There are more efficient, greener ways to go about producing pretty much everything we use that doesn’t destroy the earth. Problem is is that it’s not as profitable for share holders.
For most categories, yes, but when it comes to something like meat production mentioned in the title here, that’s not really the case. Meat production is massively inefficient in its best case. We are going to have to reduce production which means having changes in consumption in one way or another
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives?
The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
[…]
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
If it was so efficient, why are not everyone doing it and building it? If it was so efficient, why are energy prices increasing? If it is more efficient, then it would be also more profitable but you say the opposite.
It requires a front-loaded investment in infrastructure, which means lower returns for a few quarters.
Most companies wanted people to use horses for as long as possible because that meant they had to adapt, change, and invest. Why do something that’s difficult when you can just do the same thing? This works out when you don’t really have competition because the cost to enter the market is so high due to decades of mergers and acquisitions, consolidating all means of production and materials to a select-few companies.
There are more efficient, greener ways to go about producing pretty much everything we use that doesn’t destroy the earth. Problem is is that it’s not as profitable for share holders.
For most categories, yes, but when it comes to something like meat production mentioned in the title here, that’s not really the case. Meat production is massively inefficient in its best case. We are going to have to reduce production which means having changes in consumption in one way or another
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm
If it was so efficient, why are not everyone doing it and building it? If it was so efficient, why are energy prices increasing? If it is more efficient, then it would be also more profitable but you say the opposite.
It requires a front-loaded investment in infrastructure, which means lower returns for a few quarters.
Most companies wanted people to use horses for as long as possible because that meant they had to adapt, change, and invest. Why do something that’s difficult when you can just do the same thing? This works out when you don’t really have competition because the cost to enter the market is so high due to decades of mergers and acquisitions, consolidating all means of production and materials to a select-few companies.