Thanks for posting that. I read through it, it seemed like the main arguments against lab grown meat were:<p>1. It will take a lot of investment, it's unclear if it will produce enough to matter.<p>2. It might not get close to real meat in taste and texture<p>3. Lots of people wouldn't switch even if it tastes like real meat.<p>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.
No, 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.<p>In other words, meet people where they are, <i>not where you want them to be.</i> 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.<p>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.
We 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.<p>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.
The main points around "lab ground food" are IMO:<p>- 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;<p>- 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;<p>- in the short term a way to make money selling smoke.<p>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.
The 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.<p>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.<p>[1] ignoring people's ages and as yet unborn people. I use 1150 GtCO2/8.1 billion current people alive.<p>[2] The OP's OurWorldInData graph screenshot says beef emissions are 60, but the actual page says 99. Same chart. I don't understand. <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain">https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-cha...</a> I used 60 in the calculation above.
Can someone explain to me how beef actually contributes to climate change more than any other food activity?<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.<p>But then rather than saying “no meat” shouldn’t we just be saying “no feed lots”?<p>Shouldn’t there just be a push towards grass fed beef?
Many 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.