Bill Gates discussed the importance of plant-based meat alternatives with Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson on the latest episode of his podcast, “Unconfuse Me.”
Bill Gates has spent years, and billions of dollars, working to combat climate change.
The billionaire’s foundation has invested vast sums in various climate tech solutions while regularly raising the alarm about the leading contributors to climate change, like the greenhouse gas emissions stemming from major energy and manufacturing companies burning fossil fuels at prodigious rates.
But, according to Gates, most people are still unaware of the role played by one of the biggest contributors to climate change: agriculture, specifically methane emissions from livestock and fertilizers.
“Of all the climate areas, the one that people are probably least aware of is all the fertilizer and cows, and that’s a challenge,” Gates recently said on the latest episode of his podcast, “Unconfuse Me.”
The topic came up because Gates was in conversation with musician and director Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson, who, like Gates, also happens to be an early investor in several plant-based food startups, such as Impossible, NotCo and Neutral Foods.
Thompson, who is from Philadelphia, even recently partnered with Impossible to create a plant-based cheesesteak that counts former president Barack Obama as a fan, he told Gates.
Thompson told Gates he was won over by plant-based foods’ ability to mimic the taste of real meat, among other products: “Something told me plant-based is going to be the future … and I want to be the person that plants the seed,” he said.
While plant-based foods have won support from those looking for alternatives to products made from animals, Gates said that he started backing plant-based food ventures because of their potential to combat climate change.
“I came to it more from that climate angle,” he said.
Gates has pointed out in the past that the agricultural industry contributes roughly 24% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, with much of that stemming from methane emissions from livestock and fertilizer used to cultivate crops, according to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In fact, if cattle “were a country,” Gates wrote in 2018, “they would be the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases [in the world].”
In his 2021 book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” Gates wrote that effectively combating climate change will take people being willing to commit to new ideas, like switching to electric cars and synthetic meats.
That same year, Gates argued that wealthy countries that have the resources to do so “should move to 100% synthetic beef” in order to meaningfully reduce global emissions from livestock, he told the MIT Technology Review.
“You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time,” he said at the time. “Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”
Plant-based meat sales still represent just a small percentage of the total meat market, and even Gates admits it will be difficult to convince enough people to stop eating real meat to make a significant difference.
One issue is that the still relatively new products are currently more expensive than real meats. Still, Gates has a positive outlook that plant-based meat companies will continue to improve their products, and reduce their costs, helping them to eventually become more popular.
That’s why Gates and his foundation have financially backed plant-based and lab-grown meat startups such as Impossible, Beyond Meat, Neutral Foods and Upside Foods. Speaking to Thompson about the plant-based meat startups, like Impossible, Gates said that “they’re doing well, but a lot of people want him to make [the product] even slightly better.”
“They have a good roadmap, so I’m optimistic,” he said.
archive link: https://archive.is/wip/F9QpM
You know what another big cause of climate change is? Billionaires and their private planes, yachts, mansions, etc.
Billionaire consumption irrespective of how outsized, isn’t significant in the context of our entire societal consumption. Every private plane flight in a year emits 5MtCO2, while all flights emit 800MtCO2. Even Roman Abramovich’s ridiculously wasteful superyacht is about 20ktCO2/yr. All private cars contribute 3BtCO2/yr. Billionaire consumption is a drop in the bucket, which is why any article blaming billionaires to try to convince you this isn’t a kitchen table issue and infrastructure issue for the rest of us has to qualify with investments, since the average billionaire basically owns fossil fuel companies.
That’s useful information to be sure, because it does emphasize that billionaires profit from emissions, but the end consumers of the vast majority of those emissions, the reasons why those fossil fuels were burned in the first place, are the rest of us, day by day, partially by choice but mostly by consequence of building our basic infrastructure to rely on fossil fuels and refusing to make the investment to decarbonize it.
Adding some more thoughts to this, it really does upset me when these discussions are reduced to which faction needs to make a personal consumption sacrifice in order to save us from climate change hellfire, because it individualizes what is ultimately a collective problem with a collective infrastructure.
It’s like the contrived “just ride your bike” vs. “no the rich should sell their supercars” discussion - yes, of course “just ride your bike” is insufficient because America refuses to invest in the infrastructure needed to prioritize safe alternatives to private cars.
The entire interstate highway system in the US is publicly funded, largely from income tax. The meat industry is subsidized to the tune of $38B a year, and that’s just in explicit subsidies. What makes this empty is not that Bill Gates isn’t giving up his private jet, but that he’s not arguing that we should cut the meat industry off the dole and let a big mac cost $15 and see how people feel about beyond meat then.
Another thought: Eating beef is helping Nestle achieve its dystopias water vision.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/16/fondomonte-arizona-drought-saudi-farm-water/#
Very true
But he offset his global footprint by donating to an organization ran by his friend and paid the media to silence any mention of it.
I mean here’s 3 paragraphs about how hes helping and us plebian meateaters are the problem.
No, he talks about how the meat agriculture industry is the problem and he’s trying to help find an alternative for people, and says it isn’t good enough yet.
But if you identify yourself by the fact that you eat meat and take offense to that, you do you.
Does everything need to be a class war?
Have you been to Earth lately?
They’re winning, and it’s still not enough for them.
Even if 1 billionaire is polluting as much as 1000 average people - cutting the consumption of everyone in half is doing far more towards a better climate than reducing the pollution of those to 0.
Sure it’s a thing that needs to happen to get everyone on board - but stop pointing with fingers since without personal change the politicians won’t change a thing as cutting meat by law will make them lose their office immediately unless a decent chunk of the population already went that route voluntarily