolutely has a big food programme.

In fact, every year, we do the "Going Green Awards"

and we recognise food innovators.

Last year, one of the awardees was a sustainable pork producer

that doesn't use antibiotics.

The antibiotic use that industrial food production

in the US uses…

We're getting the majority of antibiotics in the US

are administered to healthy livestock.

I wanted to visit one of these sustainable farms.

I found the Markegard beef farm

on the lush misty California coast.

I met Erik and Doniga Markegard and their four children.

Lea and Larry are usually up and out at 6 milking,

feeding the pigs...

Altogether, we graze 1800 hectares

and this is our home ranch,

and this is 380 hectares.

On average it's one cow or a cow and a calf for every four hectares.

Annually we produce almost 36,000 kg plate-ready meat.

We keep about 10 pigs in a 20 hectare area.

and move them in 4 acre pastures.

(Daughter) Some say pigs are dirty and gross, but I like them.

They know people and they will be friends and real nice.

They could be your best friend or like a sister.

See.

They know you and we get to know them.

I shouldn't be bonding but we have to have nice pigs.

Why shouldn't you bond with them?

Because they will turn into bacon.

These pigs are 7 months old now.

These bigger ones are getting ready to be killed.

The two smaller ones can grow for a few more months.

I love, I love animals and that's why I'm in the meat business.

What society needs to see more

is that that packaged piece of meat is a living animal

living, breathing creature.

Yes, it's hard, it's hard, but what Doniga said earlier,

we do it because we love them.

With the land use

that is between 1 to 1,5 hectare per cow ...

all the way up to, depending on, not as lush as this, up to 14 acres.

Yes, we have a ranch in South Dakota that is

20 hectares ... Yes, it's 20 ha, yes.

Why is that?

The same thing, it was farmed and robbed of the nitrogens.

- Abused the land… - It's also seasonal, right?

It's also seasonal.

Is it possible and practical for the whole world to say:

"Grow grass-fed cattle"?

Like say in Brazil, where

80% of the rainforest was destroyed for cattle.

What are your thoughts on that?

They shouldn't eat beef.

If their environment wasn't designed to raise beef

- they shouldn't be eating it. - Yeah.

How do you offset the carbon footprint of livestock?

We don't feel that livestock have a carbon footprint.

I left feeling confused.

As far as grass-fed beef not having a carbon footprint

sounded like it could make sense.

Until I added up the numbers on land use and population.

If we use the Markegard model for raising animals

which requires about 1800 ha to produce 36,300 kg of meat.

The average American eats 95 kg of meat per year.

If that was all grass-fed beef

only 382 people could be fed on the land.

That's 5 ha per person, times 314 million Americans,

which equals 1,3 billion ha grazing land.

Unfortunately, there are only 809 million ha in 48 US lower states.

Currently, nearly half of US land is already dedicated to animal agriculture.

If we switch to grass-fed beef

it would require every cm2 in the US.

Up to Canada, all of Central America and well into South America.

And this is just to feed US demand on meat.

But that figure does not even take into consideration

that much of the land is not suited for livestock.

We would have to convert all mountain ranges to grass lands.

Clear ancient forests and national parks for grazing.

And demolish every city to make room to graze cows.

Just like Brazil, the US is not suited to meet demands for meat.

It takes 23 months for a grass-fed animal to

grow and reach slaughter age.

A grain-fed cow takes 15 months.

That's an additional eight months of water use, land use, feed, waste.

In terms of the carbon foot print, it's a huge difference.

Turns out, due to land use

grass-fed beef is more unsustainable than even factory farming.

I had to come to terms with the fact that there are not

enough animals for the world's demand for meat

and had my doubts on dairy as well.

But I wanted to talk with a premier organic dairy company.

to see if their product was sustainable for the world's population.

It requires a lot of inputs.

Feed, water, land.

It may not be practical to expect that there can

be enough dairy produced sustainably to feed the entire world.

I think that's not necessarily a given.

I think maybe it's too much to expect

that the world can be fed with sustainable dairy.

I don't know the answer, but common sense would say,

that's a long shot.

I was shocked to hear such an honest answer.

If this is what the dairy CEO would say, what would the farmer claim?

Based on their marketing their farms are an oasis for cows.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE Drink Clover Milk

It was not what I expected.

Normally a cow consumes 64-70 kg of feed a day.

- Between 64 ... - Between 64 and 70 kg a day.

She also drinks between 114-151 litres of water.

My God.

We use about 20 tons per week.

- 20 tonnes of grain per week. - 20 tonnes.

Primarily for milking cows, so about 250 cows.

The biggest part of sustainability, to me,

the number one thing on the list should be profitability

How the process completely works from start to finish:

The cow needs to have a baby in order to give milk.

So she have the baby, the baby is going to stay with the mother for at least two days.

The babies will go off to a calve-raising facility.

They are raised in an individual hutch.

Since we are a dairy, only the girl cows give us milk, so the boys

on typical dairies are sold off to beef-raising facilities.

But we keep half of them for two years

and sell them as organic grass-fed beef.

So all dairy cows eventually go to the beef industry?

At some point in time she will drop off

and you have to make a business decision.

Do you keep investing in her to give milk

or sell her off to another dairy or to the beef industry.

Only a few places on the planet have this type of environment.

But the demand for dairy-based protein will increase in the world.

There is not enough land on the planet

for this type of dairying.

The land is not there.

On a global scale the conclusion would be it's not sustainable

Unless we dig up houses and put pastures back.

For this to happen, there have to be less people.

But we know the population continues to grow.

That means more commercial dairy, I'm sure.

That or lower the demand ...

Yes, or another product will take its place.

We see all sorts of soy and almond milks

other products and different blends.

Juices and proteins.

I think we'll see more of that.

He was right. How could cow's milk be sustainable?

1 litre of milk it takes a 1000 litres of water to produce.

Doing research on grass-fed livestock

I kept coming across the work of Allan Savory.

Almost a third of the planet is becoming desert,

with the vast majority due to livestock grazing.

Savory claims that the best way to reverse this desertification

is to actually graze more animals.

This reminded me of Oceana saying

that the best way to help fish is to eat fish.

This is the same man

who in the 1950s, working as a research officer

for the Game Department of what is now Zimbabwe,

came up with the theory, in spite of scientific evidence

that elephants caused the desertification.

His solution was to convince the government to kill 40,000 elephants.

Yet, after 14 years of relentless slaughter the conditions got worse.

His theory was wrong.

The culling finally ended,

but not before tens of thousands of elephants and their families were killed.

This is not someone I would ever take ecological advice from.

It turns out the cattle industry has the same effect

on wild life in the US.

The government is rounding up horses in mass.

We have now more wild horses and donkeys in state farms.

50.000 horses and burros more than free on the range.

Basically, rangers get to graze on our public lands

for a a fraction of the going rate.

They enjoy tax subsidies, about 1/15 of the going rate.

What the Bureau's Land Management has to do is say:

"How much forage and water is on the land?"

Then they divide,

a part for the cows, other to "wildlife".

and to wild horses and burros.

What we see is that most forage and water

goes to the livestock industry.

They scapegoat the horses and burros and say:

"There are too many horses and burros, let's remove them."

I always tell people that the wild horses and donkeys are just victims

of the management of public lands for livestock

because we also see the predator killing going on.

We now know wolves are targeted by ranchers.

The Department of Agriculture has air-craft and do aerial gunning of predators.

All a rancher needs to say: "I've got a coyote here."

They come over and shoot the coyote.

Or shoot the mountain lion or shoot the bobcat.

And this is all for ranching.

In Washington State, after cattle was attacked

on public lands where it was grazing

Washington state decided to kill an entire pack of wolves.

Those wolves were not introduced, they had immigrated from Canada.

But they're no longer there.

It starts at the local level, with the Bureau of Land Management

but then it goes to Congress.

And we see that Congress allows

this type of mismanagement of public land to continue.

It is the insistence and lobbying power of the agriculture industry

that continues to see wolves killed.

and insists on predators being maintained at

a low level that does not benefit the ecosystems.

I've seen so many pieces of land, so many environmental assessments

from the Bureau of Land Management that say

the range land does not meet the standards.

They say straight up livestock-raising is a cause

for not meeting range standards.

Yet they allow livestock grazing.

They are at the core of making sure that cougars are hunted by hounds,

that wolf packs are run down,

that hunting seasons are opened up year-round,

that traps are set so that they suffer.

If anyone cares for horses, wildlife and public land

and the environment, you can't ignore livestock,

the negative impact of livestock grazing on public lands in the West.

I added up the cost of animal food production

that producers don't bear themselves.

The hidden or externalised costs

that they impose on society.

Those are categories like health care, environmental damage,

subsidies, damage to fisheries and even cruelty.

Those external costs are about 332 billion euros.

If the dairy and meat industry would internalise these costs,

if they had to bear the costs themselves,

the price of meat and dairy would skyrocket.

A 5 euro carton of eggs would go to 10 euros.

A 3,50 euro Big Mac would go to 9 euros.

The problem with these external costs imposed on society

is whether you eat meat or not

whether you're an omnivore or an herbivore

you pay part of the costs of someone else's consumption.

When someone goes to McDonald's

and buys a 3,50 euro Big Mac.

there's another 6,35 euro of costs are imposed on society.

I'm paying that paying that, you're paying that whether you eat meat or not.

When we look at who benefits and lobbies for this system of agriculture

it's the largest food and meat

producers in the country.

And once they become so large and wealthy they

can dictate federal policies around producing food.

because they have so much political power.

Was this why Al Gore, even as vice-president,

never addressed the question of animal agriculture

and failed to mention it his film "An Inconvenient Truth"

or in his organisation the Climate Reality Project?

Was this truth just too inconvenient, for even him?

I felt let down by the man who inspired me in on this path.

I had to speak with an animal agriculture lobbyist

to see what they would say.

If they can silence the government, can they

influence environmental groups as well?

Agriculture Animal Alliance, one of biggest animal agriculture lobby groups

agreed to an interview. Greenpeace won't give us an interview

but Animal Agriculture Alliance has agreed to an interview.

Now that...

That is saying something.

People hear the word GMOs and it's a scary term.

and agriculture struggles to explain what that means.

In reality we use technology to make advancements

in how we grow and raise animals.

We're not going to feed the world on how it was 100 years ago

where all animals were pasture-fed.

We not just move animals inside and implemented

large vertically integrated systems. Because of sustainability

it certainly reduces the environmental impact,

while improving animal welfare and food safety.

So that animals like it inside just as much as

say the chickens and cows, fond of being inside

they like the ones pasture-fed?

In many cases it improved their wellbeing,

in terms of the care they can get, individually.

Does the meat and dairy industry ever support

or donate to environmental non-profits?

I don't know if I want to comment on that.

(Voice of the President Kay Smith Animal Agriculture Alliance) Yeah, I…

I don't know.

(Voice of the President Kay Smith Animal Agriculture Alliance) [?] They don't need to know who we donate to or not donate to.

Does the meat and dairy industry ever support or donate to Greenpeace?

Again, I don't know if I feel comfortable ...

Hi, sorry we didn't contact earlier.

I have some bad news.

(call from film backer) Unfortunately, we are not longer able to continue to fund your film project.

We had a meeting and due to the growing controversial subject matter

we have some concerns and have to pull out.

Why was this subject so controversial?

The first person I could think to speak with, was Howard Lyman

who was sued by cattlemen for speaking the truth about

animal agriculture on The Oprah Winfrey Show.

I was born on the largest dairy farm of Montana in 1938.

Grew up and lived on a livestock farm.

I graduated on Agriculture at Montana State University.

Came back and developed a mega venture in agriculture

with 4046 ha in crops,

7000 head of cattle

and about 30 employees.

I spent 45 years of my life in animal agriculture.

I've been there, done that.

When I was on the Oprah show we had the Food-Disparagement Law

In my opinion the law was unconstitutional.

What it basically said, it was illegal

to state something that was known to be false about a perishable product.

I didn't say anything on the show that I thought was false.

I went there and told the truth.

It took five years and hundreds of thousands of dollars

to get rid of the suits from the cattle industry.

But if was to go on the Oprah Show today

I'd say exactly the same thing I said back then,

I would be guilty.

For me, when they were talking about the Food-Disparagement Law

was about whether I told the truth or not.

You can go today and tell the truth

and you will be guilty.

Because if you cause a disruption

in the profits of the animal industry,

you're guilty under the Patriot Act.

Do you think there should be any concerns of us making this documentary?

Of course!

If you don't realise

that you're putting your neck on the chopping block,

you better take that camera and throw it away.

The animal and agriculture industry is one of the most powerful on the planet.

I think most people in this country are aware of the influence

of the money and industry on politics, and we see it clearly

with this industry in particular.

Most people would be shocked

to learn that animal rights and environmental activists

are the number one domestic terrorism threat according to the FBI.

- Why is that? - Difficult to answer

why the these groups are on the top of the FBI's priorities.

I think a big part of it is that

that they more than any other social movement,

directly threaten corporate profits.

When we try to find out how factory farms,

how animal agriculture is pulling the environment,

they try to claim exemptions to that information

either under national security terms or public safety,

trade mark issues, it's a business secret.

We've seen all these attempts to keep people in the dark

about what they're actually doing.

One of the biggest industries on the planet

with the biggest environmental impact,

trying to keep us in the dark on how it's operating.

Through the Freedom of Information Act we got documents from

the antiterrorism unit,

that show they monitor my lectures,

media interviews like this one, my website, my book...

Are we at risk filming and showing this?

You're going up against people that have massive legal resources.

The amount of money at their disposal is overwhelming

And you have nothing.

I think that fear is a big part of the tactic as well.

Will was right, I was scared.

When I learned about activists killed in Brazil

I was disturbed, but it was far away.

But learn about American activists and journalists

being targets of the animal agriculture industry and the FBI?

My funding being dropped?

I was genuinely worried when it hit me directly.

Was this why noone was willing to talk about the issue?

I decided to take precautionary measures with all the footage we shot.

I was beyond frightened to imagine what could possibly happen

if I would pursue this project any further?

It seemed the only decision to make was to put down the cameras and walk away.

Then I realised that this issue was way bigger

than any personal concern I could ever have for myself.

This was about all life on earth hanging in the balance of our actions.

Either you live for something or die for nothing.

I actually had no choice all along.

I decided then to surrender not to fear from a secret

but rather to a cause to its truth.

I couldn't be like the environmental NGOs,

when the planet was being eaten alive in front of our eyes.

I had to stand up and continue on.

Some people would say the problem isn't really animal agriculture

but human over-population.

In 1812 there were 1 billion people on the planet.

In 1912, 1,5 billion.

Just 100 years later, our population exploded to 7 billion.

This number gets much attention

but a more important figure

are the 70 billion farm animals humans raise.

The human population drinks 20 billion litres of water per day

and eats 4,3 billion kilos of food.

But the 1,5 billion cows in the world,

drink 170 billion litres of water per day.

and eat 60 billion pounds of food.

This less of a human population issue

but more a "human eating animals" population issue.

Environmental organisations not addressing this

is like health organisations fighting lung cancer and

not speaking about cigarette smoking.

But instead of passive smoking, it's second-hand eating

which affects the entire planet.

(Environmental and Ethics Author) We grow enough food to feed between 12 and 15 billion people.

We have 7 billion people.

We have roughly a billion people starving every day.

Worldwide, 50% of the grain and legumes we're growing,

are to feed the animals.

They're eating huge amounts of grain and legumes.

In the US it's close to 70-80%, depending on the grain

90% ... 90% of the soya beans.

82% of the world's starving children live

in countries where food is fed to animals in the livestock systems

and are killed and eaten by more well-off individuals

in developed countries, such as US, UK and Europe,

The fact is today we could feed every human being on the planet today

with an adequate diet,

if we take the feed we're feeding to animals

and turn it into food for humans.

Someone trying to justify GMOs

is like trying to give a drowning man a drink of water.

You can produce on average, 15 times more protein

from plant-based sources than from meat on any given area of land.

Whether it's a very fertile area

or on a depleted area.

If we would reduce the amount of meat we're eating, dairy and eggs.

we could allow all those mono-crop fields

with genetically engineered corn and soya beans

to revert back to forest again to be habitat for animals.

Anytime someone tells you "we can't grow food for humans on

land that we're growing feed for animals,"

this is somebody that is moking the number one crop out of California.

The fact of is, if you can grow grow corn to stuff down on an animal,

we can grow corn and feed it to a human.

You encourage people to eat less meat, for the tremendous resources required

and the toll on the environment.

- And on the animals. - And on the animals.

And the workers in the system. It's a brutal system at every level.

As the world population grows to 9 billion

do you foresee that one day we will have to stop eating meat altogether?

I don't know if we will completely stop.

I think the amount of meat eating will decline.

There is no way to support 255 gr meat per person per day,

what Americans are eating now.

If the Chinese alone decide to eat that much,

and they decided they want eat the same amount.

We don't have enough world

to produce the grain to generate that much meat.

I think a plant-based diet is the most sustainable.

What do you recommend the 9 billion people to eat,

not only to sustain, but also to thrive?

Would you throw a number ... Like 30 grams?

- For meat? - Including dairy.

I don't know enough.

It would be at the order of a couple of ounces a week.

Not how we're eating it now.

We are gorging on meat, eating huge amounts.

- Does that include cheese? - Yeah, yeah.

- Some 60 grams in total? - Yes, cheese and milk.

Only 60 grams per week seems nothing.

People could probably produce that at home.

Maybe backyard farming was a sustainable solution.

I have 42 ducks.

I started with three ducks three years ago.

Those burdened into a population.

I buy a 70-pound seed bag.

That seed bag will last about two weeks.

The ducks that we're gonna be culling are about two years old.

When you're living with them, they get used to you.

They're not intimidated or whatever.

And so they make all their vocal sounds, like natural.

Slow down.

Easy, easy, easy.

Okay.

No, we're gonna keep you.

Run. These two go first.

Being smart-wise?

Compared to a chicken, they're probably the same.

-That one's nice, see? -Yeah, he is.

Alrighty.

Okay.

Right there.

That's gonna be a little gruesome.

How could that still be alive?

They're not.

That's eh nerves.

A nerve reaction.

Five years old or something like that, I think it was

the first time my dad came out and made us watch

as we did rabbits.

We'd raise probably a couple dozen rabbits each year.

Then we would take those rabbits and skin them

and clean them up and keep them for food.

As a young kid, I was kind of…

I don't want to say it was hard, but it was kind of, from my memory…

some of the rabbits I had named.

So I was kind of like going hmm

After doing it a couple times, you kind of just learned

it's just something that has to be done.

Not the fingers.

l just can't do it.

I don't think I could have someone else do it for me, if I can't do it.

If l can't do it, I don't want someone else doing it for me.

And then sustainability --

For sustainability, 32 kg is 900 gr per…

So it's a 450 gr per week per duck.

52 weeks, 50 kg.

So it's 50 kg of food

for 450-700 grams of meat.

So on a sustainability issue, it's 100 to 1.

And that grain gets.. you know who knows where the grain comes from?

But I mean, when it gets to this point, it's not even about sustainability...

it was just…

You know, I don't feel real good inside.

It's the first time I've ever seen that.

So kind of....

Yeah.

I'd been so caught up in the destruction caused by animal agriculture

I realised I'd never truly dwelled on the obvious reality

that every one of these animals was killed.

It was always a disconnected, abstract fact of eating meat.

But when it became personal, face to face, the story changed.

I had scheduled weeks in advance to film another backyard slaughter

of a chicken that stopped producing eggs.

I didn't know how I was gonna possibly go through another slaughter.

So I didn't.

Animal Place is a farm animal sanctuary in Northern California that focuses

on rescuing animals from the animal agriculture industry.

A lot of people don't realise meat-breed chickens like this guy behind us

they're generally slaughtered at about 42 days old.

Whereas chickens that are bred for egg production are killed

when their productivity starts to decrease

when they start laying less eggs.

That generally happens about 18 to 20 months.

It doesn't matter if you buy caged eggs, eggs from cage-free farms

or free-range or pasture-based farms.

Hi, Carol. It doesn't matter.

Turns out there's a successful movement of sustainable animal-alternative

food producers based right here in California

funded by big names like Bill Gates and Biz Stone.

When egg-laying hens eat all that soy and corn

you have an energy conversion ratio at about 38 to 1

whereas alternatively you can find plants,

you can grow those plants and convert those plants into food.

The energy conversion ratio for the plants we're using

to replace the eggs is about 2 to 1, compared to 38 to 1 for eggs.

So our explicit goal is to have the maximum amount of impact

by creating this new model that makes the global egg industry entirely obsolete.

We're making Omega products

proving we make better tasting food that's great for you

and it takes one-twentieth of the land and resources that dairy do.

If you could have the fibre structure, satiating bite, the protein

and the nutritional benefits of meat without having animal protein itself

and by doing that you could address climate change,

human health epidemics that we're seeing, animal welfare

and natural resource conservation. Would you make the change?

But what if people just ate less animal products?

Like going meatless on Mondays.

When you go meatless on Monday, you essentially contribute

to climate change, pollution

depletion of our planet's resources and your own health

then only six days of the week, instead of seven.

You're creating a false justification, clearly a false justification

for what you're doing on those other six days.

So in other words, we really shouldn't be resting on our laurels

of what you do right only one-seventh of the time.

You can't be an environmentalist and eat animal products, period.

Kid yourself if you want, if you want to feed your addiction, so be it.

But don't call yourself an environmentalist.

I knew I had to stop eating all animal products.

I wanted to help the planet be sustainable, but I needed to sustain myself.

I had doubts about being healthy and not eating meat, dairy and eggs.

All I knew was the standard American diet I grew up on.

Is it even possible to be a healthy vegetarian or vegan?

(Physician True North Health Center) I became vegan 32 years ago now.

I run several miles every day.

I go biking 60 km through the countryside.

I work long hours.

I feel great. It's nice waking up in a light, trim body everyday.

And so many of my vegan friends and patients

are thriving since their transition to a vegan diet.

So yes. I've seen vegan moms go through healthy vegan pregnancies

and deliver healthy vegan children

and raise them to tall, full-sized, intelligent vegan adults.

And yes, certainly all the nutrients are there in the plant kingdom to do this,

that is correct.

Think anyone should be consuming dairy?

I really don't.

When you think about it, the purpose of cows' milk--

I grew on a dairy farm in Wisconsin.

The purpose of cows' milk is to turn a 65-pound calf

into a 200 kilo cow as rapidly as possible.

Cows' milk is baby-calf growth fluid.

It's what the stuff is.

Everything in that white liquid, the hormones, the lipids, the proteins

every one of those is meant to blow the calf up to a great big cow

or it wouldn't be there.

And whether you pour it on your cereals as a liquid

whether you clot it into yogurt

whether you ferment it into cheese

whether you freeze it into ice cream

it's baby-calf growth fluid.

And women eat it and it stimulates their tissues...

and gives women breast lumps, it makes the uterus get big

and they get fibroids and they bleed and they get hysterectomies

and they need mammograms and gives guys man boobs.

This is…

Cows' milk is the lactation secretions

of a large bovine mammal who just had a baby.

It's for baby calves.

I tell my patients, "Go look in the mirror.

Do you have big ears, a tail, are you a baby calf?

If you're not, don't be eating baby-calf growth fluid."

In any level, there's nothing in it people need.

It was a relief to hear l didn't have to eat animal products

to be healthy and even thrive

but I still thought you needed animal manure to grow organic agriculture.

Turns out there's an entire movement

with people growing food without any animal inputs.

I visited Earthworks Urban Farm in Detroit.

They work with and grow food for the low-income community.

We tend to see ourselves as individuals in a bubble

but forget that we inhabit this land and this earth with other creatures.

So we have to learn how to share more, I guess.

Jah here is working on his garden.

You'd be surprised what you can do with not a lot of space.

About 1,2 by 2,5 yeah.

What's your goal this year? How much do you think you can maximise?

I would push for 45 at least. At least. - 45 kilos.

That's amazing.

One full year after this was constructed

we doubled our yield to over 6,350 kg of food.

6,350 kilos? On about how many hectares?

About one.

So as much food as we produce and we grow

or the earth helps us grow...

We also have to return those nutrients back to the soil.

We think of our work as being regenerative.

That we're putting as much life-giving substance in the ground...

as we're taking out.

So is it just kind of healthier and safer to use vegetarian

- or vegetable composting stuff? - That's what we found.

Also because it takes less time and it's a lot easier to manage.

- A lot easier, yeah. - Yeah.

- And the soil's just as rich? - Yeah, absolutely.

Not only is vegan more compassionate, it's also more efficient.

And in a society with this many billions of people

we need to be as efficient as possible.

Some people might go back and say if we embraced this primitive approach

of only wild animals everywhere

and we go back to a hunter-gatherer system,

that sounds great.

But that was 10 million people on the entire continent.

Maybe a little bit more, a little bit less, no one really knows.

Today, now we have what?

We have 320 million in the US, 25 million in Canada.

Another 100 and so-many- million in Mexico.

So, North America is up to almost 450 million people.

Trying to figure out a way to bring animal agriculture

in balance with 450 million hungry people is impossible.

This is amazing, I didn't believe it when I first learned it

but 216,000 people are born to the planet every day.

Every day.

It's extraordinary.

But what's really extraordinary is you need, per day

14,000 new hectares of farmable land.

It's not happening.

To feed a person on a vegan diet for a year

requires just 675 m2 of land.

To feed that same person on a vegetarian diet

that includes eggs and dairy requires three times as much land.

To feed an average US citizen's high-consumption diet

of meat, dairy and eggs requires 18 times as much land.

This is because you can produce 17,000 kilos of vegetables

on 0,6 ha, but only 170 kilos of meat on the same plot of land.

The comparison doesn't end with land use.

A vegan diet produces half as much CO2 as an American omnivore,

uses one-eleventh the amount of fossil fuels

one-thirteenth the amount of water and an eighteenth of the amount of land.

After adding this all up, I realised I had the choice every single day

to save over 4100 litres of water, 20 kilos of grain

10 m2 of forested land, the equivalent of 9 kilos of CO2

and one animal's life every single day.

If we all did go vegan and moved away from animal foods

and toward a plant-based diet, what would happen?

If we didn't kill all these cows and eat them

then we wouldn't have to breed all these cows

because we're breeding cows and chickens and pigs and fish.

We're breeding them over and over again, relentlessly.

If we didn't breed them, we wouldn't have to feed them.

Then we wouldn't have to devote all this land

to grow grains and legumes and so forth to feed to them.

So the forest could come back.

Wildlife could come back.

The oceans would come back. The rivers would run clean again.

The air would come back. Our health would return.

Renewable energy infrastructure, such as solar and wind generators

to reduce climate change, that's a pretty good idea

but it's projected to take at least 20 years

and at least, minimally, $18 trillion to develop.

It's important to realise that we don't have that long.

We just talked about how it might be a three to four year time frame,

so we don't have 20 years and we don't have $18 trillion to develop these.

Another solution to climate change: we could stop eating animals.

It could be done today. It doesn't have to take 20 years

and it doesn't have to take $18 trillion, because it costs nothing.

Some say, "Fix CO2, then worry about methane."

It's the other way. Do something about methane and you get a response right away.

The most powerful thing that someone can do for the environment,

no other lifestyle choice has a farther reaching

and more profoundly positive impact on the planet and all life on Earth

than choosing to stop consuming animals and live a vegan lifestyle.

Do you realise 75 percent of Americans

consider themselves to be an environmentalist?

You don't think we couldn't solve this problem in a heartbeat?

I'll tell you what, all we would need

is for the environmentalists to live what they profess

and we'd be on a new course in the world.

We will not succeed until we stop animal agriculture.

And by "succeed," I mean

we will not save ecosystems to the extent necessary,

we will not have enough food for people around the planet

we will not stop global warming,

we will not stop pollution in the dead zones that run of

all the fields of corn and soy that are grown to feed livestock

and we will not stop the hunting of wolves and other predators.

Organic farming is one step in the right direction, but we need to keep walking.

We need to get beyond organics. We need to get to sustainability.

When you take the animal out, you take the greenhouse gas issue out.

you take the food safety issues out

you take some other externalities related to food scarcity out.

But one thing that's amazing is I think you put our values back in.

Values like compassion and integrity and kindness

values that are natural to human beings, you put that in

you build that back into the story of our food.

I think as this begins to progress, I think it also helps people to pause.

Before they eat that egg, before they eat that steak,

before they eat that chicken nugget

and ask themselves, is that really what they want?

Or do they actually want something more?

I had to come to the full conclusion

the only way to sustainably and ethically live on this planet

with 7 billion other people is to live an entirely plant-based vegan diet.

I decided instead of eating others, to eat for others.

At first, like these environmental groups, I was afraid of what it'd mean to change.

But now I embrace it.

All this talk about sustainability sounded like our planet was on life support.

I don't want her to simply survive or to sustain, but to thrive.

Life today is not about sustainability. It's about "thrive-ability."

She's given so much to us for so long, it was time to give back.

A hundred-and-eight percent of everything we have.

It felt good. It was an alignment.

We see this movement, not just about providing cheaper

inexpensive food that everyone can have, but also a spiritual move.

A move towards understanding who we really are

and how we can connect to each other.

Do what you can do as well as you can do it,

every day of your life,

and you will die one of the happiest individuals that ever died.

We become part of a gathering momentum of other people.

It's happening. This is really what's happening. This is the news.

Selflessness is a nice way to be.

It has all these benefits for yourself, as well as the planet and other people.

It's a beautiful way to live.

Ecologically it just feels better.

This is about massively transforming

how our society eats, because it's a necessity.

It's acting on what we know.

And acting kindly and gently on the whole planet

and with other people to accomplish the goals of living better.

We can do it, but we have to choose to do it.

You can change the world.

You must change the world.

Learn more at WWW.COWSPIRACY.COM

subtitles by 2003ad

For notes, links to studies related to statistics used in the film, please visit:

Support us and become VIP member to remove all ads from www.OpenSubtitles.org