Livestock is one of the most carbon-intensive industries with greenhouse gas emissions that drive global temperature change. So that one day we do not have to choose between a planet suitable for life and a juicy hamburger, scientists are trying to establish the production of so-called artificial "meat from a test tube." One of its advantages is considered to be a reduction in the carbon footprint, that is, the volume of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere as a result of one activity or another. However, a new study by specialists from the University of Oxford suggests that completely abandoning the production of real meat and switching to artificial, grown in a laboratory, can cause much more harm to the environment.
The work was published in the journal Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. Authors John Lynch and Raymond Pierumbert report that, based on three available estimates, they conducted a more rigorous comparative analysis of the carbon footprint from traditional beef production as well as from artificial meat production. The researchers note that these estimates are very different from each other, but in general they show that the production of artificial meat, especially the beef substitute, will indeed be less carbon intensive than the production of natural meat.
The researchers used a climate model that simulates the different properties of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, differing, for example, by the duration of their presence in the atmosphere. This made it possible to estimate the difference in the potential for change (growth) in global temperature between the two types of meat production over the next thousand years.
The scientists say they also conducted a simulation of declining consumption of natural meat, which showed that although peak emissions from livestock are higher, the rates then decline and stabilize. Carbon dioxide from artificial meat production, in turn, is stored in the atmosphere and accumulates.
Nikolay Khizhnyak