29 ms·
Hot take: actual steak is made from recycled carbon dioxide
by ehayes 4y ago
Hot take: actual steak is made from recycled carbon dioxide
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- elil17 4y agoSort of, but you’re also re-releasing a bunch more of the CO2 than goes into the steak. Plus, direct air capture is much more space efficient then plants.
- User23 4y agoPlants have been doing a pretty good job of sustainably capturing carbon dioxide for something like three billion years. Is there any direct air capture technology that’s remotely as reliable and low maintenance?
- moralestapia 4y agoNot sure why you're downvoted because the answer to your question is definitely "no". Everything else, at the moment, is not much more than slides on a pitch deck.
- whimsicalism 4y agoMeat production is not carbon sequestering, it is carbon emitting. Most agriculture in general involves replacing more carbon sequestering natural growth with agricultural fields.
- asdff 4y agoI think that would depends on what the natural growth is actually able to sequester, no? Not all areas clearcut for farmland were lush, quite the opposite actually with artificial irrigation bringing in the possibility of generating all that biomass.
- whimsicalism 4y agoThere is carbon stored in the soil that tilling lets out. And of course all of this is before you get into methane emissions from fertilizer, etc. and the fuel costs of transporting all these crops around as feed. I mean you can just look at the stats for carbon emissions from meat production.
- dqv 4y agoNo, meat production is still carbon emitting. What you’re thinking of is having cows manage land. For that to sequester carbon, you have to keep the cows alive and not be in a constant consume-supply cycle.
- manwe150 4y agoI thought plants are notoriously bad at this in practice. Not because they can’t, but because they actually don’t need that much CO2, and are also rather finicky to keep alive. Other algae are better. And CO2 scrubbers exist for closed environments like subs and space ships.
- anothernewdude 4y agoAnimals can use land that can't be used for direct air capture or plant agriculture.
- smt88 4y agoAnimals need enormous amounts of water. If you have water, you can produce plants. What land specifically is useful for animals, but not capturing carbon or growing plants? Please give a specific example.
- anothernewdude 4y ago> If you have water, you can produce plants. Simply untrue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica > What land specifically is useful for animals, but not capturing carbon or growing plants? Please give a specific example. Careful moving those goal posts, you'll hurt your back. Not a goal anybody set. But here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangeland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangeland Animal farming improved human use of land, and indeed crop farming depends a lot on animal byproducts. Or do you prefer unsustainable mineral fertilizers?
- dqv 4y agoYes you’re right, but only insofar as those animals are not slaughtered for food.
- anothernewdude 4y agoEven then.
- dqv 4y agoEven then what? If the cycle continues where you’re continuously slaughtering and replenishing the animals for food and not letting them live their natural life, the argument that it is better at carbon capture is moot.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoWell, they use ever so slightly less fossil fuel methane (which is how this process is powered). So much of a muchness, really.