You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
There will not be one type of cultured chicken. There will be kosher cultured chicken, halal cultured chicken, and ... vegan cultured chicken?

When you’re a vegetarian, you get used to dealing with sneering, horrified, nosy, and bewildered questions of “...but why?!”
My own well-practiced answer — designed to minimize confrontation — goes something like this: I was raised not eating red meat and then when I was a teenager, I became obsessed with our cultural disconnect from our food and decided that if I couldn’t stomach killing and preparing an animal myself, then I had no right to eat it. But don’t worry, my husband eats meat! I’m not judgmental!
The truth is actually much more complicated and nuanced (my “long version” includes anecdotes about my stint at a wildlife rehabilitation center, my father’s heart attack, and an explanation of why I eat meat when I travel abroad), but I usually don’t get that far when talking with strangers. That’s because what we eat and why are deeply personal questions that can touch on everything from one’s religious beliefs to their code of ethics, cultural and philosophical values, health, and concerns about environmental impact. Every person who observes dietary restrictions around meat has spent at least some time — perhaps very little, maybe every single day — privately weighing these considerations.
Then earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture threw all of that carefully considered reasoning out the window by approving the sale of lab-grown chicken.
Don’t get me wrong: This is incredible news. Around 15% of global emissions come from livestock farming (including dairy and eggs), and it would likely be impossible to get everyone on the planet to switch to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Indeed, for animal rights activists, “cell-cultivated” or “cultured” meat has long been akin to cold fusion for food — that is, a science-fiction solution that theoretically fixes everything.
But now, using cells harvested from live animals, companies like Upside Foods and Good Meat are able to safely grow animal fat and muscle tissue in stainless steel tanks, resulting in what is essentially slaughter-free animal protein for human consumption. When I spoke with the influential animal welfare philosopher Peter Singer a few months ago about the ethical quandaries of eating meat during the climate crisis, he’d cited such advancements in cultured meat (at the time, only available in Singapore) as an exciting, if far-off, opportunity, telling me “if we can get that economically competitive, maybe that’ll be a solution to the problem.”
The widespread proliferation of cultured meat is admittedly still a long way off. For the time being, lab-grown chicken will only be sold in select U.S. restaurants and an enormous amount of scaling is required for cultured meat to begin to replace industrial farming. There are also concerns that current production methods are not actually more sustainable than live-animal farming. Plus, there is a squeamish factor of “meat grown in tanks” to be cleared.
But the USDA approval is still nothing short of a game-changer. “I’m vegan for ethical reasons, and so if people can enjoy the familiar tastes of meat and textures of chicken and whatever else without animals dying, then that’s a huge win in my book,” Nisha Vora, a vegan recipe developer and cookbook author who runs the YouTube channel and blog Rainbow Plant Life, told me. Still, “it will be weird to eat chicken!” she admitted.
Vora isn’t sure yet how much lab-grown meat will factor into her future recipes, explaining that many of her followers are interested in whole foods and cooking that is meat-adjacent, “so I don’t think I have a huge swath of my audience that’s really like, ‘oh, I can’t wait for meat,’ you know?” She observed, though, that lab-grown meat could potentially make labor-intensive parts of some of her recipes, like her popular vegan Crunchwrap Supreme dupe, easier and quicker, albeit not quite as healthy. “If you are vegan for health reasons, or you’re plant-based for health reasons … then maybe that’s not what you want to be eating,” she pointed out.
Omnivores might be scratching their heads at these fine nuances, wondering why they’re a big deal: No animals are killed, can’t you people ever be happy? But it’s actually the fact that the animals aren’t killed that might prevent a quarter of the world’s population from eating lab-grown meat.
Many religions have customs regarding meat consumption, including Judaism, Hinduism, certain denominations of Christianity, and Islam — groups that together make up approximately half of the global population. That means there is a lot of confusion and theological debate when it comes to cultured meat. As The Washington Post once memorably put it, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, but you’re not supposed to eat a duck, does God consider this ‘cheating’?”
The answer is, it depends.
Take halal, the Islamic laws governing food. A number of rules must be met for meat to be considered permissible to eat, including proper slaughtering of the animal. It is, for example, forbidden to eat an animal that dies naturally and becomes a carcass. This is an essential technicality for the 25% of people globally who keep halal.
“Any severed part of a surviving (land) livestock animal can become a carcass” — including its cells, one recent Malaysian study explained. As such, lab-grown meat would only be halal if the animal the cells were collected from was “slaughtered according to the Shariah law.” Such an interpretation has been echoed by religious authorities in Pakistan and Indonesia, the two countries with the largest Muslim populations. (Kosher-slaughtered origin animals may be acceptable in the eyes of rabbis, too, although Jewish authorities have gone back and forth on the matter).
But using cells from a slaughtered animal might be a non-starter for some hardcore animal rights activists since the shift makes the lab-grown cells ever so slightly less cruelty-free. PETA has long been a proponent and backer of cultivated meat, although on the grounds that “no animal died for it.” As PETA’s Catie Cryar clarified for me, “It is our hope that the original process used to obtain cells will be superseded by scientific advances, but at the very least, our goal would be to have no additional animals slaughtered after the original cell lines were obtained.” That means there is potentially a world in which even cultured meat gets labels distinguishing it as either “vegan friendly” or “halal and kosher” (currently, most cultivated meats are made from live-animal cells).
Hindus, meanwhile, may not eat cultured beef regardless of its origin due to the sacred status of cows, one 2020 survey found, although overall Hinduism was “the only religious group who were … more willing to eat cultured meat than conventional meat … perhaps highlighting the motivation to avoid harming animals.” And of course, all of this generalizes the positions of enormously diverse world religions — every worshipper will have their own perspective.
Then there is a whole other sect of non-meat-eaters that we’ve largely ignored: those who abstain for health reasons. While meat substitutes on the market today are made from plants, lab-grown meat is still animal meat. But that also means eating cultured steaks isn’t any better for you than eating real steaks. Even if cellular meat does eventually take off, there will be plenty of people who avoid it simply because they don’t want to include meat in their diet, no matter what its animal or, uh, tank of origin is.
Now let me guess, you nosy Nelly — you’re wondering at this point what I am going to do? I admit my thinking has been all over the place. Sure, when it comes to my animal-ethics-forward viewpoints, there should be nothing stopping me from eating lab-grown meat. I’m a big believer in open-mindedness and adaption and I fully support lab-grown meat being available on the wider market. But I also enjoy the health benefits of eating plant-based, and it’s conceptually just strange to think of myself eating chicken protein even if no chickens were harmed in the making of my meal.
Mostly I just think it’s funny how one little USDA stamp of approval has the potential to unmoor my entire identity as a vegetarian — whatever that even means anymore. We’ll probably need to come up with new terms to distinguish between people who don’t eat animal proteins, period, and people who don’t eat slaughtered animals.
I’m sure, also, that there will eventually be a need for a term to describe meat purists who avoid tank-grown proteins. Then at last it’ll be my turn to snort and ask, “...but why?!”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
But this might all be moot thanks to the “major questions doctrine.”
Could President Trump’s expansive interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act empower a future president to, gasp, tariff carbon intensive goods?
That’s the terrifying prospect Justice Neil Gorsuch, a staunch conservative who often votes in line with Trump and his administration’s positions, raised to Solicitor General D. John Sauer in Wednesday’s oral arguments in the federal court case seeking to throw out Trump’s tariffs.
In a series of questions designed to draw out what limits Sauer thought existed on executive power, Gorsuch asked, “Could the president impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?” (This echoed the language of the statute the Solicitor General cited to justify the tariffs.)
“It’s very likely that could be done,” Sauer conceded.
“I think that would have to be the logic of your view,” Gorsuch replied.
“Obviously this administration would say that’s a hoax, this is not a real crisis,” Sauer said.
“I’m sure you would,” Gorsuch said to chuckles.
“But that would be a question for Congress, under our interpretation, not the courts,” Sauer said.
Gorsuch’s questioning touched on the “major questions doctrine,” first propounded in the court’s 2022 opinion in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. In that case, which resulted in the court striking down the Obama-era Clean Power Plan power plant regulations, the conservative majority argued that “given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the authority it claims,” which it claimed the rules lacked.
In a note to clients following the emissions rules case, the white shoe law firm Davis Polk wrote that the majority opinion “does not provide guidance for applying the major questions doctrine in future cases,” but noted that a concurrence authored by Justice Gorsuch “attempted to provide such guidance for future cases.” In said concurrence, Gorsuch wrote that the major questions doctrine could be invoked when the executive branch is dealing with a question of “great political significance” or “a significant portion of the American economy.”
Hmm!
Some progressives flagged this aspect of the tariffs case as it worked its way through the courts, pointing out that it could call into question powers that future presidents may want to use to implement expansive industrial policy, including climate policy. Some of the broader legal arguments against the tariffs, Todd Tucker of the progressive Roosevelt Institute wrote in a brief, “tilt the scales overwhelmingly against progressive priorities.”
“Limits on Trump today will bind future presidents tomorrow. This could include centrists, progressives, MAGA types, or traditional conservatives, who will need or want robust executive tools to address ruinous competitiveness or climate emergencies.”
But in pursuit of their clients’ interests, advocates for striking down the tariffs were more than happy to pick up the thread dropped by Gorsuch to make libertarian-leaning arguments about presidential powers.
“It is simply implausible that in enacting” the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the law Trump has used to justify his retributive import taxes, “Congress handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs or any and every product from any and every country at any and all times,” Neal Katyal, the lawyer arguing on behalf of a beer and wine distributor and a longtime figure in Democratic legal circles, said in his oral argument.
Perhaps seeking to appeal to the Republican majority on the court, Katyal returned to Justice Gorsuch’s climate change example, arguing that “if the government wins, another president could declare a ’climate emergency’ and impose huge tariffs without floors or ceilings, as Justice Gorsuch said.”
“My friend’s answer,” Katyal said, referring to Sauer, “is, ‘This administration would declare it a hoax.’ The next president may not quite say that.”
Many legal experts thought that the administration got the worse of the oral arguments and questioning of the attorneys, with conservative Justices Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts all asking skeptical questions of Sauer, while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito repeatedly threw the White House argumentative lifelines, including, in Alito’s case, suggesting other laws that could justify the tariffs.
Alito even gently mocked Katyal, a Democrat who served as acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, for blatantly using conservative-tinged legal arguments about the scope of executive authority over the economy.
“I wonder if you ever thought that your legacy as a constitutional advocate would be the man who revived the non-delegation argument,” referring to the idea that certain powers are too much akin to lawmaking to delegate to the executive branch, which in theory could vastly restrict the authority of regulators.
But Katyal resisted the implied contradiction and persisted in targeting the right wing of an already conservative Supreme Court.
“Heck yes,” Katyal said. “I think Justice Gorsuch nailed it on the head when saying that when you’re dealing with a statute that is this open-ended — unlike anything we’ve ever seen.”
On Massachusetts’ offshore headwinds, Biden’s gas rules, and Australia’s free power
Current conditions: The Pacific Northwest is getting blasted with winds of up to 70 miles per hour • Heavy snow is coming this week for the higher elevations in New England and upstate New York • San Cristóbal de La Laguna in the Canary Islands saw temperatures surge to 95 degrees Fahrenheit.

Democratic candidates swept to victory in key races with implications for climate change on Tuesday night. In Virginia, Democrat Abigail Spanberger — who vowed to push forward with offshore wind, new nuclear reactors, and fusion energy — seized the governor’s mansion in the first major race to be called after polls closed. In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill, who campaigned on building new nuclear plants and pressing the state’s grid operator, PJM Interconnection, to cut electricity prices, trounced her Republican opponent. In New York City, Democrat Zohran Mamdani, who said little about energy during his campaign but came out in the last debate in favor of nuclear power, easily beat back his two rivals for Gracie Mansion. Yet the Georgia Public Service Commission's incumbent Republican Tim Echols lost his race against Democrat Alicia Johnson, a defeat for a conservative who championed construction of the only two nuclear reactors built from scratch in modern U.S. history. In what one expert called a sign of a “seismic shift” on the commission, Peter Hubbard, another Democrat running to flip a seat on the commission, also won.
At a moment when the Trump administration is “disassembling climate policy across the federal government,” Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote, “state elections are arguably more important to climate action than ever.”
A federal judge in Washington ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration can reconsider the Biden-era approval of SouthCoast Wind off the coast of Nantucket, Massachusetts. The decision, reported in The New York Times, is a setback for the joint venture between EDP Renewables and Engie, and handed the White House a victory in what we’ve called here the administration’s “total war on wind.” Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the project developers would not “suffer immediate and significant hardship” if the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management were allowed to reevaluate the project’s construction and operation permits.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld Biden-era Department of Energy efficiency rules for gas-fired residential furnaces and commercial water heaters in a ruling that rejected the gas industry’s challenge on Tuesday. “Overall, we find that DOE’s economic justification analysis and conclusions were robust,” the panel ruled, according to Bloomberg Law. The decision will maintain the status quo of how the agency enforces energy efficiency rules for the appliances. Under standards updated in 2021 and 2023, the Biden-era bureaucrats proposed raising efficiency levels to 95% for furnaces and using condensing model designs to heat water.
White House budget officials pressed the Environmental Protection Agency to expand its rollback of tailpipe regulations this summer as the agency sought to repeal the foundational policy that undergirds federal climate rules, E&E News reported. Documents the green newswire service obtained showed the White House Office of Management and Budget pushed the environmental regulator to weaken limits on vehicular pollution, including soot and smog-forming compounds in addition to planet-heating carbon. The EPA initially pushed back, but the documents revealed the staffers at OMB demanded the agency pursue a more aggressive rollback.
Australia launched a new plan to force energy companies to offer free electricity to households during the day to use excess solar power and push the grid away from coal and gas. The policy, called the “Solar Sharer” plan, aims to take advantage of the country’s vast rooftop solar panels. More than 4 million of Australia’s 10.9 million households have panels, and the capacity has overtaken the nation’s remaining coal-fired power stations. The proposal, the Financial Times reported, would also extend the benefits of distributed solar resources to the country’s renters and apartment dwellers.
For years, nuclear scientists have dreamed of harnessing atomic energy from thorium, potentially shrinking radioactive waste and reducing the risk of weapons proliferation compared to uranium. In the West, that has remained largely a dream. In China, however, researchers are vaulting ahead. This week, Chinese scientists announced a major breakthrough in converting thorium to uranium in a reactor. “This marks the first time international experimental data has been obtained after thorium was introduced into a molten salt reactor, making it the only operational molten salt reactor in the world to have successfully incorporated thorium fuel,” Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences said in a statement.
Rob and Jesse touch base with WeaveGrid CEO Apoorv Bhargava.
Data centers aren’t the only driver of rising power use. The inexorable shift to electric vehicles — which has been slowed, but not stopped, by Donald Trump’s policies — is also pushing up electricity use across the country. That puts a strain on the grid — but EVs could also be a strength.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk to Apoorv Bhargava, the CEO and cofounder of WeaveGrid, a startup that helps people charge their vehicles in a way that’s better and cleaner for the grid. They chat about why EV charging remains way too complicated, why it should be more like paying a cellphone bill than filling up at a gas station, and how the AI boom has already changed the utility sector.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: In your experience, are consumers willing to make this deal, where they get some money off on their power bill in order to change how their car works? Because it does seem to include a mindset change for people, where they’re going from thinking of their car as a machine — I mean, this is part of the broader transition to EVs. But there’s an even further mindset shift that seems to me like it would be required here, where you go from thinking about your car as a machine that you wholly own — that enables your freedom, that is ready to drive a certain amount of miles at any time — to a machine that enables you to have transportation services but also is one instantiation of the great big cloud of services and digital technologies and commodity energy products that surround us at any time.
Apoorv Bhargava: Yeah, I mean, look, I think we have seen faster adoption rates than any other consumer-side resource participating in energy has. So I feel very good about that. But ultimately, I think of this as a transition to the normal experience for folks who are going through what is a new experience altogether.
Again, similar to my cell phone plan, if this was just offered to me as a standard offering — you buy an EV, your utility offers you a plan, it’s called the EV plan — in the same way that we have EV time-of-use rates, quote-unquote. If you’re just offered an EV plan where it’s exactly the same thing — I’m going to make sure you’re fully charged every night in the way you want it to be charged, with the cleanest, cheapest, most reliable charging possible, and it’s just being taken care of.
I think what’s so hard for most folks to grok, is that the way this experience works is it’s supposed to be completely frictionless, right? You’re really supposed to not think about it. It’s actually only in the few moments where you need to change your 99% behavior to the 1% behavior — where you’re like, Oh, I need to go to the airport, or, Oh, I need to go on a road trip. That’s where you need to think about it. It’s flipped from thermostat management programs where you actually need to think about it actively in the moments where the grid is really strained.
Where we’ve overinvested, in my view —and this is a controversial view — we’ve overinvested in trying to make EVs be like gas stations or like the gas station model. We keep talking about it all the time. We’ve over-talked about range anxiety. The fact of the matter is 80% of charging still happens at home. Even in the long run, 30% of charging will happen in the workplace. 50- plus-percent will happen at home. It’s very little charging that’s gonna happen on fast charging. But we’ve talked so much, ad nauseam, about fast charging that we’ve actually forgotten that underpinning the iceberg of the electrification cost is the grid itself. And never before has the grid been so strained.
Mentioned:
Rob on how electricity got so expensive
Utility of the Future: An MIT Energy Initiative response to an industry in transition, December 2016
Previously on Shift Key: Utility Regulation Really Sucks
Jesse’s downshift; Rob’s upshift.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Uplight is a clean energy technology company that helps energy providers unlock grid capacity by activating energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy. The Uplight Demand Stack — which integrates energy efficiency, electrification, rates, and flexibility programs — improves grid resilience, reduces costs, and accelerates decarbonization for energy providers and their customers. Learn more at uplight.com/heatmap.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.