6 ms·

Does it matter? The carbon problem can (and IMO should) be fundamentally fixed by wholly transitioning electrical generation to non-carbon producing sources. In

Does it matter? The carbon problem can (and IMO should) be fundamentally fixed by wholly transitioning electrical generation to non-carbon producing sources. Industrial/commercial processes that have carbon footprints beyond their electrical expenditure, can be offset by using additional (non-carbon producing) electrical energy to perform carbon capture and sequestration. Yes, that would raise the cost of everything, which is why few politicians seriously focus on this option. The common component to pretty much every process, product and comfort in our our society is energy utilization. Most people are not going to give anything up just because "the carbon footprint is bad/worse". So let's work on making it so the carbon footprint isn't even a factor.

whatshisface 4y ago
If the energy costs are higher than those of normal farming, the whole enterprise becomes hard to justify.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  On one hand, you have a highly artificial process in labs with high-tech equipment, probably all patented and proprietary. On the other hand, you have a process that occurs completely naturally, that man has understood for millennia, that is open-source and public domain. Which one to justify to consumers, farmers, and developing nations? Hmm.
  - mgrandl 4y ago
    You fail to mention that the second options causes immense amounts of suffering to both animals and slaughterhouse workers and absolutely destroys our environment due to GHG and manure runoff. It also completely fucks up the biodiversity on this planet as now 80% of mammals by weight are livestock.
    - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
      It doesn't have to. None of that is an intrinsic property of animal husbandry. All of what I mentioned seems to be intrinsic to cultured/manufactured meat, though.
      - vintagedave 4y ago
        It is intrinsic to the animal production in the quantities we consume, though. If we returned to 1950s levels of meat consumption (my parents and grandparents regarded eating a chicken as a treat), or grew chickens or cows in our own backyards, maybe. But in a world of 8 billion people with our diets, cruelty, pollution, carbon impact etc are all intrinsically tied to our meat consumption. So lab-grown, cruelty-free, without the carbon impact especially for highly polluting animals like cattle -- it's a wonderful idea.
        NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
        So it's not intrinsic; it's related to quantity. Please have a look at the definition of "intrinsic".
- mrshadowgoose 4y ago
  Depends on your target customer. Some people are willing to pay more for what they consider to be "ethical meat".
  - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
    It's unlikely we can virtue-signal our way out of any problem. If something costs more, that's a good proxy for that product being more energy-intensive. And where thst isn't the case, the higher cost is likely lining someone's pocket, who will then go on to consume more, thereby generating more pollution.
    - hombre_fatal 4y ago
      What’s your definition of virtue signaling here that doesn’t just cash out into someone having different ethical concerns than you?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - DoreenMichele 4y ago
      If something costs more, that's a good proxy for that product being more energy-intensive. New products that come from new tech always cost more and early adopters tend to be people with money to spare. Unless you can come up with a source showing the higher energy usage -- one with a comprehensive lifetime comparison, not cherry picked -- this is a baseless comment.
    - amusedcyclist 4y ago
      Yeah we can also ban factory farming, like we ban murder.
      - planter 4y ago
        The correct definition of murder is as such: > Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse [...] Animals are not humans, killing an animal is not a murder. Attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to animals is called anthropomorphism.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  There are far more negative externalities to production of meat than energy expenditure, especially if the alternative can use renewables
tony69 4y ago
Electrical generation is a small part of the problem. Electricity generation takes up less than half of global energy consumption, I think the figure is 30-40%. This means most fossil fuels are burned for purposes other than generating electricity, and even if 100% of electricity generation was carbon-free you would still have a ton of fossil fuel consumption, things like heating, transportation, etc. Transitioning all of that energy consumption to electricity is a huge feat, AND you need a f-ton more electricity generation, transportation, and storage, and of course it needs to be carbon free otherwise the problem is just made worse by the inherent inefficiencies.

whatshisface 4y ago

If the energy costs are higher than those of normal farming, the whole enterprise becomes hard to justify.

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
On one hand, you have a highly artificial process in labs with high-tech equipment, probably all patented and proprietary. On the other hand, you have a process that occurs completely naturally, that man has understood for millennia, that is open-source and public domain. Which one to justify to consumers, farmers, and developing nations? Hmm.
- mgrandl 4y ago
  You fail to mention that the second options causes immense amounts of suffering to both animals and slaughterhouse workers and absolutely destroys our environment due to GHG and manure runoff. It also completely fucks up the biodiversity on this planet as now 80% of mammals by weight are livestock.
  - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
    It doesn't have to. None of that is an intrinsic property of animal husbandry. All of what I mentioned seems to be intrinsic to cultured/manufactured meat, though.
    - vintagedave 4y ago
      It is intrinsic to the animal production in the quantities we consume, though. If we returned to 1950s levels of meat consumption (my parents and grandparents regarded eating a chicken as a treat), or grew chickens or cows in our own backyards, maybe. But in a world of 8 billion people with our diets, cruelty, pollution, carbon impact etc are all intrinsically tied to our meat consumption. So lab-grown, cruelty-free, without the carbon impact especially for highly polluting animals like cattle -- it's a wonderful idea.
      - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
        So it's not intrinsic; it's related to quantity. Please have a look at the definition of "intrinsic".
mrshadowgoose 4y ago
Depends on your target customer. Some people are willing to pay more for what they consider to be "ethical meat".
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  It's unlikely we can virtue-signal our way out of any problem. If something costs more, that's a good proxy for that product being more energy-intensive. And where thst isn't the case, the higher cost is likely lining someone's pocket, who will then go on to consume more, thereby generating more pollution.
  - hombre_fatal 4y ago
    What’s your definition of virtue signaling here that doesn’t just cash out into someone having different ethical concerns than you?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    If something costs more, that's a good proxy for that product being more energy-intensive. New products that come from new tech always cost more and early adopters tend to be people with money to spare. Unless you can come up with a source showing the higher energy usage -- one with a comprehensive lifetime comparison, not cherry picked -- this is a baseless comment.
  - amusedcyclist 4y ago
    Yeah we can also ban factory farming, like we ban murder.
    - planter 4y ago
      The correct definition of murder is as such: > Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse [...] Animals are not humans, killing an animal is not a murder. Attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to animals is called anthropomorphism.
petesergeant 4y ago
There are far more negative externalities to production of meat than energy expenditure, especially if the alternative can use renewables

tony69 4y ago

Electrical generation is a small part of the problem. Electricity generation takes up less than half of global energy consumption, I think the figure is 30-40%. This means most fossil fuels are burned for purposes other than generating electricity, and even if 100% of electricity generation was carbon-free you would still have a ton of fossil fuel consumption, things like heating, transportation, etc. Transitioning all of that energy consumption to electricity is a huge feat, AND you need a f-ton more electricity generation, transportation, and storage, and of course it needs to be carbon free otherwise the problem is just made worse by the inherent inefficiencies.