There are two problems with this approach. First, the promises of technologies to reduce emissions from agriculture often far exceed what they can actually deliver. For example, like Matthew Hayek and I wrote in WIRED earlier this year, which widely claims that feeding cows algae feed additives can cut their emissions by 80% in fact, by almost 10% when you factor in when and under what conditions you have can change the cow’s diet. Biodigesters, meanwhile, are very expensive and solves only about 10% of agricultural methane emissions that come from manure. And whether either of these can be scaled up is an open question. Given these facts, the slight 18% reduction in emissions from the existing technology in the Breakthrough Institute report may not seem obvious. But even if the more ambitious goal of developing new technology to reduce beef methane by 48% were effective, the resulting emissions would still higher compared to pork and chicken with the worst waste today, and good twice as much as plant-based meat and four times as much as tofu. In other words, a clean cow is a lame duck.
The second problem with this optimistic approach to technology is that even if these technological fixes work as promised, they will perpetuate a food production system that continues to harm animals, workers and the planet. There are many other impacts of beef production, including overgrazing of the land, deforestation, sewage and harmful odors, animal welfare issues, and treatment of workers in the kilns. slaughter. What is the use of investing in emission reduction technologies if their sources are industries that should be phased out rather than saved? Indeed, an exclusive focus on reducing emissions in food systems can lead to The result could be much worse, such as replacing high-emissivity beef with lower-emissivity chicken. Chicken production produces relatively little, but that comes at the expense of cramming animals into factory farms, where they’re horribly affected, more prone to disease outbreaks, and possibly over-pumped. antibiotics, contributing to the global antibiotic resistance crisis.
Then there is the “solution” based on the technology of alternative proteins such as meat of plant and cell origin. On the one hand, these products really aim to create a more sustainable way of producing meat, which both reduces emissions and eliminates many other harmful effects of conventional meat production, including factory farms and slaughterhouses. Investing in the development of this technology can help usher in a more ethical food system, a better system for animals, consumers and the planet. Clean cow is clean coal, clean meat is renewable energy like solar energy.
But alternative proteins still function within the limits of existing systems, which is problematic. To unleash its full potential in creating a better food system, we need to look beyond its advantages over conventional meat. The technology itself does not solve many of the other key structural and ethical issues in the food system, including the focus of the business and the treatment of workers. As alternative protein companies enter the mainstream, many companies are repurchase by the major incumbent food companies, including those they are ostensibly trying to disrupt. Most recently, Brazil’s giant cattle JBS invest $100 million in a cellular agriculture startup in Spain. Launched by JBS harsh environment record, which is not good news unless the company actively reduces meat production to focus on alternative proteins.
