I watched a video (no source) on this stuff a while back and it compared the carbon footprint of plant based diets, meat alternatives and meat and came to the conclusion that the current way lab grown meat (not plant protein shaped like meat like planted, beyond etc) of the kind that article means can actually be more carbon intensive to produce than factory farmed chicken. (The least carbon intense meat). That said it is still better than free range beef, but one should consider the reason why one buys this. Vegans seem to not like it either because it resembles meat or because it contains the cells harvested from real animals and meat eaters don’t like it because its not real meat, not to mention it’s insanely expensive, just eat the plant protein, its not that bad lol. (Also put on a linear scale the carbon footprint of beef compared to plant based protein and fake meat is insane, thinking about that video alwqys makes me eat less meat)
That’s partly because they fail to market it well. Meat alternatives never taste the same. Trying to replace beef or pork or chicken will always fail to entice people that already enjoy meat.
It’s better described as a new meat with new recipe/cooking requirements. You wouldn’t complain about how much the assumed pork ribs didn’t taste right if I told you they were beef ribs.
You’d agree, because you wouldn’t expect them to taste the same.
I needed cheap protein that stores well for my disaster emergency plan and the best thing I found was peanuts. They can be stored for a long time before they spoil, they’re cheap, high in protein, and easy to grow. They grow well in hot weather, so if you can’t grow them where you live, wait a few years and climate change will fix that.
No new technology ever starts cheap so I would expect to see reductions in carbon use with time.
There is also the added benefit of land not being used for cattle being regenerated. Looking at the cattle ranches in my state, a quick (very rough) calculation puts that combined size around 200,000km², or the size of Kyrgyzstan. If half of that was reclaimed thanks to ranches being closed, that would pay a huge benefit.
I wonder if benefits like these are calculated into the carbon footprint.
If they can lab engineer super premium cuts consistently and affordably people will come around. I dont buy A5 Wagyu because I cant afford it, not because I dont want it.
Or
If they can really pull the ass out of the price on meat destined for processing plants to make premade foods. People arent excited for the meat case and the steaks at the supermarket to be lab grown, but when fast and frozen food switches over to it almost universally people wont have a choice.
I watched a video (no source) on this stuff a while back and it compared the carbon footprint of plant based diets, meat alternatives and meat and came to the conclusion that the current way lab grown meat (not plant protein shaped like meat like planted, beyond etc) of the kind that article means can actually be more carbon intensive to produce than factory farmed chicken. (The least carbon intense meat). That said it is still better than free range beef, but one should consider the reason why one buys this. Vegans seem to not like it either because it resembles meat or because it contains the cells harvested from real animals and meat eaters don’t like it because its not real meat, not to mention it’s insanely expensive, just eat the plant protein, its not that bad lol. (Also put on a linear scale the carbon footprint of beef compared to plant based protein and fake meat is insane, thinking about that video alwqys makes me eat less meat)
That’s partly because they fail to market it well. Meat alternatives never taste the same. Trying to replace beef or pork or chicken will always fail to entice people that already enjoy meat.
It’s better described as a new meat with new recipe/cooking requirements. You wouldn’t complain about how much the assumed pork ribs didn’t taste right if I told you they were beef ribs. You’d agree, because you wouldn’t expect them to taste the same.
I needed cheap protein that stores well for my disaster emergency plan and the best thing I found was peanuts. They can be stored for a long time before they spoil, they’re cheap, high in protein, and easy to grow. They grow well in hot weather, so if you can’t grow them where you live, wait a few years and climate change will fix that.
Doesn’t this mean that the tech just isn’t ready yet?
As in, they can’t sell it if it’s more expensive, is fake, and is worse for the environment.
No new technology ever starts cheap so I would expect to see reductions in carbon use with time.
There is also the added benefit of land not being used for cattle being regenerated. Looking at the cattle ranches in my state, a quick (very rough) calculation puts that combined size around 200,000km², or the size of Kyrgyzstan. If half of that was reclaimed thanks to ranches being closed, that would pay a huge benefit.
I wonder if benefits like these are calculated into the carbon footprint.
It has 2 major use cases as I see it.
If they can lab engineer super premium cuts consistently and affordably people will come around. I dont buy A5 Wagyu because I cant afford it, not because I dont want it.
Or
If they can really pull the ass out of the price on meat destined for processing plants to make premade foods. People arent excited for the meat case and the steaks at the supermarket to be lab grown, but when fast and frozen food switches over to it almost universally people wont have a choice.