6 ms·
Lab-grown Meat is not a Climate Change Solution
- adamnemecek 3y agoMore people should talk about carbon negative concrete.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- growist 3y ago[flagged]
- rowanG077 3y agoI don't think that's true. And even if it were true. Why does it matter?
- falcor84 3y agoDoes this have any implications?
- codeflo 3y agoYou also grew out of an immortal cell. Are you a form of cancer?
- wk_end 3y agoMaybe, metaphorically. I’ve always found The Matrix’s take on this pretty compelling: “I’d like to share a revelation that I´ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instictively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.” (I’m sure the idea didn’t originate in The Matrix, but that’s where my 11 year old brain got exposed to it.)
- tedunangst 3y agoThis is, of course, total baloney. Drop some rabbits on an island without foxes, they will multiply until they eat all the grass, and then mass famine.
- spondylosaurus 3y agoRegular old cows grew out of immortal cells too.
- rnk 3y agoThanks for posting that. I read through it, it seemed like the main arguments against lab grown meat were: 1. It will take a lot of investment, it's unclear if it will produce enough to matter. 2. It might not get close to real meat in taste and texture 3. Lots of people wouldn't switch even if it tastes like real meat. This was disappointing because I was expecting an analysis of the greenhouse gas contribution of lab grown meat. I didn't see anything (long article with lots of charts, I could have missed it). This is the key issue to me, will lab grown meat significantly help. I am fine with some meat substitutes, I want healthy and tastes good, lots of veg food is like that without trying to be meat.
- paulcole 3y ago> Lots of people wouldn't switch even if it tastes like real meat This is the key part. If lab grown meat was a climate change solution, most people would shrug and keep eating regular meat.
- t43562 3y agoI think it doesn't matter one iota - because if they won't accept lab grown meat they won't accept any other change such as making their favorite national foods out of chicken.
- paulcole 3y agoYes, that’s the point.
- satvikpendem 3y agoThey will if it's cheaper for the same quality.
- froh 3y agothanks for the TL;DR it saves me the same disappointment of not finding a commission in carbon footprint per protein content I think the taste question can and will be solved, e.g. I've found some oat based "milk" doesn't taste like oat any more and I love it. I agree the CO2/methane/whatever footprint is the core info, and the 1. 2. 3. you quite from the article are just distracting from that.
- isityouyesitsme 3y agoWe won't lab-grown-meat our way out of this. We won't electric-cars our way out of this. We won't nuclear-power our way out of this. And the overall tone is that any shift in a positive direction is still driving the getaway car, even if you aren't the one to actually pull the trigger for the crime. If you want progress in anything, you have to give people a way to atone for their sins, even if the atonement doesn't undo all of the damage already done. Without that, the vast majority are going to ignore you, because the shock to the system is too high to do what needs to be done. People do not willingly start to play games they are nearly certain they will lose, they only continue those games once they are already playing them.
- satvikpendem 3y agoWhat are you suggesting as the solution to getting "our way out of this," then? I'm not exactly sure by what you mean in your second paragraph regarding this.
- isityouyesitsme 3y agoIt does no good to shoot down every change as "not good enough." I think the people who do this, almost as a knee jerk response, either do not actually believe that global climate change is something to be concerned over, or else instead achieve their self-esteem through tearing others down. The environmentalists eat their own so often and so badly that they can't be taken seriously. You need to give people something to latch on to that appeals to them, to start something. Scolding them for believing something is a true solution when it is about a 1% solution is helping nobody. 1000 people each doing a different 1% solution is better than 10 people each doing a theoretical 100% solution. Over time, the former will run in to some good practices. The latter are just turn-offs.
- xnx 3y agoWe can probably reduced-population our way out of this.
- Boatfaceing 3y ago
- Chiba-City 3y ago[dead]
- Negitivefrags 3y agoCan someone explain to me how beef actually contributes to climate change more than any other food activity? If you have a big open plain full of grass, does it change how much carbon is emitted if a cow eats it versus being left alone, dying, and rotting? You have farm machinary involved I guess, but I would think actually more of it for plants than for beef especially when you consider fertiliser. I understand that it’s possible to do worse than this though using feed lots because then you are effectively having to grow more crops (using more farm machinary and fertiliser) which basically increases the amount of carbon use versus just plants. But then rather than saying “no meat” shouldn’t we just be saying “no feed lots”? Shouldn’t there just be a push towards grass fed beef?
- wk_end 3y agoCows produce tons of methane as they digest grass, which is a very potent greenhouse gas. Also, farming doesn’t only happen on natural open plains. Trees get cut down to make farmland.
- tedunangst 3y agoCows make methane.
- tengbretson 3y agoIf a herd of deer moves into that fallow pasture do they fart?
- abdullahkhalids 3y agoPlease see the data [1]. Out of the 99 kgCO2eq emitted per kg of beef, about 56 are due to methane emissions by cows and other emissions on the farm, and 23 kg are because of land use change (clearing forests) [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-cha...
- Negitivefrags 3y agoSo we could agree that the methane is irrelevant because it would be emitted anyway by the rotting grass. And we could also agree that clearing forests is a different thing than farming meat, which we could separately campaign against and prevent. After all, the great grasslands of America are not turning into forests, and cattle farmed there doesn’t result in further forests being cut down.
- satvikpendem 3y agoNo, but it is an animal suffering solution, if you count that fact that many if not most people will not reduce their meat consumption, so the way to achieve your goal (if reducing animal suffering is your goal) is not to change people's inherent behavior (significantly), because they will not change, but by offering alternatives that align with both your and their goals. In other words, meet people where they are, not where you want them to be. There is a reason decades of vegan propaganda (I don't use this word in the negative way but in its original neutral definition) haven't made much of the population vegan but foods like Impossible/Beyond Meat have made significant in-roads to reducing animal suffering. I predict we will all be vegan in 100 years, not because we decided to stop eating meat, but because we moved to lab-grown meat and other such alternatives.
- aydyn 3y agoWhen what is essentially an ultra processed high saturated fat vegetable mix is worst tasting and ~50% more expensive than the thing its trying to replace, I dont think the market will respond in the long run. Everyone I know treats these products like a novelty, nothing more.
- qudat 3y agoBeyond meat and impossible burgers taste just as good if not better than ground beef burgers. Further, taste and preferences change given enough exposure. You can call it ultra processed but so is livestock production.
- x86x87 3y agoThere is a difference between steak and ground meat. Also: not sure what burgers you're eating but apart from the novelty factor it's not even close in favor of real meat
- qudat 3y ago> Also: not sure what burgers you're eating but apart from the novelty factor it's not even close in favor of real meat My point is that some people actually prefer veggie or “fake” burgers and if tomorrow beef didn’t exist people would be more than happy with what currently exists today. It’s not like there is a huge gap there. Most people like the burger for the additions anyway.
- nathias 3y agoof course lab-grown meat will not be efficient at the begining, its the potential of the technology that matters
- abdullahkhalids 3y agoThe latest IPCC report estimates that to limit warming to 2C (67% likelihood), we have a remaining carbon budget of 1150 GtCO2. Very roughly [1], that is about 142 tCO2 per person. Say you have 40 years of your life left. That is 3.55 tCO2 per year. How do you divvy it up? Eating a kg of beef [2] per week means you emit 3.12 tCO2/year. Add whatever else food you consume, and that is your entire budget. [1] ignoring people's ages and as yet unborn people. I use 1150 GtCO2/8.1 billion current people alive. [2] The OP's OurWorldInData graph screenshot says beef emissions are 60, but the actual page says 99. Same chart. I don't understand. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-cha... I used 60 in the calculation above.
- EA-3167 3y agoMy takeaway as always is that clearly the single most impactful thing most people can do is not have children, or have fewer children. Unless you're a billionaire, nothing in your life with have close to the same impact as not reproducing. I would however also point out that simply divided total emissions reductions needed vs all humans is misleading. The average Nigerian emits FAR less CO2 than the average Indian. The average Indian emits less than the average Chinese person, who emits less than the average American.
- x86x87 3y agoYup. Stop reproducing below replacement rate. Embrace GMOs. Consume less. That's the only viable path we have.
- Boatfaceing 3y ago[flagged]
- abdullahkhalids 3y agoIf we look at per country per capita emissions [1], we can see that Africa, South America and Asia (excluding China and India) have current emissions below the 2C warming. So yes, they don't need to reduce anything at the country level - simply not increase. North America and Europe on the other hand... [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t... Scroll all the way down
- m0llusk 3y agoMany times in the past volcanic activity has caused dark winters that have lasted several years. Not much meat is available during these times, but lab grown meat could change that.
- kkfx 3y agoThe main points around "lab ground food" are IMO: - on the long run being able to produce food regardless of exterior climate condition witch might be need both to ensure having food in a changed climate and geopolitical conditions and also for space exploration and to have room for more humans on Earth; - in the medium run being able to cut out ANY small/medium food production making such productions an industrial-only game for big & powerful, a good move for them to ensure anyone dependent on them, since we can't live without food; - in the short term a way to make money selling smoke. While I'm VERY interesting in the idea of being able to produce food in an artificial environment both for living on Earth and space exploration I'm far LESS interesting in being TOTALLY dependent on large industrial power for food. I know we can't live in the modern word like in the past, and I do not want to live in middle-age like condition, but being able to source SOME food in nature and from small productions meaning still have a small freedom, something VERY valuable. And well, I'm definitively not in food startup business so not interested to see public money handed over private hand selling smoke for roast.