3 ms·

>New studies show cultivated meat can have massive environmental benefits and be cost-competitive by 2030 I don't understand the fixation that environmentalist

>New studies show cultivated meat can have massive environmental benefits and be cost-competitive by 2030 I don't understand the fixation that environmentalists have on meat. Methane farts is a trivially solvable problem with cheap dietary supplementation and otherwise the carbon footprint of a cow is negligible compared to a host of other, far more pressing pollutants. And what little deforestation happens to make pastureland only happens once. What am I missing?

debo_ 5y ago
One thing: The massive monoculturing of soy and other grains required to feed the cattle? That eclipses the deforestation used for animal pastures (the article goes into this in some detail.)
- Zababa 5y ago
  That's a problem with some cattle but not all. Some cattle mostly eats grass on non-arable land.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    If you want to get rid of some cattle production, that still implies reducing meat consumption.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      Sure but reducing meat consumption is oversimplifying. If you reduce meat consumption of grass-fed cattle, there's no point.
Zababa 5y ago
> What am I missing? Not eating meat is easy to do and easy to signal. It has also been repeated so much that people don't question it. Just like many ecologists are against nuclear power for political (and not environmental) reasons, there are also lots of vegetarians/vegans leveraging the ecologist movement to push their ideals.
- deworms 5y ago
  The future is more meat, especially as more people are lifted from poverty and are able to afford better food. Most people eat it every day.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    I think that's true. The biggest consumers of meat are not the USA but Brazil.
deworms 5y ago
Meat is not a problem, and it doesn't need to be "solved". You are the carbon they want to reduce, don't let them.

3 ms·

>New studies show cultivated meat can have massive environmental benefits and be cost-competitive by 2030 I don't understand the fixation that environmentalist

by twofornone 5y ago

debo_ 5y ago
One thing: The massive monoculturing of soy and other grains required to feed the cattle? That eclipses the deforestation used for animal pastures (the article goes into this in some detail.)
- Zababa 5y ago
  That's a problem with some cattle but not all. Some cattle mostly eats grass on non-arable land.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    If you want to get rid of some cattle production, that still implies reducing meat consumption.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      Sure but reducing meat consumption is oversimplifying. If you reduce meat consumption of grass-fed cattle, there's no point.
Zababa 5y ago
> What am I missing? Not eating meat is easy to do and easy to signal. It has also been repeated so much that people don't question it. Just like many ecologists are against nuclear power for political (and not environmental) reasons, there are also lots of vegetarians/vegans leveraging the ecologist movement to push their ideals.
- deworms 5y ago
  The future is more meat, especially as more people are lifted from poverty and are able to afford better food. Most people eat it every day.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    I think that's true. The biggest consumers of meat are not the USA but Brazil.
deworms 5y ago
Meat is not a problem, and it doesn't need to be "solved". You are the carbon they want to reduce, don't let them.