Government, Climate Change and the Future of Cultured Meats

Fiona MacKay. “Looking For a Solution to Cows’ Climate Problems.” New York Times. 11/16/2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/business/global/17iht-rbofcows.html?pagewanted=1

This article was in the New York Times Business Section last week.

In my last post, I wrote about the influence that ethical concerns about the ‘backstory’ of meat production (whether or not the animal was killed ethically, what effect it had upon the environment, ect.) could have on the future of cultured meat. I have never taken an economics course, but according to the simple rules of supply and demand, it seemed to me that the cultured meat industry would only expand if enough people desired a different ‘backstory’

It now looks however, that there could be an entirely new sector which could directly expand the industry: government. The United States Congress is currently considering a major Climate Bill, and in December, the U.N. Climate Conference will meet in Copenhagen. Government attention to the climate could have major implications for the future of cultured meats given that recent studies which prove a strong relationship between livestock and the global warming.

One such study claims that methane, which is a byproduct of many livestock, contributes 23 times more warming than Carbon Dioxide. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization claims that livestock contribute to 18% of the worlds Global Warming, and two experts from environmental agencies within the World Bank claim that number is closer to 51%. Given that meat and dairy consumption is expected to double by 2050, these are statistics that governments seeking to slow global warming cannot ignore.

Eventually, national governments and international organizations are going to have to do something about the methane emissions if they truly want to slow global warming. One obvious solution would be cultured meats. If a countries meat supply could be kept going without the use of livestock, there would be a tremendous environmental success.

Governments theoretically, could do a number of things to promote cultured meat. They could subsidize the cultured meat industry, they could put taxes on traditional meat or could even regulate the production of traditional meat through quotas.

The article sites a number of alternatives to cultured meat such as artificial meat made out of soy, seitan and mycoprotein. None of these alternatives however, could theoretically replace traditional meat, which leads me to believe that government seeking effective climate policies could turn to cultured meat. Of course there is no definitive way to predict if the cultured meat industry will be assisted directly or indirectly from government policy, but if I was in charge of the cultured meat industry, I would start hiring lobbyists immediately.