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”.
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”.