Vertical farms are facilities that grow crops indoors, vertically stacking multiple layers of plants and providing controlled conditions using artificial light, indoor heating and cooling systems, humidity controls, water pumps, and advanced automation systems. In theory, vertical farms could reduce the need to clear more agricultural land and the distance food travels to market. However, because vertical farms are so energy and material intensive, and food transportation emissions are a small fraction of the overall carbon footprint of food, vertical farms do not reduce emissions overall. We conclude that vertical farms are “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.
Based on our analysis, vertical farms are not an effective climate solution. The tremendous energy use and embodied emissions of vertical farm operations outweigh any potential savings of reducing food miles or land expansion. Moreover, the ability of vertical farms to truly scale to be a meaningful part of the global food system is extremely limited. We therefore classify this as “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.
| Plausible | Could it work? | No |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | Yes |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Yes |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | No |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | No |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | No |
Vertical farms are facilities that grow crops indoors, with multiple layers of plants stacked on top of each other, using artificial lights, large heating and cooling systems, humidity controls, water pumps, and complex building automation systems. In principle, vertical farms can dramatically shrink the land “footprint” of agriculture, and this could help reduce the need for agricultural land. Moreover, by growing crops closer to urban centers, vertical farms could potentially reduce “food miles” and the emissions related to food transport.
The technology of growing some kinds of crops – especially greens and herbs – in indoor facilities is well developed, but there is no evidence to show that doing so can reduce GHG emissions compared to growing the same food on traditional farms. Theoretically, vertical farms could reduce emissions associated with agricultural land expansion and food transportation. However, the operation and construction of vertical farms require enormous amounts of energy and materials, all of which cause significant emissions. Vertical farms require artificial lighting (even with efficient LEDs, this is a considerable energy cost), heating, cooling, humidity control, air circulation, and water pumping – all of which require energy. Vertical farms could be powered by renewable sources; however, this is an inefficient method for reducing GHG emissions compared to using that renewable energy to replace fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation. Growing food closer to urban centers also does not meaningfully reduce emissions because emissions from “food miles” are only a small fraction of the life cycle emissions for most farmed foods. Recent research has found that the carbon footprint of lettuce grown in vertical farms can be 5.6 to 16.7 times greater than that of lettuce grown with traditional methods.
While vertical farms are not an effective strategy for reducing emissions, they may have some value for climate resilience and adaptation. Vertical farms offer a protected environment for crop growth and well-managed water use, and they can potentially shield plants from pests, diseases, and natural disasters. Moreover, the controlled environment can be adjusted to adapt to changing climate conditions, helping ensure continuous production and lowering the risks of crop loss.
Vertical farms use enormous amounts of energy and material to grow a limited array of food, all at significant cost. That energy and material have a significant carbon emissions cost, no matter how efficient the technology becomes. On the whole, vertical farms appear to emit far more GHGs than traditional farms do. Moreover, vertical farms are expensive to build and operate, and are unlikely to play a major role in the world’s food system. At present, they are mainly used to grow high-priced greens, vegetables, herbs, and cannabis, which do not address the tremendous pressure points in the global food system to feed the world sustainably. There are also concerns about the future of the vertical farming business. While early efforts were funded by venture capital, vertical farming has struggled to become profitable, putting its future in doubt.
Blom, T. et al.., 2022. The embodied carbon emissions of lettuce production in vertical farming, greenhouse horticulture, and open-field farming in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 377, 134443. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262204015X
Foley, J.A., 2018. No, Vertical Farms Won’t Feed the World, Medium.
https://globalecoguy.org/no-vertical-farms-wont-feed-the-world-5313e3e961c0
Foley, J.A. et al., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet, Nature.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51714049_Solutions_for_a_Cultivated_Planet?__cf_chl_tk=3GvHOPszA8lA4XlzV9p_VGhwTKKn8AVynj_sEkpcoic-1748638189-1.0.1.1-wwv4XryEJ.SaDI6hYiLLiMSg3MCgNtTwviXWqKD844s
Ritchie, H., 2022. Eating local is still not a good way to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, Sustainability by the numbers. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/food-miles
Indoor urban farms called wasteful, “pie in the sky”, Cornell Chronicle, 2014. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/02/indoor-urban-farms-called-wasteful-pie-sky
Tabibi, Alex. 2024. Vertical Farms: A Tool for Climate Change Adaptation, Green.org. January 30, 2024. Vertical Farms: A Tool for Climate Change Adaptation
The buzz around indoor farms and artificial lighting makes no sense, Michaell Hamm, The Guardian, 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/10/indoor-farming-makes-no-economic-environmental-sense
The vertical farming scam, Stan Cox, Counterpunch, 2012. https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/11/the-vertical-farming-scam/
Enough with the vertical farming fantasies: They are still too many unanswered questions about the trendy practice, Salon. https://www.salon.com/2016/02/17/enough_with_the_vertical_farming_partner/
The Vertical Farming Bubble is Finally Popping, Fast Company, 2023.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90824702/vertical-farming-failing-profitable-appharvest-aerofarms-bowery
Cultivated meat is produced from a sample of animal cells, rather than by slaughtering animals. This technology shows promise for reducing emissions from animal agriculture, but its climate impact depends on the energy source used during production. Research and development are still in early stages, and whether the products can scale depends on continued investments, consumer approval, technological growth, and regulatory acceptance. We conclude that cultivated meat is “Worth Watching” because while the technology shows potential, the evidence about its emissions reduction potential is limited, and the high costs of production may restrain its scalability.
Based on our analysis, cultivated meat is promising in its ability to reduce emissions from meat production, but the impact on a large scale remains unclear. This potential climate solution is “Worth Watching.”
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | Yes |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Limited |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | Yes |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | ? |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | No |
Cultivated meat (also called lab-grown or cultured meat) is a cellular agriculture product that, when used to replace meat from livestock, can reduce emissions. Cultivated meat is developed through bioengineering. Its production uses sample cells from an animal, in addition to a medium that supports cell growth in a bioreactor. Energy is required to produce the ingredients for the growth medium and to run the bioreactor (e.g., for temperature control, the mixing processes, aeration).
Since the development of cultivated meat is still in its infancy, there is limited evidence on its emissions savings potential from large-scale production. Preliminary estimates differ by an order of magnitude, depending on the energy source used in the lab environment. Using fossil energy sources, emissions generated from the production of one kilogram of cultivated meat could reach 25 kilograms CO₂‑eq. If renewable energy is used, emissions could be about two kilograms CO₂‑eq per kilogram of cultivated meat. By comparison, producing a kilogram of beef from livestock generates 80–100 kilograms CO₂‑eq, on average. Almost half of those emissions from livestock beef are in the form of methane. Producing pig meat and poultry meat generates about 12 kilograms and 10 kilograms of CO₂‑eq, respectively. Based on these estimates, cultivated meat could substantially reduce the emissions of beef. Compared to pork and chicken, however, its emissions depend on the source of energy used during production.
The cultivated meat industry is fairly new but growing rapidly. The first cell-cultivated meat product was developed in 2013. In 2024, there were 155 companies involved in the industry, located across six continents, mostly based in the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. Agriculture is responsible for about 22% of global GHG emissions, and raising livestock, especially beef, is particularly emissions-intensive. Therefore, cultivated meat has great potential to reduce related emissions as demand for meat continues to grow across the world. Cultivated meat enables the production of a large amount of meat from a single stem cell. This means that far fewer animals will be needed for meat production. Cultivated meat is also more efficient at converting feed into meat than chickens, which reduces emissions associated with feed production and demand for land.
Concerns about cultivated meat include scalability, cost, and consumer acceptance. Because cultivated meat is still an emerging area of food science, the cost of production may be prohibitive at a large scale. Although cell culture is routinely performed in industrial and academic labs, creating the culture medium for mass-market production at competitive prices will require innovations and significant cost reductions. There are still many unknowns about the commercial potential of cultivated meat and whether consumers will accept the products. In 2024, companies began to move from research labs to larger facilities to start producing meat for consumers. There are only two countries that allow the sale of cultivated meat: Singapore and the United States. Within the United States, about one-third of adults find the concept of cultivated meat appealing, and only about 17% would be likely to purchase it, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Good Food Institute. However, even substituting a fraction of the beef consumed in the United States with cultivated meat could have an important impact on reducing emissions. Cultivated meat is a novel food and may require consumer education and producer transparency on production methods and safeguards in order to become more widely accepted.
Congressional Research Service of the United States (2023). Cell-Cultivated Meat: An Overview https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47697
Garrison, G. L., et al. (2022). How much will large-scale production of cell-cultured meat cost?. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 10: 100358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100358
Good Food Institute (2025). 2024 State of the Industry report: Cultivated meat, seafood, and ingredients. https://gfi.org/resource/cultivated-meat-seafood-and-ingredients-state-of-the-industry/
Good Food Institute (2024). Consumer snapshot: Cultivated meat in the U.S. https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Consumer-snapshot-cultivated-meat-in-the-US.pdf
Good Food Institute (2020). An analysis of culture medium costs and production volumes for cultivated meat https://gfi.org/resource/analyzing-cell-culture-medium-costs/
Gursel, I. et al. (2022). Review and analysis of studies on sustainability of cultured meat. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. https://edepot.wur.nl/563404
Mendly-Zambo, Z., et al. (2021). Dairy 3.0: cellular agriculture and the future of milk. Food, Culture & Society, 24(5), 675–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2021.1888411
MIT Technology Review (2023). Here’s what we know about lab-grown meat and climate change. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/03/1075809/lab-grown-meat-climate-change/
J. Poore, & T. Nemecek (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360, 987-992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Risner, D., et al. (2023) Environmental impacts of cultured meat: A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment. bioRxiv, 2023.04.21.537778; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.21.537778
Sinke, P., et al. (2023). Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 28, 234–254 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8
Treich, N. (2021). Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges. Environ Resource Econ, 79, 33–61 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00551-3
Tuomisto HL, et al. (2022) Prospective life cycle assessment of a bioprocess design for cultured meat production in hollow fiber bioreactors. Science of the Total Environment, 851:158051
World Bank (2024) Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/406c71a3-c13f-49cd-8f3f-a071715858fb
Xu X, Sharma P, Shu S et al (2021) Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food, 2:724–732 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x
Feed additives can reduce enteric methane production in ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep. Most feed additive compounds are still being researched to determine their efficacy and safety; however, at least one product, 3-NOP (3-nitrooxypropanol), has been shown to be effective, has recently been approved for use in several countries, and has experienced some early adoption. However, because of cost and the need to be administered daily, the use of feed additives is currently limited to confined ruminants in high-income countries and is not feasible for the majority of global ruminant livestock. Based on these limitations and current levels of adoption, we conclude that Use Feed Additives is “Worth Watching.”
Based on our analysis, feed additives are a promising technology that could yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions. A few, including 3-NOP, are just on the threshold of commercial adoption and may be widely used by confined ruminant producers in the coming years. The current use of feed additives is low, and the effectiveness of most feed additive compounds is not well-documented. Consequently, wide-scale adoption is largely confined to confined livestock in high-income countries. Based on our assessment, Use Feed Additives is “Worth Watching."
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | No |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Yes |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | Yes |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | Yes |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | Yes |
Feed additives are a diverse group of natural and synthetic compounds that, when fed daily, can reduce enteric methane production in ruminant livestock, including cattle, sheep, and goats. Enteric methane from livestock is the source of 21% of humanity’s methane emissions, or 2.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Feed additives reduce enteric methane production by suppressing the activity of microbes in the digestive system. 3-NOP (3-nitrooxypropanol) is a synthetic that inhibits an enzyme involved in enteric methane production.
More than 170 different feed additives have been developed and tested so far, but only a few of them have been studied enough to offer predictable outcomes and proper doses. Methane reductions from these well-studied additives typically range from 10-30%. The feed additive 3-NOP, the first compound approved for commercial use, reduces enteric methane by an average of 32.5%. A second feed additive derived from active compounds found in Asparagopsis seaweed has shown promising results in some studies and has recently received regulatory approval in two countries. In addition, because different feed additives use different mechanisms to suppress enteric methane production, it’s possible that multiple additives can be used together to achieve greater methane reductions. The great majority of other additives are not yet ready for widespread adoption due to a lack of understanding of effectiveness, side effects on cattle and humans who consume milk from treated cattle, and other concerns.
Ruminants are a major source of methane emissions, yet ruminant meat and dairy products are in high demand. Therefore, any strategy that can reduce methane emissions per kilogram of meat or milk is potentially very valuable and, if broadly adopted, could yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq per year). The feed additive 3-NOP, first approved for commercial use in two countries in 2021, is now legal in 55 countries. Research on other feed additives is active and generally well-supported with funding from philanthropic and investment sources. Although current use of feed additives is very low, successful research and pilot studies, increasing regulatory approvals, and strong positive interest from the livestock industry suggest that wider-scale adoption of this emissions reduction technology could occur quickly. In addition to potential emissions reduction benefits, some additives offer other benefits such as increased productivity and parasite control.
Because they must be fed daily as a supplement to a concentrated feed, use of feed additives is limited to ruminants managed under confined conditions. Most of the billions of ruminant animals today are raised or managed in extensive grazing or pastoralist systems, often in small herds in remote areas. This makes use of feed additives infeasible, although some research is underway to develop methane-reducing compounds that could be added to water troughs instead of to feed. Feed additives are also costly. Though they may be cost-effective in terms of dollars per ton of CO₂‑eq reduced, the cost of additives themselves would likely be prohibitive for smallholders and pastoralists in low-income countries. These limitations mean that feed additives, as currently under development, are only suitable for a subset of total ruminant livestock – those that are raised in confinement systems in wealthy countries. The great majority of feed additives are not yet ready for widespread adoption due to a lack of understanding of effectiveness, side effects on cattle and humans who consume milk from treated cattle, and other concerns. There are also other challenges, including regulatory issues, public acceptance, and effects on livestock and human health. There is also concern that feed additives could be used to divert attention from the importance of reducing ruminant meat and milk products in the diets of wealthy countries and reducing food waste of ruminant products.
Almeida, A. K., Hegarty, R. S., & Cowie, A. (2021). Meta-analysis quantifying the potential of dietary additives and rumen modifiers for methane mitigation in ruminant production systems. Animal Nutrition, 7(4), 1219-1230.
Batley, R. J., Chaves, A. V., Johnson, J. B., Naiker, M., Quigley, S. P., Trotter, M. G., & Costa, D. F. (2024). Rapid screening of methane-reducing compounds for deployment in livestock drinking water using in vitro and FTIR-ATR analyses. Methane, 3(4), 533-560.
Canadell, J.G., P.M.S. Monteiro, M.H. Costa, L. Cotrim da Cunha, P.M. Cox, A.V. Eliseev, S. Henson, M. Ishii, S. Jaccard, C. Koven, A. Lohila, P.K. Patra, S. Piao, J. Rogelj, S. Syampungani, S. Zaehle, and K. Zickfeld, 2021: Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. P.an, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekci, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 673–816, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.007
Foley, J. (2021) To stop climate change, time is as important as tech. February 20, 2021, Medium. https://globalecoguy.org/to-stop-climate-change-time-is-as-important-as-tech-1be4beb7094a
Hanson, M. (2024) What can we really expect from Elanco’s new Bovaer ®?. Dairy Herd Management, June 24, 2024. https://www.dairyherd.com/news/education/what-can-we-really-expect-elancos-new-bovaerr
Herrmann, M (2023) The rise of the ‘climate-friendly’ cow. April 26, 2023, DeSmog. https://www.desmog.com/2023/04/26/rise-of-the-climate-friendly-cow/
Hodge, I., Quille, P., & O’Connell, S. (2024). A review of potential feed additives intended for carbon footprint reduction through methane abatement in dairy cattle. Animals, 14(4), 568.
Krogsad, K (2024) Dairy cow enteric carbon mitigation calculator. https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdairy.osu.edu%2Fsites%2Fdairy%2Ffiles%2Fimce%2FVideos_and_Software%2FDairy%2520Carbon%2520Return%2520Calculator%25202.0.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
Morse, Cameron (2024) Rumin8 achieves first regulatory approval in New Zealand. July 22, 2024 Rumin8.com. https://rumin8.com/rumin8-achieves-first-regulatory-approval-in-new-zealand/
Morse, Cameron (2024) Rumin8 achieves first regulatory approval in Brazil. October 8, 2024 Rumin8.com.
https://rumin8.com/rumin8-achieves-first-regulatory-approval-in-brazil/
Nabuurs, G-J., R. Mrabet, A. Abu Hatab, M. Bustamante, H. Clark, P. Havlík, J. House, C. Mbow, K.N. Ninan, A. Popp, S. Roe, B. Sohngen, S. Towprayoon, 2022: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.009
Paddision, Laura (2023) Bill Gates backs start-up tackling cow burps and farts. CNN.com, January 24, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/world/cows-methane-emissions-seaweed-bill-gates-climate-intl/index.html
Roques, S., Martinez-Fernandez, G., Ramayo-Caldas, Y., Popova, M., Denman, S., Meale, S. J., & Morgavi, D. P. (2024). Recent advances in enteric methane mitigation and the long road to sustainable ruminant production. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, 12(1), 321-343.
