Save Simple Date with airSlate SignNow

Save simple date

[MUSIC PLAYING] [APPLAUSE] ED WINTERS: [INAUDIBLE] much. It's a great honor to be here, and I'm very, very grateful for everyone who made this happen and for making it possible. And for all of you for coming along and for everyone watching on the Livestream as well, thank you very, very much. I want to start by just kind of drawing your focus to the screen behind me. Like we've just said, I'm not going to be going through slides during my talk. There's just going to be this one slide behind me, and the reason I've chosen to do this is I think it's really important that when we listen to speakers or we watch documentaries, we actually know what science is being cited, because, often, we listen to people, and they talk about all these wonderful ideas. But then when it comes to looking at the science, it's often nonexistent or it's very difficult to try and work out where it is. So everything I'm going to be talking about, you can cross-reference and fact check for yourself. And beyond that as well, you could look at the methodology behind the studies. So you can come to your own conclusion about whether or not you think the science that's come as a conclusion of the studies is truly representative of the way I'm portraying it as well. So I think it's really important for us to be accountable. And so have a look in your own time. Take some pictures, pause the video, and then see what you think as well. Before I get into the main talk, I do want to talk a little bit about myself and give you a little a bit of context, I suppose, about why I care about these issues and why veganism, the environment, the impacts of our lifestyles is something that I think is worth talking about. There's something I think is worth challenging within ourselves and amongst our peers as well, because it's such a prevalent topic now, isn't it? And I suppose it's interesting to work out why I feel so passionate about it as well. And so I wasn't born vegan-- certainly not. I was raised in a family where we didn't eat anything really that was vegan at all. Like vegan foods was something that we'd never really heard of. Of course, that's slightly strange, because we ate lots of plant foods, but we never thought that was anything to do with veganism. And so being raised in a family, I was taught that being vegetarian was a weird thing to do, let alone being vegan. I remember everything really started to change with me-- actually, about May 2014, this was a big moment in my life. I lived somewhat kind of, I would say, unconsciously eating the foods I'd always eaten without ever really contemplating it. But in May 2014, I was forced to confront something within myself, which made me challenge my lifestyles, made me challenge the way that I'd always lived. And I think that that notion of challenging is actually really important, because we do just live in the ways that we've always lived. We live in ways that our families and our cultures and our societies teach us to. But often, we don't reflect on those lifestyles and those habits and those actions to see if they actually truly align with the morals, the values, the beliefs, or the ways that we perceive that we should be living. So May 2014, I was reading the BBC Online, and I came across this story. And this story was about a truck carrying 6,000 chickens crashing on the way to a slaughterhouse near the city of Manchester in England. And I remember reading this story and being quite shocked, because the journalists had said that 1,500 of the birds had died from the impact alone. I found that quite shocking, because that's a lot of lives taken in that moment. But what upset me more than that was the fact there were many more of these animals alive, hundreds more, of course, but these animals had broken bones, broken wings, broken beaks. They'd been crushed by the truck, and so they were suffering and in pain. And that notion of animal suffering and being in pain became really important to me, because I recognized for the first time-- and it's a very simple realization, of course-- that the animals I consumed had the capacity to suffer and feel pain and also, therefore, had a preference to avoid these things as well. Now that was all well and good. That made sense. But in my fridge at the time was KFC, a leftover KFC, because fried chicken was my ultimate favorite food when I used to eat animal products. I loved KFC. And I had a KFC that was a five-minute walk from where I used to live. Now five minutes is pretty dangerously close to your favorite food source. It's why I went there so often. The workers knew my name, and they also knew what my favorite order was, which was a Zinger box meal. We used to get it [INAUDIBLE] towering up, so it can with a hash brown in the middle. And so I was feeling sorry for these chickens, but in my fridge was the reason why they were being taken to be killed. And so I took a step back. I looked into the farming practices. I looked into the slaughtering practices. And I did not feel very comfortable about that either. And so at that point, I made a change in my life, because I believe that knowledge is power. And what I mean by that is when we learn something new, we become more knowledgeable about something, especially something maybe we've never considered before, that actually we have an obligation to act responsibly with what we've learned. And so in that moment for me, I'd learned that I was against animal suffering and against animal cruelty. But by my own definition of being cruel, which is inflicting needless suffering onto others, I was actually going against my own values. So I made that change, and that was to vegetarian at that point. Now I was a vegetarian and thought vegans-- I thought were a bit weird, to be honest to you. I thought vegans were a bit extreme. I thought they were a bit militant. I thought they had no sense of humor. You know, these vegans, right? Just crack a smile, honestly. It's going to be fine. Everything's OK. You know, cows produce milk. Hens lay eggs, so just don't worry about it. No one dies for those products. Of course, I realized later on I was very wrong by that assumption. I saw a documentary called "Earthlings," which is free to watch on YouTube. And this documentary talks about all the different ways that we use animals, so not just for meat, but for dairy and eggs, for clothing, like leather and fur, even for entertainment, so places like SeaWorld. Now afterwards, I was a little bit upset. The film was about 90 minutes long, and it's just completely horrible footage, like really, really nasty footage. And so I was feeling pretty upset at that point. Now at the time, I had a pet called Rupert. Now Rupert was a hamster, and I loved Rupert the hamster very, very dearly, but I wasn't really raised around animals, and my family didn't have pets. And so Rupert was the first pet I ever had. So I had a kind of special relationship. He was wonderful. And so whenever I felt sad, I'd always give Rupert some food, because when Rupert ate, he looked so cute. There's something about hamsters eating. Their paws, right? You just-- when you watch them eat, just everything in the world instantly becomes fine again, just for those few minutes. And so [INAUDIBLE] I'm feeling a little bit down, feeling a little bit sad. I'm going to give Rupert the hamster some broccoli, because Rupert loved broccoli so much. It was his favorite food. And so Rupert sat in my hands. He's eating his broccoli, and I look at him, and I go, wow, you know? Little Rupert here is such an individual. He has his likes and dislikes. He liked broccoli. He didn't like kale very much. Oh, no, he wasn't a fan. I'm not a massive fan of kale, to be honest with you, so I kind of related on that level. Now Rupert would eat kale. He would, but he would look at you, and he'd be like, really? Kale? And I'd be like, I'm sorry, Rupert. It's all we've got in the fridge. And he would eat it, but he wouldn't be very happy. He loved broccoli. Also, Rupert the hamster was the laziest hamster who'd ever lived. I swear the laziest hamster. With hamsters, you get them wheels, and they run in those wheels. They're supposed to run for hours and hours and hours. I wouldn't know. I got Rupert a wheel. He tried it once and decided it wasn't for him. And so for the next 2 and 1/2 years, he didn't touch it once. So lazy, right? I couldn't believe it. So I was looking at Rupert, and I'm thinking, there's so much about him that makes him that little individual, that makes him unique. And I thought, you know what, Rupert's wonderful. He's not necessarily the most intelligent animal who's ever walked the planet, though. And so if I recognize so much within Rupert, then I must also recognize it in the pigs, the cows, the chickens, the ducks, the geese, the sheep, even the marine animals, of course, who are intellectual and cognitive in their own right as well. And if I recognized so much within Rupert, then to deny it in those other animals would be wrong, of course. And if I wouldn't want anyone to hurt Rupert, then what right do I have to pay for others, who are identical in every way to Rupert that matters, to have pain and suffering inflicted upon them for me? That didn't make sense. And so that's why I went vegan. But I was a vegan at the beginning who was very, very quiet, very quiet. I was very afraid of being labeled as being preachy. As you can tell, I don't worry about that too much now, but there was a point in my life where I was quite worried that people would not like me because I was talking about veganism. And so I was at university at the time. So I'd go into university. I'd eat lentils and hummus, vegan foods, and I wouldn't say a word to anyone. But then one day, I came across all this information online about the environment and about how eating animal products is actually really destructive for our planet. Now I had not really come across this information before, and I was shocked by it, completely shocked. I couldn't believe it. Now at university my friends were quite environmentally conscious. You know, they talked a lot about climate change. They were environmentally focused. And so I thought to myself, I'm going to go to university. I'm going to tell my friends about this information I've come across. They're going to go home. They're going to seek it out themselves, and because they care about the climate, they're going to go vegan as well, and we'll be one big vegan family, right? It's going to be perfect. And we can eat lentils together and talk about animals, you know, climate protection and all these vegan subjects of conversation, the only things we have to talk about, right? So I went into university, and I said to my friends, check out these resources. Check out this information I've come across. It's all about how eating animal products is bad for our environment. You should watch it. You should look into it. And they stared at me a little bit blankly. And this one girl, she said to me, she said, Ed, it's very interesting you mentioned meat, dairy, and eggs, and the environment. And I think it's wonderful that, of course, that you've made that choice to be vegan, and I actually really respect that you've done that. But the thing is it's a little bit hypocritical of you to try and say that because we meat, dairy, and eggs, we're doing something bad to the environment, when you consume tofu and drink soy milk, and soy farming is destroying the Amazon rainforest. And I remember I took a step back for a moment. I thought, is this true? Could it be so? I mean, of course, terrible things are happening in the Amazon, and I do consume soy products. So I guess logically speaking, it would make sense that I was the one responsible for that. And I had no idea what to say to her. And I remember that it kind of annoyed me a little bit, because that didn't feel right to me, but I didn't know what to say to her. So I went home that day, and I googled it-- classic googling, [INAUDIBLE] very topic [INAUDIBLE].. I googled it, and I googled, is soy farming bad for the Amazon rainforest? Now lo and behold, soy farming is terrible for the Amazon, just atrocious. It's one of the leading contributors of Amazon rainforest destruction. I thought, really? Does that mean it's me doing all these problems or causing these problems? And, actually, the more I looked into it, the consensus is that between 75% to 80% of all the soy that is grown is fed to animals in the animal agriculture industry. And actually, only around 6% of the soy that is produced is fed to humans. Now, of course, soy isn't just used in vegan products either. Soy is ubiquitous amongst so many different types of foods. It's in breads, sauces, condiments, chocolates even. And it's been a staple of many diets for hundreds, thousands of years. But it still only makes up 6% of human consumption of all the soy that's produced. Now what's interesting about that 75% to 80% is that's the soy that's produced in the Amazon, whereas the soy for vegan products is often produced in places, well, in Europe, like France actually. Alpro is a great example. Or in North America, so people who live in North America can have North American soy. And so the problems related to the Amazon deforestation and soy farming are directly linked to the animals that we consume. That becomes a little bit tricky for us, maybe, because we live in Europe. Of course, I live in the UK, currently in Switzerland. And so we think, well, how does that really relate to our diets? Because we can imagine, yes, soy bean produced for animals may be in the US, may be in China. But what about here? So in the UK, where I live, according to the Center for Agricultural Strategy, which is based at the University of Reading, we import into the UK 1.83 million tons of soy every single year just to feed the animals in the UK alone. Now some estimates place it at 2.5, but the Center for Agricultural Strategy, which is a respectable organization, says 1.83. Now 1.83 million tons of soy is equivalent to about 900,000 hectares of rainforest. And, in fact, to put that into perspective, the entire landmass of the UK is about 24 million, 900,000 hectares just to produce soy for the animals in the UK alone. Now when we talk about CO2 emissions and CO2 equivalents, one hectare of deforested rainforest is equal to about 3.67 tons of CO2 equivalent going into our atmosphere. So just for soy, in the UK alone, that's about 3.5 million tons of CO2 equivalent from the deforestation of the Amazon just for soy in the UK. Now what's really interesting about the soy farming aspect is, often, when we talk about the environment and animal products, we talk about red meat, don't we? Cattle, sheep, pigs, perhaps. But we often think that chickens and, of course, eggs are sustainable alternatives. But globally speaking, just over 50% of the soy that's produced is used in poultry feed, so feed for chickens, for their meat, and for their eggs. And that's same for the importation of soy into Europe-- just over 50%. And so, actually, when we look at the animal who's responsible for the majority of the deforestation from a soy perspective, it's actually the chickens for their meat, and even for those free range eggs that we place in our omelets. That's what's happening in the Amazon. And of course, in the Amazon, there's also been wildfires this year. And according to a recent investigation by "The Guardian" and also The Bureau for Investigative Journalism, 70% of the wildfires that have been taking place this year have been taking place in the areas dominated by the cattle ranching industry. Now it's no surprise or it's not really new knowledge for us to know that huge amounts of the Amazon are being destroyed to make way for cattle grazing either. Cattle being used for their flesh, beef, and for their skin, for leather. Actually, a lot of the wildfires can be directly related to those agricultural practices. And of course, these products find their way into Europe as well in our clothing, but even in the foods that we consume. When we look at the Amazon, it's important to recognize that, actually, there's a supply chain. And even the products we buy where we live can be traced back often to what's happening there. I think that's empowering, though, because we feel sad. Often, we feel helpless. Sometimes we feel like we don't have much control over these things. But in some aspects we do. And I think that's actually quite an empowering notion to have. The problems of soy farming is related to diets that are heavy in animal products, not those vegan diets. It's an interesting idea to think about. I want to move the conversation on a little bit. I want to talk about the broader implications of climate change. I think that's really important to look at, because we're talking in 2050, there could be somewhere between 9 and 10 billion people. So we're looking at maybe another 1.5 billion people on this planet in the next 30 years, which is a significant-- well, it's exponential growth, isn't it? And of course, that poses its own risks. It poses its own challenges, because by the year 2050, we'll also have a less abundance of resources, sometimes resources that we just take for granted right now. Of course, as climate change begins to increase in severity and in magnitude, we'll see things like, well, reduced water availability, lack of fertile lands, extreme weather patterns and weather conditions, including droughts, flooding, wildfires, and all these things lead to areas of the world which would no longer be considered habitable for people. And so by 2050, what we could have is tens of millions, potentially, even a couple hundred million climate refugees. These are people who are forced to leave where they live, because they can no longer sustain their life there maybe due to lack of food, of course, water availability, or maybe just due to the weather conditions. And so these people are going to be forced to leave, to migrate, and [? now the ?] most appealing areas for these people who all need to migrate will often be the north, so Europe and North America. But remember by that time, 30 years or so time, we will also have less abundance of resources. And there'll also be more of us to feed. So what we need to do looking forward is to assess how we can be more efficient with the resources that we have, because efficiency is going to play a huge role in determining how we treat each other, because, actually, remember, if an influx of migrants or refugees are being forced to leave their home, that puts a burden on the areas where they're looking to move to. And now it's no mystery that in times of, say, crisis, often we turn more inwards. We can become more nationalistic, more populist, because we want to become more defensive of what it is that's around us, because when it comes to sharing increasingly finite resources, that could lead to some huge human rights implications, something that actually would be incredibly immoral, especially when we can do things now to try and solve the problems in the future or reduce the impacts of the problems in the future. So what do I mean by that? There was a study released last year. It was called "Looking at the--" well, it's that one up there, "Reducing Food's Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers." This was a huge study. This study looked at 40,000 farms in 119 countries around the world. It was led by researchers at the University of Oxford. It was a four to five-year study, and it looked at the 40 major food items that make up 90% of our diets globally. It's considered the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted, exploring the relationship between farming and the environment. And it was published in a scientific journal called "Science," which is one of the most highly regarded scientific journals in the world as well. It looked at all different systems of farming, so, of course, factory farming, also grass-fed farming, and plant-based agriculture as well. They looked at different factors related to the environmental costs of these farming practices. And one of the biggest things they looked at was land usage, because when we talk about agriculture, land usage is one of the biggest factors when it comes to the environmental cost of agriculture. It said that globally, 83% of agricultural land is given to animal agriculture, 83%. Now that seems like a huge figure, doesn't it, 83%? But actually, according to data provided by the European Commission, 63% of arable land in Europe is given to producing feed for animals, 63%. And according to the United Nations FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization, 26% of the Earth's terrestrial land surface is given to grazing animals-- over a quarter of the Earth's land surface for grazing animals. And so you can see quite quickly how it begins to rack up the amount of lands that's given to these animals. Now the problem isn't really just the land that's given to them. The problem is actually the output that we get as a consequence of the resources that we give them. The real issue here is, actually, that in terms of output, globally speaking, animal products only provide us around 37%, 38% of our protein intake with as little as 18% of our global calorie intake. And so what we have is a huge disparity between the amount of resources we're putting in and the amount of resources we get out as a consequence. That's incredibly worrying, because, of course, to clear land for agriculture, well, that's precisely what you have to do. You have to clear land for agriculture, which is why animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of things like deforestation. It is actually the leading cause of things like species extinction and biodiversity loss, because huge expanses of habitats, of environments, of ecosystems are destroyed to make way for agriculture, 83% of which belongs to animal agriculture. Now what could we do? What's the solution to this problem? This four or five-year study at the University of Oxford, the most comprehensive one ever conducted, said if we switch to a plant-based diet, we could free up the amount of agricultural land that we would need by 75% and still be able to feed everyone on the planet with the land that's left over. Now 75% is equal to the size of the US, China, Australia, and the European Union combined no longer being necessary to produce food. There is a huge amount of land, and so what could we do with that land? Well, we can do a number of things. Remember by 2050, there'll be more people on this planet for us to feed, and so we're going to have to be able to produce more food for people. There was a study released last year from Harvard Law School called "Eating Away at Climate Emissions." And it looked exactly at this idea of what we could do if we repurposed the land that we currently use. Now it said that in the US, if you took the croplands-- this is the land where crops are produced to feed animals in the US alone, just the croplands-- you could produce enough human edible crops on that land to feed another 350 million people, which is about the size of the United States population. So you could feed another country the size of America just by repurposing the cropland that's used to grow crops to feed the animals. 350 million people could be fed using that land. It looked at the UK as well, where I live. It said if you took 1/3, so just 33% of the croplands, so lands where we grow crops to feed to the animals in the UK, what you could do is you could grow enough fruits and vegetables on that land to feed every single person in the UK, or 62 million people, so near about every single person, their five portions of fruit and vegetables every single day all year round, just with 1/3 of that land. And so actually taking that land and using it in a different way, it's much more efficient for us as well. Now remember that climate change is a social justice issue. What I mean by that is right now in the world, it's currently affecting those who have done least to cause it the most severely. Now as we look towards the future, when we talk about climate refugees, again, these will be the people who have done least to cause the problems. And so how we act today and the way that we live today will have a huge effect on how other humans have to live in the future. We often talk about our children, our grandchildren, and rightfully so, because their lives will also be impacted by climate change. We should also look across the world at those who, right now, living in systems of impoverishment, they'll be the ones who suffer the most. And so how we choose to live is also a human rights issue and a human rights concept as well. How we use that land is vital. Now, also, it's not just about land with animals as well. According to research, 33% of all available global freshwater is given to animal agriculture, one third. Now in the future, some scientists say we might have wars over water, which seems so silly to us, because we turn the tap on, get fresh water, clean drinking water. But in the future for many people in the world, that might not be a luxury. I mean it currently isn't, isn't it? And so it will be exacerbated forwards into the future. And if we're giving one third of all the available freshwater to animals, something has to give at some point. But to put that into perspective, it takes 20 times more water to produce, say, one pound of beef than it does one pound of starchy root vegetables, 20 times more. And in fact, conservatively speaking, it takes somewhere between 1,800 and 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. It takes 477 gallons of water to produce one pound of eggs. It takes 1,000 gallons of water to produce one gallon of milk. And so we're pumping so much of our resources into something that, as a consequence, we don't get that much from in the end. Now of course, we don't want to turn every animal farm into a plant farm. That doesn't make sense. We don't need to, [? as ?] there something else we should do with that land, something called rewilding? Now rewilding, to me, is an incredibly exciting opportunity. Rewilding is as it sounds. You allow natural landscapes and environments to return to their more natural environment. We rewild those landscapes, because we've destroyed, like I was saying before, so many habitats, so many ecosystems, and so many environments. These are often woodlands, forest lands, savannas, grasslands, we've destroyed so much of them, predominantly for animal grazing and animal agriculture. And so we could reclaim that land and rewild it. Now the thing about clearing lands is it's kind of like a double-edged sword in the way that we've done it, because, obviously, trees absorb carbon. The healthy soils also sequester carbon as well. So when we destroy these areas, that carbon is emitted back into the atmosphere again. To put that into perspective, there were wildfires in Siberia this summer. Now by the end of the wildfires in Siberia it was reported that as much CO2 had been emitted into the atmosphere, it was equaled to about the amount of CO2 that a country like Sweden emits in an entire year. So another developed, rich, westernized country's worth of emissions just from one of the wildfires. And so protecting trees is fundamental, potentially, to what our planet will look like in the future as well. And so we can rewild this land, encourage the forest lands, the woodlands, the healthy soils to come back, to replenish-- through photosynthesis to take carbon back from our atmosphere again. That'll be one of the best offenses that we have, because we often talk about-- I've seen it in articles. We often talk about the need to build these machines. We'll build these machines. These machines can absorb the carbon from the atmosphere. They can suck it down. They can neutralize it, turn into oxygen or something. We talk about, oh, if only we had this technology. This technology's been introduced. But actually, we've had this technology-- well, it's existed long before we did in the form of healthy vegetation and biodiversity. So I think that rewilding is one of the best solutions that we have. And to make the most of rewilding, we have to take that land back and reclaim it from an industry that's incredibly detrimental, because let's just bear in mind, when I said a double-edged sword earlier, what I meant is that we've replaced one of the best defenses we have with one of the biggest contributors to environmental degradation. Now, of course, animals produce greenhouse gas as well. Well, ruminant grazing animals especially do. According to a United Nations report called "Livestock's Long Shadow," animal agriculture is responsible for 14.5% of worldwide total greenhouse gas emissions. Now there are some reports that place that higher. I saw something earlier that said 23%, but 14.5% is plenty, because actually, by being 14.5%, that still makes it the second biggest industry in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. It means that it produces more emissions than the entire transportation system combined. Animal agriculture is responsible for more emissions than all the planes, all the cars, all the boats, all the motorbikes combined. And that's a huge problem, of course. Now methane is actually worse for the environment in terms of its global warming potential than carbon dioxide is. And so we've replaced a huge solution, or at least a defense, and replaced it with massive contributor to the problem. But we can come full circle again. Take that problem away. And in its place, replace it with one of the best solutions that we have-- healthy, biodiversity, vegetation. To me, that seems like one of the best things that we can do. And it makes so much sense. We can actually trophically rewild as well. Now trophic rewilding is where you introduce indigenous animals back into the landscapes as well, because the thing is we've hunted many indigenous animals to the point of extinction or even beyond, often to protect farmers' animals, because some of these animals would kill them. So it'd be bad for profits. Also, because we've cleared land. We've reduced habitats, areas for these animals to live. And in that place, we put selectively bred, genetically modified animals, often who are not indigenous to the landscapes anyway. And so why I think we should try trophically rewild, introduce animals back, re-establish those food chains, because indigenous animals often play a fundamental role in balancing the ecology of the environments where they can be found. Let's take the bison, for example. Bison were hunted. Well, their numbers were decimated across the US, of course. But actually, bison often played an important role for their grazing habits. The way their hoofs would cut through the grass would encourage the sequestration of carbon into the soil. So I say let's indigenously or trophically rewild indigenous animals again, because they can play a huge role in balancing the ecology and balancing the ecosystems as well. Now rewilding has a special place in my heart, because in the UK, according to a couple of recent studies, the United Kingdom is ranked 189th out of 215 countries for the intactness of our biodiversity-- 189th. Now to me, that is shocking, because when I was growing up in the UK, I was always told that our landscapes were beautiful, that our countryside was something to be proud of. But actually, what it represents is a desolate wasteland almost where we've destroyed so much life-- in fact, 25% of mammals in the UK and 50% of birds are at threat of potential extinction. That's a huge amount of wildlife whose life is at risk because of what we do. Now in the UK, those figures I mentioned earlier are also similar. 85% of the total agricultural land in the UK is dedicated to animal agriculture, which means that around 50% to 60% of the entire landmass of the UK is given to animal agriculture, over half. Also, remember that 900,000 hectares in the Amazon is also dedicated, and so globally speaking, the amount of land being dedicated is just creeping up all the time. And to be honest, I find that really worrying, because if we talk about species extinction and problems of biodiversity, we should look no further than the industry that's responsible for using the most land and causing the most destruction. And in effect, by reclaiming that, we can do so much to try and solve many of these problems as well. So that's why I think rewilding is not just an environmental incentive. It's not just a great thing to do for the environment. I think it's a moral obligation, in fact, to safeguard our future, but also the future of all these animals as well, whose lives are at risk. Let's do what we can to restore these lands, as much as would be practicable in the moment, of course. Let's move the conversation on a little bit. That five-year study, the one from University of Oxford, the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted, it concluded by saying the single biggest thing that we can do as individuals to help mitigate our impact on the environment is to adopt a vegan lifestyle, the single biggest thing that we can do. Now it also just so happens it's one of the easiest things that we can do as well. But it's the single biggest thing that we can do, because it actually tackles so many of these problems-- food usage, water usage, land usage, greenhouse gas emissions. It tackles so many issues at the same time. It's something we can do every single day, especially where we live-- Zurich, of course, right now, the Switzerland in general, Europe, America, Australia. It's never been easier to make those changes, and it's never been more important, as well, to make those changes. Now I want to be fair. One of the leading researchers, called Joseph Paul, is vegan. But actually, he wasn't vegan when he started out on his exploration to study this information. He was vegan by the end because of what he discovered. And I think that speaks volumes about this work, to say that even the researchers were compelled to think differently. And of course it was published in one of the most highly-respected scientific journals in the world. Now, I was talking about what we call intersects in vegans, so how it deals with different issues all at the same time, and how it can contribute positively to those different issues. Well, there's another thing that actually a vegan lifestyle can help contribute towards the reduction of. And that's plastic. There was a piece of research released by Greenpeace only five or so weeks ago looking at ghost nets. So ghost-- well, ghost gear in general, ghost gear is basically fishing gear that's dumped into the ocean. Sometimes it breaks. Sometimes it's left there. And it's said that the industry that contributes the most amount of macroplastic into the ocean-- so macroplastic is plastic that's more than 5 millimeters long. So it's still pretty small. But the industry that contributes the most macroplastic into the ocean is actually the fishing industry. There's an area of land called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. I shouldn't say land, but it is basically a floating island of plastic that's formed its own land mass. Horrendous-- 86% of the macroplastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is from the fishing industry, the commercial fishing industry. And so actually, when we start to reduce, eliminate, go vegan, and take all these products out of our lives, what we have is an inadvertently positive effect in other areas, as well. Because often, we vilify small issues, don't we? Like the plastic straw, the plastic straw is the villain of our time, because the damage it causes to fish and to marine life. Now, don't get me wrong, plastic straws are things we shouldn't be using. But how about this-- the fish burger that we eat in McDonald's, even though they've eliminated the plastic straw, will cause more damage, not just to marine life, but in terms of plastic in the ocean than those plastic straws could ever cause. And so sometimes, we can't see the woods for the trees. We become focused on singular issues. But actually, a simple change to a vegan lifestyle could have a knock-on effect even to macroplastic in the ocean. And I find that empowering again. I do not think it's a bad thing that we can tackle all these things in our lifestyle choices. I think it's the incredibly rewarding thing to think that, actually, by doing small changes, we have a huge knock-on effect in other areas, as well. And so we move the conversation on further, don't we? And we look at another study. Now, this study, the top one, "Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits"-- now, this study was very interesting. What this study looked at is it looked at what we would have to do across the world, in terms of the reduction of certain products, to not hit 2 degrees Celsius by 2050. And so what's unique about this study is it took a bottom-up approach. And what I mean by that is it took data from every individual country, and then formulated its findings based on looking at individual data and building up from there. It is quite profound and, of course, very meticulous, as well. Now, this particular study is considered the most comprehensive study exploring the relationship between food and global warming, temperature increase. It said that, in rich nations-- so where we live, where I live, in America, places like that-- we would need to reduce our red meat consumption-- so that's, of course, beef, so cow, lamb, and pig-- by 90%, and our dairy and poultry consumption by 60%, to not hit 2 degrees Celsius by 2050. Now, what's interesting about that, of course, is that, back in 2015, when the Paris Climate Accord took place and the agreement was created by world leaders and leading scientists, they said that, aspirationally, we don't want to go above 1.5 degrees Celsius. Because the difference between 1.5 and 2 is actually quite profound, when we look at the impact of sea level rising, topsoil erosion, land desertification, water usage, all these different problems. It's a big issue between 1.5 and 2. And so if, aspirationally, we don't want to go above 1.5, but we have to reduce by 90% and 60% to not hit 2, it creates the interesting question of, well, what would we have to reduce to not hit 1.5? I think this is sometimes the interesting question about the environment and lifestyles and food. People sometimes say, well, we don't actually have to think about veganism. Like surely, if we just did meat-free four days a week, or I just had a vegan meal every lunch, or something like, that would surely be OK. But actually, I don't think it is. I think that veganism should be that baseline for which we seek to live by. Because it is the biggest thing we can do. And we recognize that reduction also doesn't necessarily mitigate the entire problem. And the problem is, of course, very existential and scary in size. Then surely, veganism is that baseline that we should be striving for. Now sometimes people say that going vegan is a little bit extreme. It's a bit much. We don't need to be vegan. But I think we say that because actually the reality of climate change doesn't yet feel tangible to us, does it? What I mean by that is, we have 45 degrees Celsius heat in Paris during summer. In fact, we had record-breaking heats throughout Europe this summer. But then it gets cold again, doesn't it? And we put our coats on, and our lives haven't really been impacted. And so the effects are something that logically, scientifically, rationally, we're very much aware of. But within our own lives, we can often try and forget about it, or it just doesn't feel necessarily entirely real yet. But what I think will happen is, as the tangibility and the perceived realness of climate change becomes more prevalent to us, how we view veganism will become less and less extreme as a consequence. It's probably going to do something like this. And all of a sudden, we'll see not being vegan as the extreme stance when climate change is knocking quite ferociously on our door. So if we have to reduce 90% and 60%, what does that look like? I want to be fair again. The same study said that we should look at reducing refined sugar consumption, as well, by 60%, because that's obviously a big player in the debate as well, of course, in the conversation. I think it's important to be transparent and to look beyond that, and to look at what the information is purveying beyond just the message of veganism, as well. So let's move on. Well, what I'd like to do actually is I'd like to look at maybe some of the counterarguments that are proposed against veganism. I've presented a lot of arguments in favor of it. But what are some of the arguments that the other side of the narrative likes to tell us? One thing I want to mention is insect farming actually, because insect farming is a very interesting idea. It's seen as, maybe, an environmentally sustainable option, an alternative for the future. Now, I think we have to look at scales, don't we? And we would say that, undeniably, insect farming is more sustainable than, say, beef farming, right? To put it into example, the Harvard Law School study I cited earlier, called "Eating Away at Climate Emissions," it said that, for 37 calories of plants, you will only get one calorie of beef. You had said, for 17 calories of plants, you only get one calorie of pig meat. And for six calories of plants, you only get one calorie of dairy and of eggs. Now actually, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, one of the offshoots called the Environmental Services, it takes 16 pounds or kilograms of plants to produce one kilogram of beef. So we see, again, a disparity in the efficiency of food usage in terms of what we get as a consequence. Now, with insects, it's interesting. Because the debate really shouldn't be, is insect farming more sustainable than the other animals we currently farm, but is insect farming more sustainable than the plant-based systems that I'm advocating for? And so we look at input versus output, those ratios again. Currently, what we're working out is a 2 to 1 ratio, meaning it takes 2 kilograms of plants to produce 1 kilogram of insects. Those would be crickets. And so already, we see that, actually, the sustainability is probably lower than a shift to a plant-based diet. And what's interesting, in most commercial insect farms, one of the primary food source is they give to insects is poultry feed, chicken feed. And like we said right at the beginning, poultry feed is often filled with soy from the Amazon. And so even for those crickets we eat-- or could eat potentially in the future-- the traceability of that could still have devastating environmental consequences in the Amazon rainforest. And the 2 to 1 ratio dictates it would be better for us just to get our nutrition from the plants to begin with. Now here's an interesting one. There's a lot of conversation about the notion that doing something called intensive rotational grazing of animals like cattle is beneficial to the environment because IRG, Intensive Rotational Grazing, is actually beneficial in terms of trapping carbon in the soil and also reversing the desertification of desertified grasslands. Interesting idea, isn't it? They say that through high stocking density and rotational movement, you can mimic the role of ruminant animals before agriculture became industrialized. It's very interesting to think about this. It's often referred to as the holistic management approach. Now, one of the reasons I want to put these studies behind me today is so that you can fact-check the things that I say. The problem is that advocates of the holistic management approach, this idea of intensive rotational grazing, don't cite any science that is empirical, peer-reviewed, or published in scientific journals. Instead, they rely on things like anecdotal evidence, which is not a good groundwork for making scientific opinions. And also, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that contradicts what these statements have made. And also, in one of the most famous readings of the holistic management approach, viewers were confronted with images, one image portraying desertfied land, and another image portraying lush, green vegetation. But those images were given no context. There was no origin for them. Instead, they were there to make you think the two were interlinked. But actually, the holistic management approach, when looked at it through evaluations and through studies, has been seen to have a detrimental effect. Let's first, of course, consider that when we graze animals on land, desertified land, it increases the compactness of the soil. It exacerbates the problem. And so when we look at desertification, grazing animals is one of the leading causes of desertification. And surprise, surprise, grazing animals is not going to overcome the problem that is caused by grazing animals, right? And so let's look at the arguments made about sequestering carbon into the soil. Now, of course, soils are incredibly important in the role of balancing our ecosystems, because they do sequester a huge amount of carbon. I think 29% of carbon is sequestered into our lands, which is a huge amount. And so if the idea was true, that grazing animals sequestered carbon, then maybe it would make it beneficial. But for it to be beneficial, two things would need to happen. Well, firstly, the amount of carbon being sequestered into the soil would need to not only offset the emissions caused by the animals, but it would also have to have a positive benefit, in terms of, they'd have to take more carbon beyond just offsetting the amount. So let's have a look into that. A study called "Grazed and Confused" by the Food Climate Research Network-- it's a two-year study. And it was a collaborative effort with researchers from the University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of Aberdeen, also agricultural universities in Switzerland, in Sweden, and in the Netherlands, and also an institution called the CSIRO in Australia. These are experts in soil health, in lifecycle assessments, in carbon sequestering. And they looked at these claims made by advocates of the grass-fed system or the holistic management approach. And they came to some conclusions that contradict what it is that we're sometimes led to believe. They said that, if you took the best grazing management protocols around-- so you did it in the best way possible-- at best, if you took the liberal estimates, you could offset 20% to 60% of the emissions, which means you still have a surplus from the grazing of animals to begin with. And actually, even more worrying than this, eventually with the soils, you reach something called soil-carbon equilibrium. What that basically means is that the carbon going in is matched by the carbon coming out. And so after only a couple of decades or so, maybe two or three decades, the grazing of animals would be offset by zero. Because the amount of carbon that was now trapped in the soil couldn't increase. And so it would be a short-term strategy, even if it was true. But at best, at very best, you'll still have a surplus of somewhere between 80% to 40% of emissions to begin with. Meaning that, actually, the process of grazing animals to sequester carbon is nonsensical. It's not grounded in any scientific logic. In fact, it contradicts it. There are some studies done by things like the agricultural journals in the US, people in Texas. And they said themselves-- and these are people that work within the industry of animal agriculture. They said that these claims are not true about grazing animals being beneficial for the soil because actually, the best thing to do for the soil in desertified grasslands is to leave it alone. Leave that land alone. It is human interference that has caused the problems, and so allow nature to do its thing. The top layer of crust on the soil that happens or that forms when it's desertified is an ecosystem within its own right. And when left alone, it will sequester carbon and increase the growth of vegetation as a consequence. Again, that is rewilding. Stop thinking, to these people, that grazing animals will be a solution to what grazing animals have caused. Rewild that land. Take away the human interference, and it will do its thing on its own. And the best thing about allowing it to rewild is we don't have to worry about offsetting any emissions. Any emissions, any carbon that's trapped in the soil is a surplus, is a benefit, is a positive. It creates a net deficit from the carbon that's currently in our atmosphere. Now, let's move on again. I'll make it a bit broader. Because currently right now, according to this "Grazed and Confused" study, only 1 gram of protein per person per day comes from solely grass-fed animals, only 1 gram. Yet around 31 grams of protein per person per day comes from all other animal sources. And 47 grams of protein per person per day comes from plant-based sources. Now, let's just bear in mind, of course, that according to the United Nations, 26% of the Earth's terrestrial land surface is given to grazing animals. And yet solely grass-fed only provides us 1 gram of protein per person per day. And so if we're advocating for a switch to a grass-fed food system, it starts to become tricky to work that out, mathematically speaking. Now, of course, within that 31 grams, that includes marine animals that are wild-caught. So let's be generous and say we take 11 grams off, so about 1/3, which still leaves us with another 20 grams of protein per person per day that used to come from non-grass-fed animal sources that would now need to come from solely grass-fed animal sources. Yet 26% of the Earth's terrestrial land surface is already given to grazing animals. It doesn't work out. And not only that, it creates a socioeconomic problem, as well. Because, of course, a switch to a grass-fed food system would dramatically reduce the supply of these products. And if the supply is reduced, the cost to the consumer increases. These products would only really be there for the affluent in society, as well, creating a socioeconomic class issue, as well as an environmental catastrophic issue, as well. So we move the conversation on a little bit further. Now, one of things that often is leveled against vegans is that vegans will consume avocados from Mexico, or almonds. Now, almonds are incredibly water-intensive, is what we're told. Now, almonds are actually quite water-intensive. But they have significantly less water-intensive than dairy, dairy cows. So when we look at the arguments made that sometimes try to contradict the notion of veganism being beneficial for the environment, we often, again, don't see the bigger picture. Now, I agree that if we have the choice, we should drink oat milk or soy milk over almond milk. But if the choice is between almond milk and cow's milk, almond milk is substantially more beneficial for the environment than cow's milk, in terms of its water use, but also in terms of land use, greenhouse gas emissions, crop use, all these different issues, as well. Now, what about avocados in Mexico? Well, here's a sneaky trick. You can be vegan and not consume these products. [LAUGHTER] And to me, that's kind of like the most interesting idea of all, isn't it? Well, I think is similar, actually, to when people point to electric cars, don't they? They go, well, electric cars aren't perfect for the environment, as they sit in their SUVs that are diesel-powered. And the point is, yes, but it's substantially better. And the best thing is, you don't have to have an electric car. You can go by train. And it's the same with vegan foods. Of course avocados from Mexico might have an environmental impact. But it's substantially better than eating animal products. And you also don't have to eat the avocados either. And so that's a wonderful thing. And actually, think about, being vegan means broadening those horizons and saying, what else can I look at encouraging to change in my life? And sometimes those are plant-based foods and the origins of those foods. Remember, the single biggest thing that we can do is to adopt a vegan lifestyle. And then when we've done that, we broaden our horizons to look at the environmental impact we have in other areas, as well. Because one thing that's often leveled against vegans, again, is the idea of monocropping. Monocropping is terrible for the environment. It uses chemical fertilizers, synthetic fertilizers, which are not good. We can all agree on that. But again, a switch to a plant-based world dramatically reduces the amount of monocropping that takes place, significantly. Remember, 63% of arable land is currently given to raising or growing feed for animals. And so what we do is we take a massive stride in the right direction. And then from that massive stride that we've taken, we look at different approaches to farming, such as using veganic, organic fertilizers. Now one thing I didn't mention, which I should have done, about the grass-fed argument is something called the nutrient cycle. Now, when we kill animals to take their meat from a grass-fed system, what we have is a gap in the metabolic cycle. We call it an open nutrient cycle. And so what I mean by that is, when animals are grazing, they're taking nutrients from the soil. Now, some of those nutrients are replaced through their manure, through their feces. But also those nutrients are turned into muscle and turned into fat. Now when we take the animals off the land to then kill them, we have what we call an open nutrient cycle. Because the nutrients that have been taken from the soil, from the land to create the muscle and fat, are not being replaced. And so the best thing-- and this is why I advocate for trophically rewilding indigenous animals, is not to kill these animals to consume them, but allow them to die on the land, because then we have a closed nutrient cycle as a consequence of that action. Now, with the monocropping, using veganic organic fertilizers, it would be much more beneficial than using animal manure. For example, animal manure has problems. People have died from E. coli from eating lettuce because of the animal manure that was used to fertilize it. All you need in the manure, at least what is useful in the manure, is the nitrogen. Now, the nitrogen is recycled from the plants that have been consumed. And so we can use nitrogen-dense plant foods, such as alfalfa and clover. And we can use these to fertilize plants, as well. This is happening already around the world and can be scaled up to meet demand if necessary. And so actually, when we look at monocropping, there are, of course, advantages and alternatives to what we can use. Scientifically speaking, we can look at advantages in vertical farming, as an example. Or big greenhouses, we could convert animal barns into these greenhouse structures, increase the self-sufficiency and sustainability of the food that we consume. So I agree. Plant-based diets are not going to completely solve all the world's problems in one go. But they take a significant step in the right direction, the biggest first step that we can make. And from that point, then we can look at these other issues, as well. The ideas that these contradict the notion of veganism for the environment are disingenuous because these problems exist and are exacerbated in a non-vegan diet. So then the last thing I think that people often say-- and I get this one, this makes sense to me-- is people say, yes, but we are one person. We're individuals. And if we don't change, well, what does that really matter? Because if I don't buy that steak from the supermarket shelf, someone else will buy it. And in fact, the power lies in governments, doesn't it, and in companies and corporations. And if they don't do anything, then what's the point in us changing as individuals? Now, that's a really interesting idea. Because of course, a significant amount of power does lie in our governments and corporations. But you know what I think is really empowering? I use that word again. When we talk about climate change issues, we often feel very powerless, don't we? We strike. We march. Maybe sometimes we engage in acts of civil disobedience to try and get that message out there. But it falls on deaf ears so often. And so the problem then becomes, well, if they're not listening, then what can we do about it? But here's an interesting idea. What we choose to consume every day is entirely our choice. We are fully autonomous in making the decision to decide what it is that we want to eat. And so if anything, that makes veganism even more of an obligation for how we should live because it is one of the few things that we have complete power and control over, which means that it should even more so be at the top of our list for things that we can do. Because not only is it the single biggest thing, but it's the thing that we have complete control over in our lives. And as we change, we signal to those companies and those governments, there is an appetite-- pardon the pun-- for change within society. Because remember, governments won't change if they don't feel there is a mandate from the people to do so. It can be terribly catastrophic for them, in terms of votes, in terms of how they're perceived. We see this across the world with things like an eco fuel tax, which cause huge amounts of civil unrest because of the socioeconomic problems it caused. And so it's up to us to signify to change-makers, to legislators, that we are ready and want those changes to happen. But the only way we do that is by adopting that change within our life. We have to work in tandem with those in positions of real power. But we also have real power, as well, for the choices that we make every day. I think that is empowering, to know that we can actually positively benefit our world and the future by the choices that we make every day, three times a day, in fact. Now, the United Nations, back in 2010-- so almost a decade ago-- made a very simple statement. They said that the world needs to shift to a plant-based diet to avoid the worst effects of climate change. That was from the the United Nations Environment Program, almost a decade ago. 10 years has gone by. And of course, there have been changes that have been made. But those changes have been very, very small. How much longer can we listen to the science? How much longer can we be confronted with the objectivity of the peer-reviewed empirical data that is being presented towards us? How much longer can we pretend that maybe we don't have that much power to create change? Or is it time for us to recognize that we do have a huge amount of power, and the actions and choices that we make every day will define what the world looks like in the future? That is something we have to recognize within ourself. I do want to say an important point at the end. I live in London, but I'm here in Zurich. And I imagine that for some people hearing that, maybe they'll assume that I've flown here. But I got the train here. And so actually, make that first step to veganism, and then look at other areas of your life, as well. 10 years since we were told by the United Nations-- surely we can't afford to wait another 10 years, surely not. So maybe it's time for us to understand the obligation, the imperative, and the urgency. And if it is time, then that also means it's time for us to make those changes. Thank you so much for listening. [APPLAUSE]