Doing the maths of bacterial burgers

November 2021

Do the sums of farm-free food fermented in the desert as the saviour of our over-heating planet really add up? [1].

The major greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2) accounting for some 77% of the global total. Of this, 65% is attributable to fossil fuel energy uses. Carbon dioxide is very stable: once it's out there, it stays in the air for a long time unless plants or man-made devices 'capture' it and put it back in the ground.

The second most common greenhouse gas is methane, accounting for some 15% of the global total. Methane is less stable than CO2 and only hangs around for a few years.

Transportation and industry are responsible for a third of greenhouse gas production in the form of CO2. Moving all that fake food and its multiple ingredients to and from the processing complexes, and to multiple, global final sales outlets will require a comprehensive world-wide transport system of its own. This will likely involve a significant input of fossil fuels at some stage of the process.

While the energy to produce the hydrogen needed to fuel the fermentation will be derived from solar panels, the manufacture, maintenance and decommissioning of all the materials and equipment needed, especially the procurement of the other nutrients and inputs required by the bacteria are also likely to have a significant fossil-fuel dependence.

Livestock and their manure release about 5% of greenhouse gases in the form of methane. Looking at this figure in the context of the above paragraphs, why are animals getting it in the neck when substituting bacterial protein for beef isn't going to make a big enough difference to the total long-term greenhouse gas accumulation to solve anything?

Tropical deforestation blasts out 11% of the CO2 greenhouse gas. Where this is done to grow soya or to graze cattle, the damage is a one-off event because the cleared area can be re-used year on year. A much bigger problem is logging. This devastates an area resulting in a huge release of carbon, and then moves on to devastate another area, and then another. Absence of animals certainly won't influence logging.

And what about the rewilding of the vast areas of land handed back to nature when we're no longer farming them? Consider this tale from Japan:

"In the late middle ages, Japan was facing ecological disaster. Its forests, sources of nutrients and water for agriculture, firewood, charcoal and many other vital ingredients for human life were, due to careless overuse, at tipping point beyond which they would soon be irrecoverable. The evidence for this oncoming disaster was fed up from village to governmental level, leading to rigorous regulation for forest management, including a precise catalogue of each acre of woodland in the country"

This rigorously managed re-wilding of Japan was successful, but it took 200 years to complete. Is this a scenario likely to be repeatable on the global scale needed, and fast enough, to make a difference?

Are the farmers of today going to give up their lands to nature? Or, will they find some other lucrative, but non-agricultural use? Building houses? A site for solar panels? A fake food factory? Trees for timber or pulp?

OUR COMMENT

If facts and figures like these interest you, you might like to read Simon Fairlie's book 'Meat - A Benign Extravagance'.

Background

[1] CANCER BURGERS IN BACTERIAL BUNS - November 2021



SOURCES:

•  Simon Fairlie, Meat - A Benign Extravagance, 2010, ISBN 978-1-85623-055-1 
• Will lab-grown food really save the planet? GM Watch, 14.01.20
• David Mackenzie, The Forest and the Village, Scottish CND Nuclear Free Scotland, Autumn/Winter 2019 

Photo Creative Commons