Fossil Fuel Divestment Has 'Zero' Climate Impact, Says Bill Gates (ft.com) 131
dryriver shares a report from The Financial Times: Climate activists are wasting their time lobbying investors to ditch fossil fuel stocks, according to Bill Gates, the billionaire Microsoft co-founder who is one of the world's most prominent philanthropists. Those who want to change the world would do better to put their money and energy behind the disruptive technologies that slow carbon emissions and help people adapt to a warming world, Mr Gates told the Financial Times. "Divestment, to date, probably has reduced about zero tons of emissions. It's not like you've capital-starved [the] people making steel and gasoline," he said. "I don't know the mechanism of action where divestment [keeps] emissions [from] going up every year. I'm just too damn numeric."
Mr Gates questioned the divestment movement's "theory of change," arguing that investors who want to use their money to promote progress will have better results by funding innovative businesses such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, two alternative protein companies he has backed. "When I'm taking billions of dollars and creating breakthrough energy ventures and funding only companies who, if they're successful, reduce greenhouse gases by 0.5 percent, then I actually do see a cause and effect type thing," he said.
Mr Gates questioned the divestment movement's "theory of change," arguing that investors who want to use their money to promote progress will have better results by funding innovative businesses such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, two alternative protein companies he has backed. "When I'm taking billions of dollars and creating breakthrough energy ventures and funding only companies who, if they're successful, reduce greenhouse gases by 0.5 percent, then I actually do see a cause and effect type thing," he said.
Yes, Nuclear (Score:3, Interesting)
And not more PBWRs. Can we stop building those and finish out the commercialization of MSRs?
Re:Yes, Nuclear (Score:5, Informative)
And not more PBWRs. Can we stop building those and finish out the commercialization of MSRs?
There's plenty of good reasons to keep building 3rd generation nuclear power plants. They are safe and a known quantity. I expect that we will be building them for another 20 years. 4th generation nuclear power, such as MSRs, is not a known quantity. We know a lot of the theory but there are some practical details to work out yet. This will take quite some time testing prototypes to work out. For example, to know how the materials these things will handle radiation for 20 years will take 20 years. Sometimes there are no shortcuts.
I've been following the news on what's happening in the nuclear power industry for many years now and I believe that things will be moving very quickly soon. This means many new 3rd generation plants appearing and some results from 4th generation prototype testing getting published.
One thing that has been promised from MSRs is the ability to use "spent" fuel from old light water reactors as fuel. There are people building prototypes to test this process now. It's going to take some time to see how well these prototypes work. If they did their simulations well then the testing will show promise and we can see early production models coming online soon. If the prototypes show they missed some important details then it will take longer as they need to figure out what went wrong.
We are likely 10 to 15 years from commercial MSRs right now, at least. Maybe we get lucky and it takes only 5 years. Whichever the case we'll need more light water reactors until we got everything worked out on MSRs.
Re:Yes, Nuclear (Score:4, Interesting)
Its time to end the restrictions (in the US at least, not sure about other countries) on spent fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors and build a bunch of them to use up all the fuel sitting around from the old PWRs and BWRs that would otherwise take centuries before it stops being dangerous. And the output from breeder reactors is dangerous for a lot less time than the stuff being reprocessed and used in them so you dont need to find somewhere to bury it for thousands of years.
Re: (Score:3)
"Its time to end the restrictions (in the US at least, not sure about other countries) on spent fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors and build a bunch of them"
It has nothing to do with restrictions. It has 100% to do with the cost.
In the early 1970s when breeders were still a thing, we were building dozens of reactors a year. Everyone was predicting 1000 to 2000 reactors by the 2000s. Those were fed lightly enriched fuel, of which we could neither find enough to feed 1000 reactors, nor process it quickly
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to France - 72% of all its power [duckduckgo.com] comes from nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. France has had most of its electrical power coming from non-carbon sources for a long time, and they have had a fairly safe time of it (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-accidents-idUSTRE78B59J20110912 for the few accidents that did occur in the last 40 years). Someone is stupid, but in this case I don't think it's the French.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. They've had a few incidents generating power via the most expensive method available and are creating a toxic debt that will be paid at decommissioning time, and you call this a win? Typical nuclear playboy. Are you new?
Re: Yes, Nuclear (Score:2)
I'll tell ya tho. It might take a miracle, but fusion can't come soon enough. None of the "whoops Chernobyl" fears (the danger of another Chernobyl might not be plausible with modern designs but it's a huge political obstacle) and all of the benefits.
Of course Fusions still stuck in the same "wait another 20y" it's been stuck on for the last 60 years. We probably don't have that sort of time, alas
Re: (Score:2)
MSR is "Molten Salt Reactor". (Score:2)
Quote: "Now, almost 60 years later, several companies are starting to develop them as energy systems of the future -- including TerraPower [energy.gov], backed by Bill Gates."
Re: (Score:2)
Actively Invest in new Nuclear (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
This is +5 misleading. There's no mention of nuclear in this article. After Chernobyl and Fukushima only zealots still advocate nuclear as an option.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually new nuclear has lots of supporters Moltex Energy raises USD7.5 million through crowdfunding [world-nuclear-news.org]
All of the world's top climate scientists, NASA, MIT, the IEA, the IPCC, and a super majority of scientists all say we need new nuclear energy to mitigate climate change. It is the height of arrogance to assume you know more about climate change than the actual NASA scientists who proved it.
Only fossil fuel industry pawns reject nuclear energy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How many people have died due to Chernobyl and Fukushima ? Lets be generous and say 10,000. More people die on the roads each year than deaths from nuclear accidents.
These nuclear plants were old technology. Fukushima was a few months from being turned off due to being decommissioned.
Technology moves forward over time. Please look at the big picture of nuclear energy instead of blinding deciding that nuclear is not an option.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
65, more or less. That includes fetuses that spontaneously aborted, so there's a certain amount of guesswork (as to the cause of the spontaneous abort). As of the end of last year.
Note that those are deaths due to radiation/radioactivity. That does not include firefighter deaths from, well, the fire. Which would push the death total up into the low hundreds.
Let's not be generous. But if we WERE being generous,
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to say. The impacts of these accidents are felt over decades and are measured in elevated incidence of thyroid and other types of cancer associated with exposure to radiation. Fukushima is STILL leaking radioactive material into the pacific. Expanding nuclear isn't an answer, it's simply not economic or safe.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that divesetment has no actual benefit is like mention that carbon offset are just modern indulgences.
Re: (Score:3)
It's useless because while YOU are divesting yourself of something you do not like, all you have done is created an environment where the investment in that thing is cheaper for someone else to take up. The available options are to a) invest and attempt to change the bad company from the top, which isn't actually that easy to do unless you can afford to be a majority shareholder or b) invest in other things that compete directly with the company you divested/chose not to invest in. I think that should be ob
Re: (Score:2)
I assume it's to point out the silliness of the fossil fuel divestment movement. "Sell BP stock to save the Earth", is a real thing. It's a dumb thing, but it's a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Gates is correct. Divestment is a feel-good bullshit action.
Maybe I'm a moron and can't understand Gates but he seems to be saying "Don't divest, invest in promising technology."
But if you aren't Bill Gates... precisely where am I supposed to get the money to invest in these promising technologies if I have no money because it's all tied up in Exxon?
Money is zero sum. I can't invest in Nuclear Power projects if my money is in oil field surveying. So divestment has achieved 0 tons... but the money you take out and being invested elsewhere has.
It shouldn't be called
don't divest (Score:2)
Divesting is the opposite of what you should be doing.
If these activists were smart, they would plead with the billionaires and mega investment companies to buy as much stock in bad companies they can so that they can vote to slow down production of fossil fuels.
Gates manages Microsoft: Windows 10 is one result. (Score:2)
One example of Microsoft's poor management: Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. [networkworld.com] "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC."
Re: Gates manages Microsoft: Windows 10 is one res (Score:2)
For being very poorly managed, they are really profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
When you are a monopoly, who cares about good management ? You will always be profitable as you can charge whatever you like despite having bad management.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll make Mr. Gates a deal. I'll use his spyware, if he builds nuclear reactors. Not just promises--does.
I'll worry about the spyware after the planet stop turning into a greenhouse. Priorities!
reduction in energy usage - vehicle materials (Score:2)
i've been pointing out for years that we need to stop trying to "convert" existing 2-4 tonne steel vehicles to electric and hybrid, and instead reduce their production and manufacturing costs (which equate with energy consumption) by using modern materials and modern designs.
According to Kevin's research (Divergent 3D), EIGHTY PERCENT of the energy footprint of a 2-4 tonne steel vehicle is in its MANUFACTURING, not the actual road-driving. eighty percent! we *have* to get that down.
Divergent 3D Microfacto
Re: (Score:2)
According to Kevin's research (Divergent 3D), EIGHTY PERCENT of the energy footprint of a 2-4 tonne steel vehicle is in its MANUFACTURING, not the actual road-driving. eighty percent! we *have* to get that down.
So. you are saying that the federal "cash for clunkers" program was a total waste of money and resources? That the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is drive the car you have until the wheels fall off instead of buying a new electric car right now?
I don't know how you are going to get the energy investment in building a car down. I mean other than reducing the amount of material to the point its a safety hazard. The process of refining ore into useful metals is pretty much set by physics and
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're going up big hills, or stuck in stop-and-go traffic, weight is not really a big deal until it gets so huge that you've got a crapload of tires all converting motion into heat. Once you get moving, you're moving. It's drag, which is dominated by frontal area, that really costs money if you want to travel at common highway speeds of 70-90 MPH. And in the right nondescript vehicles, and when the quantity of traffic permits, you can do speeds like that in surprisingly many places.
Manufacturing ene
Re: (Score:3)
"According to Kevin's research (Divergent 3D), EIGHTY PERCENT of the energy footprint of a 2-4 tonne steel vehicle is in its MANUFACTURING, not the actual road-driving. eighty percent! we *have* to get that down."
According to reputable research, it's only about 25-33%.
If you want to reduce it anyway, though, the most realistic solution is to use aluminum. That actually increases the energy consumption for the first vehicle produced, but you break even by the first time you recycle the body, because it costs
Gates & ALEC (Score:2, Informative)
This is coming from, Bill Gates, a former member & donor to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), who've produced climate change denial PR & numerous bills designed to deregulate & increase subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
He's also lead the US dept. of Education away from evidence-informed policies by putting small amounts of his own money to push govt. to put billions into his own poorly-informed pet projects that, as was predicted by experts, had no effect (& in some case
Re: (Score:2)
Dear author, the word "philanthropist" doesn't mean what you think it does.
I believe that a philanthropist gives money with the intention of helping others. Bill Gates meets that definition. Whether or not the outcome matches the intent is not part of the definition.
I guess we are assuming he gave money intending to help. It's possible he gave his money knowing it would do more harm than good. That would be a "misanthropist", no?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that a philanthropist gives money with the intention of helping others. Bill Gates meets that definition. Whether or not the outcome matches the intent is not part of the definition.
I guess we are assuming he gave money intending to help. It's possible he gave his money knowing it would do more harm than good. That would be a "misanthropist", no?
Gates has consistently bought medical patents and secrets. Most of his "philanthropy" can be explained by one of: a) things, such as giving free drugs, which stop countries such as India from needing to produce off-license copies which would reduce his profits b) things such as giving away free Windows licenses and being involved in education initiatives which support his main source of money, the illegal Windows monopoly c) blue sky research things such as nuclear reactors and actions against global warmi
Re: (Score:2)
The Gates/ALEC tie (as you present it) doesn't seem all that tight especially since his foundation officially withdrew all support of ALEC in 2012. https://thinkprogress.org/bill... [thinkprogress.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can I be the first to say "Duh?". What's next, Bill Gates Announces Earth Round!
Of course this divestment idea isn't going to change anything. Why would it? The far left thinks it can just use its shaming machine on everything. It doesn't work on the stock market. Climate change is quite real and we should do something about it, but if energy stocks became cheap, I'd buy it just like anyone else. You're not going to shame people out of making money, especially when they don't need to tell anyone what they actually invest in. You're also not going to shame people out of driving their cars, heating their homes, or air conditioning. You can take my air conditioner from my cold, dead hands!
The great thing about divestment is it works even if you think like this. You will buy oil stocks. They will become worth less (since wind power is now becoming much cheaper than fossil fuel). You will want to sell your stocks, probably wanting to invest in other fossil fuel stocks because you believe in them. Because of the divestment movement, fewer people will be around wanting to buy them. You will have less money, and so your investment will be smaller and so the people who invested in the other f
Gates on worldwide health & education (Score:1)
Mr. Gates has an interesting comment on The Atlantic today, titled:
"We Need a More Targeted Approach to Combatting Global Inequality"
He talks about his use of data to get help to where it's needed: ..."
"Recently, though, we received a new trove of data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation that makes it impossible to see inequality in foreign countries as any less complex than inequality in the United States
I'm not sure if it's at the web site, I get the RSS feed: https://www.theatlantic.com/ [theatlantic.com]
Divestment == reinvestment (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> the stock has zero effect on the company's finances
That's equally nieve as the post you're complaining about.
Higher valuations *significantly* affect a company's ability to raise capital from banks, both in working accounts and bond issues. Holding that stock represents risk reduction for everyone involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Divestment by itself doesn't result in reinvestment in anything worthwhile. You need to invest in helpful things in order for them to be helpful. That was Bill Gates' point.
My PC (Score:2)
fecking tool (Score:2)
Bill has always been a fecking tool.
Way more dollars than sense.
People are the problem (Score:2)
The only way to solve the environmental problem and lots of other problems, is for countries to stop concerning themselves with economic grow
Re: (Score:2)
The environmental issues are just a symptom not the cause,t he cause is there are simply too many people in the world and the number continues to grow.
#unpopular-opinion. It's hard to appeal to reason to people who don't take any responsibility for their carbon footprint, their reproductive activities and just in general feel it's the so-called "god given" right to do as they damn well please with no consideration for anyone else. That's the truth. You can mod people like us into oblivion but the truth is the truth. The root cause of the problem is: people. We need to be fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure hope the world does not end up like China.
If you check human history, things have been really bad for most of it in different areas of the world. I'm all for aiming for utopia across the entire planet but incessant complaining without action is not the way to do it. What have you contributed to making the world a better place besides talking about problems?
Right for a while (Score:2)
They said the same thing about divestment from apartheid in South Africa.
And they were right... until they were not.
Re: (Score:2)
They said the same thing about divestment from apartheid in South Africa.
And they were right... until they were not.
There have been just as many "Chicken Littles" that you could say precisely the same thing about. This is not helpful to the discussion. Facts and data and well thought out solutions backed by solid evidence are valuable though.
Ummm, yeah? (Score:3)
> investors who want to use their money to promote progress will have better results by funding innovative businesses
Yeah, and they get that money by divesting in their existing investments.
Yeah, Bill was more lucky than smart (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buying stock in $Company, is not giving money to $Company to spend.
That money goes to who ever is selling their stock. 99.9% of the time besides IPO it's someone who bought the stock not the company directly.
Investing in tech as Bill says, is giving the company money, either to start it or to further fund it. Or even buying part of it.
the wisdom thick with this one is (Score:3)
who is one of the world's most prominent philanthropists.
He's also famous for having acquired his riches by unethical business practices setting the IT industry back at least a decade, and for having been repeatedly wrong with his predictions about the future.
I'd rather listen to the Friday for Future movement, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. As if OS/2 wasn't shite and peddled by a bunch of asshats who were just as greedy.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the OS/2 people had to re-write their own book to make it appear at least a bit less off the mark...
Nothing changes until the oil is gone (Score:2)
...or there is a cheaper alternative.
He is right.
WTF (Score:2)
This site is unusable with a giant banner ad taking up 1/2 the page.
WTF, /.?
We sense his Fear (Score:2)
Look, there are six takeaways from this.
1. Nuclear fission reactors will not be planned, permitted, and built from scratch in the next 8.5 years, which is when they would have to be complete. It's more like 20 years.
2. Our global energy supply is rapidly shifting to renewables, because they are much much much cheaper. Cheaper than fossil fuels even. But fossil fuels have tax incentives, subsidies, exclusions, exceptions, and deductions and depreciation which kills the market signal that would replace them
Too much thinking... (Score:2)
"I'm just too damn numeric."
Gates it too old skool. These days, particularly when it comes to climate change, you have to "think" with your feeling... the numbers will magically work themselves out!
said by someone with ~unlimited resources (Score:2)
Unlike Billy G, others have to move their money around to squeak out any gains. Therefore, divesting of fossil fuel investments means they have money free to move into non-fossil fuel investments like solar, wind, geothermal, etc.
Believe it or not Bill, we don't all get to pick ANYTHING we want to invest in.
LoB
He's right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I understand it, divestment, if it does anything at all, may slightly and temporarily lower the price of the companies from which you are divesting, so you're providing a buying opportunity to the people who disagree with you.
Pretty much sums it up.
I agree, it's all gonna be burned (Score:2)
Economically, I think the most obvious fact about Western divestment efforts is that it will reduce demand, and make supply cheaper for other countries who have no interest in divesting because they're building their own economies. The only way divestment works is with global coordination, which is easier said than done. Otherwise, you're just increasing incentive to take the shortcut and use fossil fuels by making it cheaper. We need to keep the price as high as possible.
The only other way I see is to make
Re: (Score:2)
Or, we could try a dick move and start buying oil up as fast as possible and stick it in the National Oil Reserve with no intention of ever using it. I think that might start a war, though.
Oil stock is stranded assets (Score:2)
1) Discourages that industry from expanding
2) If we're going to have any effective plan and hope of bending the curve on global warming, the consensus science tells us we have to be off half of our current fossil fuel consumption in about 10 years, and off all of it within 30 years.
That plan, which has to and will happen, will strand most of the assets currently being invested in in the fossil fuel exploration and production industry.
Stocks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why does this irk me? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many reasons to support trying to replace meat with plant alternatives:
1) Climate change - The methane emissions from animals is a significant contributor to climate change
2) Cost - Meat is very expensive. Plant based alternatives are likely to be significantly cheaper once the technology is established
3) Animal Cruelty - If you're like most Americans, you have a severe problem with animal abuse. However, mistreatment of animals is rampant in the food industry. You can buy humanely raised meat and eggs (look for the certified humane stamp), but it's even more expensive. If you dislike animal cruelty, not buying animal products is a good way to avoid supporting it.
I'm not Vegan but I happily support both companies. I just had an impossible burger at Red Robin (with bacon!), and it was one of the best burgers I've had in a long long time. The cook may have been confused about the plant-based bacon cheeseburger, but that's one less hamburger contributing to cruelty or climate change. It's a small step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There are many reasons to support trying to replace meat with plant alternatives:
1) Climate change - The methane emissions from animals is a significant contributor to climate change
This is debatable. Getting a healthy diet from only plants requires eating a large variety of plants. Plants that cannot be grown locally no matter where you are. Therefore they need to be shipped in, or grown in climate controlled structures. How much green house gasses are released doing that?
2) Cost - Meat is very expensive. Plant based alternatives are likely to be significantly cheaper once the technology is established
Plant based alternatives are only cheaper if they can be grown locally, and they can't. You can eat cheap meat in your diet and be healthy. You can eat cheap plants that lack vital nutrients and be unhealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore they need to be shipped in, or grown in climate controlled structures. How much green house gasses are released doing that?
Recent studies show that as long as it is literally "shipped" then the greenhouse impact is negligible. Much less than the extra fertilisers needed to do things in the wrong place and definitely less than greenhouses. Air freight, on the other hand is bad, but just avoid that.
Plant based alternatives are only cheaper if they can be grown locally, and they can't.
Again, based on your implication that you are in the states, foreign grown beans and similar should be absolutely much cheaper than American. Efficiently rail-transported plant-based food from the south would likely to be much more
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people I am around now eat mostly vegetarian and eat meat a couple times per week. We eat far too much meat and it is better to have less meat but higher quality and eat more vegetables and fruits. Mostly staying to less processed versions.
The strange thing about processed foods is we don't know why it is a problem yet or even which processes are a problem. It will be interesting to find that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on your situation you might be able to use a standing desk. My new employer sprang for one of the "transforming" models that can be easily raised for standing or lowered for sitting. Standing isn't nearly as good as walking, but as I recall it does burn calories around twice as fast as sitting, and can bleed off restless energy as well.
Personally, I would suggest a pair of those thick-soled round-bottomed shoes as a complement - both for extra padding, and to greatly increase your range of leg m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Humans are fairly inefficient omnivores. If you compare with a cat's digestive tract, we have much less acidic stomachs making breakdown of meat inefficient (whilst vegetables work fine) and, for example, longer stomachs better designed for plant based materials. We also have teeth which are much less efficient for tearing meat than those of cat or a dog. Humans evolved to eat a wide variety of diet and do best on a diet based around reasonably high nutrient vegetables.
Humans eat cooked meat, typically anyway, cats do not, at least in the wild. There are people that will eat raw meat, and domesticated cats that eat canned meat, that's not the norm. The comparison isn't particularly valid. Humans are such efficient omnivores because we figured out how to "partially pre-digest" our food by cooking and cutting our food.
A small amount of meat won't hurt and will probably help if you aren't careful with your diet otherwise. More than once or twice a week and the meat will probably start to hinder, especially if it's processed.
I'd like to see a citation on this. Humans have been eating large quantities of cooked meat for thousands of years. In some cases that might be all the f
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically *some* groups of humans have been eating meat-heavy diets for thousands of years - if your ancestors are primarily from the high steppes of Asia or the plains of Africa then yes, you've likely inherited the evolutionary adaptations for eating lots of meat. It still comes at a price, but it's a price you're better equipped to pay.
If you're European though - not so much. Like most primates, your ancestors likely never went through a period where meat was a substantial portion of their diet
Re: (Score:2)
A small amount of meat won't hurt and will probably help if you aren't careful with your diet otherwise. More than once or twice a week and the meat will probably start to hinder, especially if it's processed.
I'd like to see a citation on this.
There are lots and lots of contradictory citations and I'd say the science is pretty much unsettled. However, here's a citation for risk from low level meat consumption (around 1-2oz / 30-60g) [sciencedaily.com]. Beyond that there are so many other studies that its best just to point you to google about the health of meat. I'd kind of agree with the other poster about most human populations not being used to daily meat.
There's too much other stuff that I partly agree with in your post. E.g. imported high pesticide vege
Re: (Score:2)
3) Animal Cruelty - If you're like most Americans, you have a severe problem with animal abuse. However, mistreatment of animals is rampant in the food industry. You can buy humanely raised meat and eggs (look for the certified humane stamp), but it's even more expensive. If you dislike animal cruelty, not buying animal products is a good way to avoid supporting it.
This is the only thing even close to a valid reason to me. Here's the problem though, humans evolved to eat meat. Without meat it is very difficult to find a healthy diet. It can be done but it will cost more than meat. If you have the money to have the luxury to avoid eating meat then be my guest.
I grew up on a farm and animal cruelty is not "rampant". You might find the methods to your liking but that doesn't make it cruelty. Happy animals make the tastiest meat, and so we kept our animals happy. There are a large number of laws against animal cruelty. If there is evidence of this then the person can be punished. This punishment can mean losing their license to sell meat. It can mean fines. It can mean going to prison. The federal and state regulators, and to some extent the restaurants and grocery chains, take this seriously. No one wants to buy meat from someone that is cruel to the animals. This is bad for business to be associated with someone that has been cruel to the animals, and it makes for a lower quality product.
This is why I'm personally more interested in lab grown meat than plant-based alternatives. I am sure eventually plant based foods can get "close enough" to meat, but "close" is still not "exactly like". However, a correctly done lab grown meat would theoretically be for all purposes :real meat" without the ethical concerns of eating meat from an animal that was possibly treated inhumanely. At the very least it gives you the knowledge that something sentient didn't have to die for you to eat it.
Re:Why does this irk me? (Score:4, Informative)
>I grew up on a farm and animal cruelty is not "rampant".
If you grew up on a farm, then it was probably a family farm, and not at all representative of the industrial farms that produce most of the meat consumed in America.
I have absolutely no problem with ethically farmed meat - but you're not going to get a whole chicken gutted and plucked for $5 retail from such a farm.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the factory farming that I object to--not that I object in principle with large scale farming, but how it's practiced in the US. There's plenty of evidence that animal cruelty and mistreatment is rampant in that industry. If you disagree, go ahead and use Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, air-shipped produce is especially bad for AGW. However, I'm talking about artificial burgers from large factory production. Shelf-life will be a primary concern for a mass-produced product like this, and it's generally going to be shipped by freight instead of air. I don't have any studies showing the breakdown of an impossible burger vs an animal burger, but I expect the greenhouse emissions to be far less on the impossible burger, especially in t
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, something around 12% leakage (staring from the well) is the point where natural gas becomes a worse greenhouse problem than coal. And the US natural gas infrastructure exhibits something like 15-20% leakage.
The fact that the environmentalists aren't more widely up in arms is I suspect due to a confluence of several reasons - the largest being that the scale of the leakage issue wasn't appreciated until quite recently, so the environmentalists had long been touting methane as a much-superior al
Re: (Score:2)
Noone says we should stick to big industry practices
They're more labor-efficient and drive costs down. Increased production per resource investment, you know.
Plus, expensive and cheap mean nothing in today's economy. It's all artificial.
Not really. Price pressure from competition is the main driver, against actual cost. Actual cost is mediated by labor efficiency. Competition isn't just for the same good, either: if apples cost twice as much, people will eat pears instead; and if housing costs less, people will buy more iPads and video games.
That's why money wise it is cheaper to fish shrimp in NA and then transport to Morocco to be cleaned and transported back.
Division of labor and concentration of factors of production. We have a strong crab-
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to die regardless - does it make any difference to you if you spend your life living relatively free and well, or locked in a 3" square cage without ever seeing the sky or touching another person?
Re: (Score:2)
...3' square cage...
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you don't like MS-DOS, either? Some people have no taste.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're particularly worried about the environment it's not like that at all.
If one believes meat has spillover costs, it should be more expensive, and wanting otherwise is a desire for economic inefficiency.
I'm not saying that it does have spillover costs, but there are certainly plenty of people that do.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that comes out of a cow's ass was already in the carbon cycle to begin with.
This is true.
The people who attack meat because it's not green enough fundamentally misunderstand science, on a level that is understood by school age children (who have seen Mufasa explain the circle of life to Simba in The Lion King).
This is false.
Yeah, one can argue that the production of meat has an associated carbon footprint, but so does farming of vegetables.
This is true, and irrelevant.
The part that you fundamentally misunderstand in the science, is that not all carbon is created equal with regard to its position in the cycle.
For example, if cows somehow processed their food into chunks of graphite, they would a net negative to the extant carbon cycle.
As it is, cows turn their food into a large amount of methane, that while having a short half-life than CO2, is 28 times more potent.
So the program goes away if the cow farming d
Re: (Score:2)
so clearly we just need to genetically engineer cows with vice-like sphincters so they can shit out diamonds. win, win, win (the third win is destroying de beers).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Supercow? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (FWIW--which is zero--there was an episode of the Superman TV series back in the 50s where he pulled this trick.)
Re: (Score:2)
So deforestation doesn't alter the amount of carbon in the atmosphere? neat story.
All carbon (atoms) are equivalent?
More space farming produce (to feed cattle) doesn't mean larger footprint?
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "I don't mind if the plebs have to eat fake meat, because I'm rich enough that I'll always be able to afford the real thing."
Umm ... have you look at the prices for fake meat? It is much more expensive than the "real thing".
Even tofu costs more than ground beef in most grocery stores.
My daughter is a vegan, and shopping with her definitely lightens my wallet.
In America, meat consumption is negatively correlated with income. The poor can't afford to be vegan.
Re: (Score:1)
Umm ... have you look at the prices for fake meat?
Today, yes. In a meatless dystopia, they'll certainly have a "bachelor chow" grade of this crap to sell at Walmart.
It's kinda like EVs. Today they're expensive. In a post fossil-fuel future, there will probably be people pulling dead Nissan Leafs with a horse. I kid about the horse, of course. In all likelihood, vehicles will simply become a self-driving service which you pay for on an as-needed basis, and private vehicle ownership will go back to being a privilege of success.
In both cases, it's probab
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I expect the nascent fake meat industry to evolve some really cheap products in coming decades. That's a likely long game, and you'll have the poors eating it while the haves get the real thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so favorable towards malaria?
honest and blunt answer: it reduces the strength and resilience of the human gene pool, *and* creates a critical life-long dependency on the supplier of the "medicine".
False (Score:4, Funny)
Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Great movie quote, but the oft-repeated right-wing talking point has some truth to it.
At 40, I'm old enough to remember when nuclear energy and carbon-neutral biofuels were supposed to solve the carbon crisis. Hell, they had exhibits at Epcot about this stuff, sponsored by oil companies, no less.
Now, it's all about tossing subsidies to companies with virtue signaling green tech that either can't scale up, wouldn't be cost competitive in the market without the subsidies, and/or is prohibitively expensive to
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power + EVs would solve a heck of a lot of the problems. Nuclear power is much cleaner and less environmentally harmful than coal and other power sources. It does not require power storage like renewables do in order to have a functioning grid. EVs solve the problem of cleaning up our local air which results in much better human health and a reduction in medical costs. If we focused on these technologies they would get cheaper and more available.
We also need to focus on better insulation. Right now
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The market is irrelevant. Climate change is very real and it's a very urgent problem.
Here's the thing - it is possible to hold the belief that climate change is real, while simultaneously believing that the "left" is using it to push a potentially disingenuous agenda.
Politics is irrelevant. Climate change is very real and it