is the cost/benefit source. It does say that with a price on methane emissions based on GWP100(year) that it is economic, even though with no price on methane emissions it is a 90% loss.
Taxing food emissions is troublesome. Cattle especially, and livestock in general, are high emitters. They are also a food battery. During drought/crop failure, eat them instead. Lab meat’s biggest advantage is an escape from climate dependence/resilience.
The American way is somehow subsidies. The right way is taxing emissions. That does make biodigesters profitable, but also makes cow products more expensive. Alternatives to lab meat are goats, sheep, deer, chicken which produce less emissions than cows. There would still be a market for expensive meat, just a smaller one.
GHG Tax proceeds paid as dividends makes food more affordable, even if cow products would be less affordable.
https://agdatanews.substack.com/p/the-value-of-methane-from-cow-manure
is the cost/benefit source. It does say that with a price on methane emissions based on GWP100(year) that it is economic, even though with no price on methane emissions it is a 90% loss.
Taxing food emissions is troublesome. Cattle especially, and livestock in general, are high emitters. They are also a food battery. During drought/crop failure, eat them instead. Lab meat’s biggest advantage is an escape from climate dependence/resilience.
The American way is somehow subsidies. The right way is taxing emissions. That does make biodigesters profitable, but also makes cow products more expensive. Alternatives to lab meat are goats, sheep, deer, chicken which produce less emissions than cows. There would still be a market for expensive meat, just a smaller one.
GHG Tax proceeds paid as dividends makes food more affordable, even if cow products would be less affordable.