02-19-2019, 05:40 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47283162
Growing meat in the laboratory may do more damage to the climate in the long run than meat from cattle, say scientists.
Researchers are looking for alternatives to traditional meat because farming animals is helping to drive up global temperatures.
However, meat grown in the lab may make matters worse in some circumstances.
Researchers say it depends on how the energy to make the lab meat is produced.
There's increasing concern about the impact of meat consumption on the planet. Around a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving up temperatures are estimated to have come from agriculture.
Okay, so I thought the title sounded a bit clickbaity - and, when I read the full story, I was proven right about that .
Did the study find that "growing meat in the laboratory may do more damage to the climate in the long run than meat from cattle"? Technically, yes - but, there are several caveats to keep in mind here:
So, perhaps it's a word of caution, but I don't think it presents a compelling argument for giving up on lab-grown meat .
Growing meat in the laboratory may do more damage to the climate in the long run than meat from cattle, say scientists.
Researchers are looking for alternatives to traditional meat because farming animals is helping to drive up global temperatures.
However, meat grown in the lab may make matters worse in some circumstances.
Researchers say it depends on how the energy to make the lab meat is produced.
There's increasing concern about the impact of meat consumption on the planet. Around a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving up temperatures are estimated to have come from agriculture.
Okay, so I thought the title sounded a bit clickbaity - and, when I read the full story, I was proven right about that .
Did the study find that "growing meat in the laboratory may do more damage to the climate in the long run than meat from cattle"? Technically, yes - but, there are several caveats to keep in mind here:
- The scientists were looking at a timescale of 1,000 years. The argument the scientists make is "The carbon dioxide produced by lab-grown meat will accumulate in the atmosphere, and eventually outweigh the impact from the methane produced by the cattle industry". However, it'll take hundreds of years to reach this point - so, even in the worst-case scenario for lab-grown meat, it's still the more environmentally-friendly option in the short and medium term (or even the moderately long term).
- The study didn't account for the fact that we might de-carbonise our energy production in the future. In other words, they're assuming that we're going to be using fossil fuels for another 1,000 years - which doesn't seem likely to me .
- The scientists didn't account for the transportation costs inherent in the cattle industry. Many of these could be eliminated by putting meat-growing labs in or near cities, where most of the people are.
So, perhaps it's a word of caution, but I don't think it presents a compelling argument for giving up on lab-grown meat .
Board Information and Policies
Affiliation | Coffee Credits | Ranks and Awards | Name Changes
Account Deletion | BBCode Reference
Moonface (in 'Woman runs 49 red lights in ex's car')' Wrote: If only she had ran another 20 lights.
(Thanks to Nilla for the avatar, and Detective Osprey for the sig!)
My Items