The World Bank has a great resource here which lists out pricing for emissions trading systems (ETS) and carbon tax by country.[0] (Map & Data > Price > Type of Instrument). Highest carbon taxes are $100+ / ton (Sweden, Switzerland, Lichenstein), high initial value for trade is about $50 (EU, Switzerland).
We are a bit behind in the US in credits or taxes, we are now treating the social cost at $51, but not using that for tax or trade policy.[1]
There's one more number that is useful to get a numerical sense of the costs: $258 / ton, an estimate of the actual cost to society. [2]
That estimate of cost to society should tell us something when contrasted with the actual prices being levied right now. Hopefully we'll get closer to that number eventually!
There is some project-specific information on the Channel News Asia documentary titled "Race to feed the World," Episode 2, June 2021. It is available in this description of recent Marine Permaculture information, presentations and podcasts, available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DkZ11CpgSqdUnaNw2-Pt05OZ...
Unfortunately don’t have time to check out the paper, but vaguely I am aware that methyl groups are like an accessory that can be attached or detached (by the cell, normally) to an arbitrary section of DNA within your chromosome. And it can be used in this way for regulation of DNA expression. Because when the methyl group is there it’s harder for that section of DNA to be read (transcribed) because the methyl group is physically in the way. The train can’t run on the track because there’s a big rock on it
DNA is like code, but then there’s this whole meta level of DNA regulation that determines whether each section of code is used, and how much
So by demethylizing some section of the DNA, implicitly that means the scientists made that section of DNA be used more often. And it just so happens that when that section of DNA is used more often it contributes to various processes that ultimately end up with the plant organism as a whole producing more “yield”, or parts of the plant that we like to eat
Or making the plant produce pesticide of its own, causing bugs to develop resistance to measures needed by organic farmers, and also dosing humans with what would otherwise be easily rinsed off.
As long as this technology is not used to prevent country farmers to store their own seed whenever they want, and make it only legal to purchase 'Monsanto approved' seeds, I am completely fine with this.
I'm looking forward to the day when we can collectively disentangle GMO from all of the other negative practices of big ag. I don't see a reason why responsible genetic modification can't be a part of a sustainable and equitable future agricultural system.
"Genetically modifying food to increase yield is good for the environment" is a true statement, but you're going to need an awfully good PR firm to persuade the public it's true...
Yeah exactly. And not only yield, but natural pest resistance, etc. I'm also imagining how genetic modifications might eventually be environmentally beneficial in the context of whole-ecosystem engineering if/when we ever move beyond a monocrop model, such as modifying native organisms to counter invasive species, etc. Admittedly a bit sci-fi currently but in principle possible!
The gene that was added is translated into a protein that floats around the cell doing the RNA demethylation. The plants already have other genes that produce proteins that did that, but adding another one has an effect.
I'm surprised the plant lives at all in that state... One would imagine RNA methylation is used for all kinds of logic and mechanisms in plant cells, so arbitrarily removing them all would break stuff.
It would be like a programmer saying "let's just comment out every line of code starting with "if" in the windows source code, and then see if it boots faster!
In dealing with methylation one doesn't add to or remove the "code" to synthesize any particular protein from the cell(s) of the organism, the DNA/genes per se remains intact. The process inhibits / allows synthesis of particular proteins from the genes/DNA.
Think of it like software -- by flipping an A/B Switch in software configuration you don't add to or remove from a program, you merely turn on/off certain features. Same with methylation -- it's the A/B Switch for protein synthesis, FWIU.
No, they are changing DNA, they are adding DNA code that does the demethylation of RNA.
It's like adding code to the compiler so it produces different assembly from the same higher level code. But it's still added code because the compiler itself is in the codebase.
No. The FTO gene from humans was inserted into the genome of these plants. That gene produced a protein that performs RNA demethylation, which isn't even epigenetics, because epigenetics is the set of extra stuff that happens on DNA, not RNA.
Mass spectrometry and similar analysis methods to look for unexpected proteins in the food parts, followed by feeding the food parts to animals and seeing what happens.
1. Can be solved with phytoplankton, and separately also by more land-area-efficient farming e.g. greenhouses, 2. Can be improved with genetic engineering.
Do the right generic engineering and you even get the oil feedstocks you need for plastics. You could even put the algae in a tube on a rooftop as an alternative to PV, if you could resolve the issue of unwanted other phytoplankton getting in and gumming it up.
A lot of agricultural land is wasted growing crops to feed to animals. If we were to lower meat consumption, agriculture land could be freed for other uses without taking away poor people’s food supply.
There exist dumb rich people who drink unpasteurized milk, and then get diarrhea or worse. It seems unimaginative of you to suppose that meat that comes from a live animal will always be necessarily higher quality than meat that comes from cultured cells. I, for one, would prefer a lab grown meat over a farmed meat whose tissues are infused with antibiotics and is generally covered with feces emitted from the slaughtering process
> I, for one, would prefer a lab grown meat over a farmed meat whose tissues are infused with antibiotics and is generally covered with feces emitted from the slaughtering process
For the time being you can find such meat in countries outside the Americas that still have small scale farms, particularly in the EU where the prophylactic use of antibiotics on farm animals is banned since 2018.
" It seems unimaginative of you to suppose ..."
What is it with the personal tone in comments in these sorts of discussions? I've had the absolute worst experience discussing these things on HN, as opposed to all other kinds of discussion. Other discussions are generally civil and polite. When it comes to meat eating and animals' rights, it's a free for all and everyone thiks it's fine to walk all over good manners and attack other commenters' intellect, their morality, anything. I mean, wtf?
Regarding the "unimaginative" comment: OP might have just meant that we are in the very early days of artificial meat and dismissing it now would be tantamount to dismissing the internet in the early 90s.
You might be taking this a tad bit too personal. OP described how your argument sounded to them. They didn't condemn your entire personhood because of it.
It's a personal comment about my imagination. How else am I supposed to take it, if not personally? If the OP didn't want me to take it personally, they should have not made a personal comment.
The primary ingredients in the fake meats being proselytized are plant proteins… meaning massive monocultures, pesticide and herbicide application, fertilizer application and manufacturing, and decimation of many thousands of acres of natural ecosystems. This doesn’t seem like a clear net positive change to me.
I would be interested to hear a comparison on this, but from what I’ve heard the resources that go into growing and feeding livestock is orders of magnitude more intensive than a plant based meal. I honestly don’t know if that would change with something like beyond but I would highly doubt it
Do you realize that much of American beef cattle actually graze on natural grasses for most of their lives… in largely natural settings that support complex natural ecosystem? That will not be the case for “Beyond/Impossible/Soylent” burgers; they will be composed of plant proteins that require toxic monocultures to produce.
Probably not good for individuals. I am a germophobe and my immune system is a lot weaker than my friends who share drinks, eat stuff off the floor, eat street food, kiss random strangers etc[0]
Probably great for the population and likely to increase Earth’s carrying capacity of humans, as is the case with most technological progress (hand washing, plumbing, agricultural techniques increasing food production per hectare, micronutrient fortification). We become dependent on these things and as long as they stick around as reliable infrastructure then we are good
It is important to keep in mind, however, that exposing oneself to pathogens from other humans is distinct from exposing oneself to various neutral microorganisms from the environment that help diversify your micro biome and generally make your immune system stronger. “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” does not apply to oneself and Ebola or HIV or even malaria in a very practical sense. Perhaps most relatable to Hacker News folks is that each infection in one’s body offers a nonzero chance of lowering one’s IQ. That should suffice as reason to avoid disease
Edit: [0] I get sick a lot more easily than they do, and uh, it took me 9 months to recover from Covid (long Covid)
Also good read for everyone: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Introducing-the-Green-Prem...