[ad_1]
There are two problems with this approach. First, the promise of technologies designed to reduce agricultural emissions often far exceeds what they can actually provide.For example, as Matthew Hayek and I Wrote in Wired earlier this yearThe widely publicized claim that feeding dairy cows algae feed additives can reduce their emissions by 80%, when you consider when and under what conditions you can change the cow’s diet, it’s actually close to 10%.At the same time, the biodigester is Very expensive And only solve about 10% of agricultural methane emissions from manure. Whether any of these can be scaled up is an open question. Considering these realities, the modest 18% reduction in emissions of currently available technologies outlined in the Breakthrough Institute report seems doubtful.But even if its more ambitious goal of developing new technologies to reduce beef methane by 48% can work, the resulting emissions will still higher Pork and chicken, which are the most severely discharged than currently, and More than twice as much plant-based meat and four times as much as tofuIn other words, a clean cow is a lame duck.
The second problem with this technically optimistic approach is that even if these technical fixes are as effective as promised, they will perpetuate the food production system, which will continue to be harmful to animals, workers, and the planet. There are many other effects of beef production, including land overgrazing, deforestation, harmful runoff and odor, animal welfare issues, and the treatment of slaughterhouse workers. If the source of the technology is an industry that should be eliminated rather than preserved, what are the benefits of investing in technologies that reduce emissions?In fact, focusing on reducing emissions from the food system may lead to Possibly worse results, Such as using low-emission chicken instead of high-emission beef. Chicken production produces relatively few emissions, but the price of this is to cram animals into factory farms, where they suffer terrible suffering, are more prone to disease outbreaks, and may be full of antibiotics, leading to a global antibiotic resistance crisis.
Then there are technology-driven alternative protein “solutions”, such as plant-based meat and cellular meat.On the one hand, these products Actually aims to create a more sustainable way of meat production, Which not only reduces emissions but also eliminates many other hazards of traditional meat production, including factory farms and slaughterhouses. Investing in the development of this technology may help build a more ethical food system, a system that is better for animals, consumers, and the planet. Clean cattle is for clean coal, and clean meat is for renewable energy such as solar energy.
But the replacement protein still operates within the scope of the existing, problematic system. In order to fully realize its potential in creating a better food system, we need to surpass the advantages of traditional meat. The technology itself has little effect on solving other major structural and ethical issues in the food system, including corporate concentration and worker treatment.As alternative protein companies enter the mainstream, many companies are Buy Large existing food companies, including those companies that they seem to be trying to destroy. Recently, the Brazilian cattle giant JBS Invested US$100 million in a Spanish honeycomb farming startup. Given JBS Bad environmental record, Unless the company actively reduces meat production to focus on replacing protein, this is hardly good news.
[ad_2]
Source link
