The livestock lobby is fighting against lab-grown meat this is why we must not let them win

Livestock takes up roughly 20% of the worlds land, or around 50% of the worlds agricultural land. Astoundingly, around 1.3 billion people around the world are involved in the livestock industry.

The worlds remaining land wilderness, takes up just 25% of the worlds land – should we move toa system of growing meat in labs, we could almost double the amount of space for wildlife, which would allow many of the worlds endangered species to recover.

Apart form saving so much of the worlds wilderness, and wildlife, why should we do this? Well, firstly, the fact that people want things to stay as they are, is not new. Every new invention has lead to a change in the lives of many people – before farming came into existence, all the healthy men of each village (and in places, many of the healthy women) would have spent the majority of their time hunting. Looking at the natural world, animals like lion and leopard split their time between hunting and resting, with little else (apart from reproduction) being thought of.

As electric cars started to appear, the vast majority of car companies tried to stop their progress. Indeed, many spent their time buying inventions and smaller companies, just to kill their electric car program. This was not because they were intrinsically afraid of the electric car, but because they were afraid that if adopted, they might have a smaller market share than they did with the internal combustion engine car. As tends to happen in this situation, however, many of these companies are thought likely to go out of business in the next 2 decades (and it took a start-up, Tesla to fully make electric cars work – even now, many are still trying to go back). The same can be said for the factory production line, and many many others.

The problem is that livestock farming is only second to the fossil fuel industry, in terms of its contribution to climate change, so if humanity is to survive, it needs to change dramatically.

Why should we be worried about saving the worlds wildernesses? I think that a great deal of the population feels that we should save them for their own intrinsic value, but there is more than that. Rainforests around the world are the engine that supplies much of these areas rain, and without the rainforest often the area will collapse into desert.

Some suggest that we should all go to a plant-based diet, and certainly this would do what we want (though it should be noted, that this leaves the livestock industry in the same place – indeed, the livestock industry as it currently is, must have its days numbered, as humanity cannot afford its carbon footprint or it will continue our descent into climate breakdown). The only alternative to this is to produce the dairy and meat through other means; and these means are multiplying around the world, as it is recognized that there is a lot of money available for those who solve it early.

These range from growing meat on a scaffold from cells taken from a live animal. This idea is rapidly growing in popularity, though some think that this is a dead end, and instead a lot of people are looking at brewing microbes, which can be made to have a taste and texture that will make them indistinguishable from the real thing. This would also allow the unhealthy parts like fat to be not grown. It avoids the need for a lot of land, needs no fertilizer and greatly reduces the amount of fresh water needed (some can use salt water).

Protectionism is not restricted to farmers, with many governments getting in on the act, and in the EU a new group is pushing for a continent wide ban.

I think that these things will be developed somewhere, and we will miss out, if this happens in places like China (they have a great incentive, as their population eats little real meat, but as the wealth of people are increasing, they are demanding to eat a diet more like the west. For most of us, we are going to be watching from the sidelines, in terms of what happens next, but we can write to our representatives, and make sure that livestock owners are not the only voices that they hear.

Another foolish article about the superiority of ICE vehicles over Electric

The horrific traffic catastrophe in Virginia in the ice has lead to another foolish article about the supremacy of ICE over electric.

I havent heard of the author Charles Lane but the article is similar to dozens I have read in the past “here is an anecdotal situation that occurred to me, doesnt it show how electric cars are rubbish”.

Vehicles are seen on an icy stretch of Interstate 95 closed as a storm blankets the U.S. region in snow. Are you really better in an ICE vehicle than an electric?

In this situation a 48 mile traffic jam appeared on the interstate 95 in Virginia. A trucker found his cab door being knocked on by a woman who was in an electric car and hadnt enough food or water. They were worried about running out of charge while trying to keep their vehicle warm. With kids in the car they had got out to ask other vehicle drivers for blankets or anything else (outside temperatures were minus 7 degrees).

So why was this a foolish article to write? Essentially the lorry driver is saying, look at this situation where ICE cars were better than electric, therefore no-one should buy electric.

So lets look at this situation.

1 Given an electric car can be charged at home, and an ICE vehicle needs refilling at a fuel station, which is most likely to be near full of fuel in an emergency? Many people do a small top-up every night so keep their car at around 85% permanently, except when going on a long journey. Generally people only refill their tank when it is nearing empty.

2 Electric cars are almost 100% efficient with a heat pump as many of these cars use. A tesla 3 heat pump could keep its inhabitants warm for 36 hours on a full charge. In an ICE car it would entirely depend on how recently it was refilled- depending on the size and efficiency idling fuel usage can be anything from 1 litre an hour in a small car, up to as much as 5 or more in a big car (or a sports car like a dodge viper). A Hyundai Kona uses about 1 litre an hour and has a tank of 38 litres, so would last about a day and a half. Even in big cars the fuel tank is not normally bigger than 70 litres, which would suggest 14 hours,

As such, in actual fact the odds of running out of fuel (charge or gas) in a sticky situation is likely to be far higher in an ICE vehicle. Once in the situation, unless you are in the right car for this rare situation, electric is far more likely to safely keep you warm till the road clears.

Now it is true that should your electric car drain completely to zero, it is more bother to recharge an electric car than it is an ICE vehicle, as the latter merely needs a walk to the nearest petrol station. Why do so many writers grab every chance to take a swipe at electric? Probably because they know that they will be paid well – however as these stories start to look more and more stupid, I think it is going to be harder to find someone to write your hit piece.

A fine is handed down for another car emission scandal.

Volkswagen had to pay a huge amount of money in the USA for cheating on their car emissions. It would appear that they did not learn their lesson.

A group of car companies including Volkswagen BMW and Daimler have been colluding on emissions tech

The German car companies were fined £750 million for agreeing to not compete on AdBlue tech, which is designed to clean emissions.

Daimler avoided fines as it was the company that admitted to the con.

Rather disgustingly, the companies in question did not agree and are still complaining,

My feeling is that given this is not the first time, the car companies have got away easy, or indeed too easy.

The move to electric cars does seem impossible to stop now, though these and other companies are still trying to slow the move. My thoughts are that fines need to grow over the next decade or less, to the point where if you are caught taking part in a scheme like this it is likely to mean bankruptcy. Shareholders and boards must also make sure that chief executives know that if they set up or partake in a scheme it will hit their money personally even after they have retired.

How much electricity does it take to reform fossil fuels? drive an electric instead

Conservatives estimates suggest that it takes 6kwh to reform one gallon of fuel (a gallon is roughly 4.54 litres). One gallon carries an average fossil fuel car roughly 24 miles.

How far will 6kwh carry an electric car? If you drive a porsche taycan you get around 3.6 miles per kwh, giving you a range of 21 miles, with a tesla 3 this range would increase to over 25 miles.

Continue reading “How much electricity does it take to reform fossil fuels? drive an electric instead”

Could the EU bring forward the end of new combustion engine cars to 2025?

The European comission is considering a rule which would essentially ban ne internal combustion engine cars from 2025, only 4 years away. The industry as obviously attacked this, in part by pointing out the rules demanding that all cars be practically clear of emissions by 2025 will rule out clean fuels such as liquid hydrogen.

Continue reading “Could the EU bring forward the end of new combustion engine cars to 2025?”
See Animals Wild

Read more news

Join as a wild member
to list your wild place & log in

Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in

Join as an Associate member
to assist as a writer, creator, lister etc & to log in

List a wild destination

List a destination in
the shadow of man

List a hide for animals more easily seen this way

Highlight some news
missed, or submit a
one-off article

Browse destinations for fun or future travel

Temporary membership
start here if in a hurry

Casual readers and watchers