[EDIT: Note that this might be a misunderstanding—see Benny’s reply below]
Thank you for this!
What is the mechanism by which the failure of alternative proteins doubles harm from climate in 2050? APs are clearly a significant climate solution and worthy of more support (I regularly send donors in the direction of GFI), but this seems a very strong claim.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I think the article is referring to projections that meat production will double by 2050. He’s not claiming that climate change will be twice as bad without alt proteins. Instead, he’s saying that harms from meat production will double by 2050 without alt proteins.
1) Meat production is a significant contributor to climate change, other environmental harms (pretty much all of them), food insecurity, antibiotic resistance, and pandemic risk—causing significant and immediate harm to billions of people.
2) All of these harms are likely to double in adverse impact (or more) by 2050 unless alternative proteins succeed.
Seems accurate to me, though I see how it might be confusingly worded.
Thanks for catching this, I indeed understood this as “the harms from climate change are doubling” but I can see how your interpretation seems more likely to be correct and would be accurate.
I find it very confusingly worded given it says just above “causing significant and immediate harms to billions of people” and then says “these harms”.
I’m sorry for my shoddy wording. Yes, my point (thanks for jumping in, Benny!) was only that if animal agriculture doubles by 2050, that will double these harms, which are already quite severe. I updated bullet two of my introduction to make this clear.
[EDIT: Note that this might be a misunderstanding—see Benny’s reply below]
Thank you for this!
What is the mechanism by which the failure of alternative proteins doubles harm from climate in 2050? APs are clearly a significant climate solution and worthy of more support (I regularly send donors in the direction of GFI), but this seems a very strong claim.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I think the article is referring to projections that meat production will double by 2050. He’s not claiming that climate change will be twice as bad without alt proteins. Instead, he’s saying that harms from meat production will double by 2050 without alt proteins.
Seems accurate to me, though I see how it might be confusingly worded.
Thanks for catching this, I indeed understood this as “the harms from climate change are doubling” but I can see how your interpretation seems more likely to be correct and would be accurate.
I find it very confusingly worded given it says just above “causing significant and immediate harms to billions of people” and then says “these harms”.
I’m sorry for my shoddy wording. Yes, my point (thanks for jumping in, Benny!) was only that if animal agriculture doubles by 2050, that will double these harms, which are already quite severe. I updated bullet two of my introduction to make this clear.