While traveling on motorways in Pakistan, I have often witnessed an unsettling scene. Trucks, packed to their capacity, transport animals in a manner that is a complete disregard for their welfare. Cows’ necks protrude through the gaps, buffalo legs extend awkwardly, and countless chickens are crammed together with barely any space to move. If humans were subjected to such conditions, it would certainly be deemed a human rights violation.
Inhumane transportation is just one reference point. The conditions in which animals are housed are even more deplorable. Many animal sheds are dimly lit, lack electricity, and provide unfit water. When animals fall ill, they are frequently left to fend for themselves. Wealthier farmers will administer standard antibiotics while poorer ones will leave them at God’s mercy. The use of standard anti-biotics in animals is widespread now. Almost 70% of all antibiotics are dual used today and are applied to both animals and humans. According to several studies, traces of antibiotics have become deeply ingrained in our food supply chains, a consequence of our meat-eating habits.
It’s extraordinary how far we have come in the realm of animal agriculture. Today, animal agriculture accounts for nearly 20 percent of all direct emissions, with a total mitigation potential of 6.1 gigatons—roughly four times the equivalent of every car, bus, and light truck combined. Additionally, 80 percent of total global agricultural land is dedicated to growing crops for animals. Over the past twenty-six years, global meat consumption has increased by 70 percent. Looking ahead, we have another twenty-six years until 2050, the target year for achieving net-zero emissions. If our meat consumption (and total emissions) increases by another 70 percent over this period, our climate ambitions will simply become unattainable.
The entire process of converting crops to meat is inefficient. Chickens consume, for instance, soy as their feed, and for every nine calories of soy, they produce one calorie of meat, which is in an eight-times calorie loss in conversion-process. This also implies eight-fold inefficiencies in the use of land, water, pesticides, and herbicides, which could have been avoided had the original soy calorie was consumed. The inefficiency is even more pronounced in other animals: fish have a calorie conversion loss of approximately eleven times, and cows nearly forty times. All of this is besides an increased emissions profile, with animals releasing methane and the use of synthetic fertilizers producing nitrous oxide.
If we want to achieve our climate goals and stay within the Paris Agreement’s ambition of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius, we must change how we eat. If we are what we eat, then our current dietary habits make us unsustainable. We must either change how we produce meat or how we consume it.
First, let’s discuss how we produce meat. We have been producing meat in a traditional way. Growing acres and acres of crops to covert crop calories into meat calories. That must change, and one of the possible solutions is to focus on cultivated meat or meat produced directly from animal cells. This is typically done by extracting cells from a living animal and growing them in bioreactors. These cells can be differentiated into muscle, fat, and other cell types to create products that replicate the three-dimensional structure, nutrition profile, and sensory properties of conventional meat. While cultivated meat still requires animals to obtain stem cells through biopsies and, in some cases, animal serum for growth media, significantly fewer animals will be needed compared to traditional meat production.
With cultivated meat, the benefits are enormous. It will require less land and fertilizer and have zero application of pesticides and herbicides. There will be no need for antibiotics, inhumane transportation of animals, or housing animals in shabby conditions.
As with any other technological breakthrough, the cultivated meat solution is also evolving rapidly. Research is progressing swiftly to achieve meat that matches the taste and texture of conventional meat while being more cost-effective. Many governments are now formulating and implementing new policies and regulatory frameworks to support this innovation. Countries such as Brazil, China, the European Union, India, Singapore, and the United States have invested in the development of novel cultivated meat processes. Some countries, including Australia, Brazil, and Denmark, are offering incentives to producers through tax exemptions, subsidies, and support for energy and market development. Others, like China, India, and the Netherlands, are investing in research, human resources, curricula development, and the promotion of sustainable practices to advance the cultivated meat industry.
The other more sensible approach is to reconsider how we consume meat. Our ever-affluent lifestyles have led to a rapid increase in meat consumption. While our grandparents consumed meat once or twice a month and our parents once a week, we now consume it almost daily. Small adjustments in our daily lives can make a significant impact. Simply reducing meat consumption from six times a week to two times a week can make a difference. Incorporating more plant-based proteins diet instead of meat-based proteins diet can also help. Additionally, growing food in our own backyards for small-scale consumption will promote sustainability. Whether vegetarian or non-vegetarian, a conscious effort is necessary to evaluate the sustainability of our food choices.
It’s a decision each of us will have to make—mindful utilization of resources versus mindless consumption. The former may involve a small sacrifice, but it is a sacrifice worth making for the greater good.
About: Khurram Lalani heads Resources Future, a consulting firm focused on climate policy, ESG and energy transition. He can be reached at khurram@resouresfuture.com.
