The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is set to reduce the US’s carbon footprint in the years ahead, however, it neglects the significant carbon contributions from agricultural practices. Taxing practices in meat farming and beefing up on meat alternatives are among the suggested solutions researchers encourage. 

The historic IRA – which is on track to become law– is set to drastically reduce the US’s carbon footprint over the next decade. 

The bill contains US$369 billion in funding for clean energy and electric vehicle tax breaks, domestic manufacturing of batteries and solar panels and pollution reduction.

However, less than 5% of this funding will be channeled into changing farming practices and the reduction of agricultural emissions; which currently accounts for 11% of US greenhouse gas emissions. 

The spending also ignores agriculture’s biggest climate culprit: meat and dairy production.

Lowering agricultural emissions
The majority of the funding for agriculture will go to farmers to encourage the employment of methods of farming labeled “climate-smart” by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

However, such urged behaviors may not be particularly climate-smart, according to New York University (NYU) environmental studies professor Matthew Hayek and Harvard Law policy scholar Jan Dutkiewicz, as they are unlikely to make a significant impact on emissions.

Meat is cheap because the industry’s emissions, animal cruelty, pollution and labor infractions are poorly regulated.These actions include enhancing the health of the soil, lessening water pollution and safeguarding native flora and pollinators. They are sensible, desirable practices, according to academia, but they won’t significantly lower agricultural emissions.

Even if the funds allocated to reducing emissions from agriculture are misplaced, the tactic of rewarding good deeds rather than punishing polluters for bad deeds is politically astute and in line with the bill’s “carrot rather than stick” approach to energy. 

By 2030, this strategy is expected to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 2005 levels.

However, climate researchers add “even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, we won’t be able to meet the Paris climate agreement’s targets without shrinking food’s carbon footprint too, and agricultural emissions stand primary to this.”

The fight to change the meat-centric food system to a more plant-based one has historically concentrated on the stick strategy: suing farms for pollution, outlawing the confinement of hens and pigs in cages, and even putting the idea of a tax on meat consumption on the table.

But, as difficult as passing climate legislation was, reforming the meat industry in the US poses even greater challenges.

High political steaks
According to the National Chicken Council, red meat consumption in the US has seen a steady decrease since the 1960s, but according to data, it plateaued a decade ago and the expectation of cheap, abundant meat among US citizens has grown.

Members of Mercy for Animals, a California-based non-profit organization, say the reason why the price of meat is so low is that the industry’s emissions, animal welfare, air and water pollution and labor infractions are poorly regulated and enforced.

Pricing those mostly unpriced costs would increase the price of meat, but some of Washington’s most progressive lawmakers would face challenges passing such a law. As recently seen internationally, there would be significant repercussions if there were enough political courage to take on the big meat crisis.

Dutch farmers, for example, blocked highways in protest of policymakers who want to limit livestock herds in order to reduce nitrogen pollution.

Alex Smith, at the technology-focused environmental group the Breakthrough Institute, has called meat “the third rail of climate politics.” He suggests there may be a panacea and it’s through the meat vortex.

The meat vortex
The phrase is a play on the original “green vortex,” which was created by Robinson Meyer of the Atlantic when he saw that as green technology improves and becomes more affordable, it becomes simpler to adopt and enforce climate change legislation.

When choosing between costly renewable energy and inexpensive coal, the more environmentally friendly option appears to be a financial sacrifice. However, as the cost of renewable energy decreases, so does societal and political opposition to it. Smith contends that as plant-based substitutes advance, the same might occur with meat.

The Good Food Institute (GFI) is an organization that advocates for plant-based and cell-cultured meat and it has a strategy to guide countries through this vortex.

It begins with the National Science Foundation and the USDA awarding researchers US$1 billion in R&D grants; by comparison, that sum represents barely 5% of the IRA’s agriculture expenditure.When choosing between renewable energy and coal, the more environmentally friendly option appears to be a financial sacrifice.

GFI has many suggestions for how to use the funds to enhance plant-based meat, including growing crops with greater protein levels and altering the fat composition of plants. Research opportunities abound in the field of cell-cultured meat (meat produced by the growth of animal cells in bioreactors) which is still in its early stages.

Beefing up on alternatives
The funding of alternative protein research has already acquired considerable traction because of organizations like GFI and New Harvest who have received modest funds from the USDA, the National Science Foundation, and the California legislature.

Alternative protein research, however, is not without its detractors. As sales of plant-based meat and dairy stagnated in 2021, there has been a feeling of a plateaued category in the air recently about the prospects for these products. 

Nevertheless, it has been a few years since the industry captivated the public’s interest in how a different meat system may appear and taste. Before prices started to decrease significantly, renewable energy was similarly thought to be an unrealistic solution for many years. According to Smith, it would be premature to write the vegetarian meat sector down.

“We have these basic plant-based alternatives, but we really don’t have great alternatives yet. We don’t have [products] that are jumping off the shelves because they’re just so good.”