It's a long article, so I'm not going to quote it. The estimate is that lab-grown meat could produce as much as 25X the level of CO2 that ordinary meat does in its production process. Some of the CO2 emissions for lab meat could be reduced by switching to alternative energy sources, but not all of them. There's also skepticism that the process could be scaled up any time soon, with or without reducing CO2 emissions.
That's both unsurprising and not all that troubling. Doesn't most new tech go through a period of being wildly inefficient and impractical?
That can be an aspect of Gartner's hype cycle, yes. The problem here though is that one of the largest reasons for embracing lab-grown meat is being undercut by problems with the tech. I know animal lovers won't like it but eliminating their suffering while dramatically increasing the amount we poison the planet, isn't exactly a selling point for the tech. It's sort of like if the first car built cost more than a horse, was slower than a horse, and unlike a horse, could be counted on to explode with fatal consequences with high regularity. Sure, the tech's promising, and you can work the bugs out, but right now, it's so dangerous you can't even let the wealthy have it until you work the bugs out. I mean, I know we're all fans of guillotining the wealthy, but it's no fun when your neck is next in line.
