SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Bloomberg:
Forty years ago, scientists from 50 nations converged on Geneva to discuss what was then called the "CO2-climate problem." At the time, with reliance on fossil fuels having helped trigger the 1979 oil crisis, they predicted global warming would eventually become a major environmental challenge.
Now, four decades later, a larger group of scientists is sounding another, much more urgent alarm. More than 11,000 experts from around the world are calling for a critical addition to the main strategy of dumping fossil fuels for renewable energy: there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet.
[...] The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It "must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity," they write.
Others disagree, stating
Fewer people producing less in greenhouse-gas emissions could make some difference in the danger that climate change poses over time. But whether we end up with 9, 10, or 11 billion people in the coming decades, the world will still be pumping out increasingly risky amounts of climate pollution if we don't fundamentally fix the underlying energy, transportation, and food systems.
Critics blast a proposal to curb climate change by halting population growth
Journal Reference:
William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, William R Moomaw. World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency[$]. BioScience. doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:41PM (5 children)
A solution. A genetically engineered meat product that has the texture and flavor of those meatless impossible burger meat substitutes!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday November 07 2019, @11:00PM
If we're willing to do genetic tinkering, why not ruminant bacteria that don't produce Methane instead? Cows and goats are a fantastic way to utilize land otherwise not suited for agriculture, improving the land's fertility, and they can be carbon negative with proper management.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday November 08 2019, @03:24AM (3 children)
They're already well on their way to growing beef in a petri-dish. It has all of the properties of 'real' beef, but none of the Methane emission that comes with a cow's stomach. No live animals involved either, so ethically it should be fine for vegans!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 08 2019, @04:28AM (1 child)
Some vegans would not touch it because it can be difficult to return to meat after not having had it for a long time. As in they don't like the taste. There could also be an argument made for the unhealthiness of meat, although there is a big difference between say, beef and chicken. Impossible Burger, Beyond Meat, and other plant-based substitutes will argue that they don't cause cancer and heart disease like red meat does. Stuff like fetal bovine serum was used in producing the first lab-grown burger, so that step has to be eliminated/replicated by other means to remove an ick factor. Maybe that has already happened.
As for lab-grown meat's environmental chops, it is also supposed to use much less water, land, and energy than traditional meat. You could put a lab-grown meat factory close to a major city, reducing supply chain transportation costs. With enough rooftop solar, maybe you could make it entirely carbon neutral (if you raise methane, you have to contend with this argument [technologyreview.com], which is probably a premature attention grab, but still).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 08 2019, @02:53PM
I'm trying to figure out if they have a legitimate gripe that's not expressed well, or if they're just spouting BS. What do they think happens to the methane after "only a decade"? It doesn't vanish or get ecologically absorbed - it breaks down into atmospheric CO2.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Friday November 08 2019, @03:55PM
From my perspective the lab meat is not a smaller environmental impact than cows raised on grass. I'll hold the carbon footprint of that cow up against the same volume of lab meat any day.
DMEM/F-12, the culture medium, is a soup of amino acids, sugars, salt, and antibiotics. It requires a huge amount of energy and chemical input to make, far more than a cow raised on grass.