Normally 2 years wouldn't be much time to go from a research paper to production. But this appears to be a simple solution to an urgent problem so it's hard to be patient.
Wouldn't you agree that markets don't deal effectively with many or most commercial endeavors' unwanted side effects (negative externalities), and so authorities often need to step in when market failure causes damage?
In this case, if the science is real, a global treaty would seem in order to simply mandate the effective use of seaweed in cow feed.
I hope all governments move on things like this, but ultimately, international agencies like the WTO should be, excuse me..., beefed up to deal with these kinds of issues that affect the entire planet and all of its inhabitants.
You can charge more for it? Many consumers are willing to pay more for environmentally-friendlier options now.
As you say, the effect would be small, but why would that stop anyone from doing it?
Here, I'll give it a try: "Think outside the butt."
More broadly, how does cap and trade/carbon tax measure the footprint of a business in the first place? I've found no material on the subject but my guess is that they do it based on the power plant/fuel you're using & how much energy your using. Not sure how they measure gases as a byproduct of industrial processes but maybe that's minuscule?
To be honest, I'm not sure how the emissions measuring is done, but I think it's handled on the supply-side for fuel and electricity in existing implementations. Suppliers just pass on the cost of taxes. For direct agricultural emissions from cattle, you could probably use an estimate based on the average emissions per cow, and provide a deduction based on feed. Maybe with an exemption for small farms.
Satellites, sensors on Google street view cars, etc.
https://www.ted.com/talks/fred_krupp_what_if_we_tracked_meth...
But how about if governments provide subsidised feed centrally, instead, with the algae added?
Why would legislators make regulations that just save the planet but don't make them rich? /s
Of course, it would be much simpler to just stop the nonsensical subsidies of environmentally and ethically disastrous ag products like beef...
Where on earth do people get these beliefs?
On top of the EU sibsidies there are direct national subsisidies and a wide spectrum of indirect national and EU level subsidies like export, pension, environmental, protectionist import duties, etc. And yes, beef production gets a similar share of subsidies as other types of farming.
I can't find good europe wide stats. I may have overgeneralized and the average may be under 50%. But the subsidies are still very high.
~$200B/yr in subsidies in USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_farm_bill
$990B/yr food GDP in USA: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...
Although, of course, it might be! That's why the only way forward is to test it empirically.
the incentive is trivially simple. free seaweed. im assuming there is fiber, and at least some nutrients in seaweed, but no farmer is going to turn down free food. to me it seems like it would be very similar to alfalfa/hay.
not sure what that would cost, or if that much can be produced however. also, dairy farmers at least care very much about the ratios of various feedstocks, so the assumption about nutrition is important.
There is at least one company approaching it from that angle. [http://www.omega3beef.com/]
There is a distinct thermodynamic incentive to reduce methane, because the methanogenic bacteria are "eating" the energy that the cow would otherwise absorb.
This translates directly into a financial incentive, because the cows require less feed.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d58/15b6d22d81070c173f6281...
>Methane is a by-product of the microbial fermentation of carbohydrates in the diets of ruminant animals. Because cattle can lose about 6% of their dietary intake energy as CH4, substantial research to estimate this production and to reduce CH4 emissions has been completed (Johnson and Johnson, 1995).