It’s more persuasive than I expected but I’m always torn between simplistic arguments that make an impact and more complicated arguments that address the broader problem.
Some animal husbandry is necessary in the uk to preserve biodiversity in pasture and meadowland, which in themselves are massive carbon sinks. Letting animals graze fallow land is more effective at preserving top soil than simply letting it sit fallow. Having a couple of pigs on a farm is more efficient not less. We don’t have to worry about water consumption in Wales and Scotland, which coincidentally have the highest amount of land that is impractical for arable farming. Even with a massive rewilding project (which would be awesome) there is still vast scope to raise cattle and sheep, not to mention deer and pheasant.
But talking about the necessity of holistic farming isn’t always useful when addressing the problem of intensive farming. I’m not sure it’s easier to advocate spending three times more for meat reared in a way that contributes to the environment than it is to just get people to eat falafel.
