4 ms·
I wonder what the carbon footprint of this is, vs a real chicken burger. Edit: it says in the article: “ 96% lower greenhouse gas emissions “
by jpxw 6y ago
I wonder what the carbon footprint of this is, vs a real chicken burger.
Edit: it says in the article: “ 96% lower greenhouse gas emissions “
- disposekinetics 6y agoThat's impressive, thank you for sharing. It is likely in the near future we will have far greener meat options.
- ianbicking 6y agoThat sounds impossible: how can a burger that costs $35 to produce possibly have less of an environmental impact?
- rowanG077 6y agoA factor is that the they have scientist running around their lab growing it. That labor isn't cheap.
- _underfl0w_ 6y agoI thought those numbers sounded a little exaggerated and hand-wavey too. I highly doubt this takes into account things like emissions from vehicles used to transport the meats, for example.
- rpdillon 6y agoI think those measures are orthogonal. Often cheap goods are cheap because they externalize cost onto the environment. One example is recycling: better for the environment (at least in some cases), but costs more than just throwing everything away, often to the point that it isn't affordable.
- Andys 6y agoThe way these numbers usually work out is by comparing with the absolute worst possible industrial farming process (which is excessive in its pollution and waste).