I was disappointed to learn the Building for Power campaign, put forward by the Green New Deal Campaign Commission of the Democratic Socialists of America, doesn’t seem to address the enormous environmental damage caused by animal agriculture. Building for Power focuses on four areas: energy, transit, housing, and public spaces. Unfortunately, our food system is a massive contributor to climate change, and it’s hard to take seriously an ecosocialism which doesn’t recognize this and plan accordingly.

I should begin by acknowledging the reasons why I suspect greenhouse-gas emissions associated with animal agriculture aren’t addressed by Building for Power. The first is any critical discussion of meat and other animal products is sure to spark a right-wing backlash. The second is suggestions for addressing environmental harms caused by animal agriculture are often individualistic in nature. Of course, just because a discussion represents a political third rail doesn’t make it any less necessary, and potential solutions needn’t be so focused on consumer choices, oblivious to the economic forces which help shape them.

“Conservative estimates by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization say animal agriculture is responsible for 14.5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions globally (the industry has lobbied to reduce that estimate further, and were successful recently to now say about 12 percent),” Will Potter writes in his excellent 2025 book, Little Red Barns. “Some estimates put animal agriculture’s contributions higher, at 28 percent to 37 percent. A report by the WorldWatch Institute placed it at a minimum of 51 percent.” The author noted these numbers don’t factor in the carbon opportunity costs of rewilding land associated with animal agriculture.

There are many ways ecosocialists could plausibly use the levers of government to encourage a transition to a more environmentally-friendly food system. One method would be a massive increase in state and federal funding into alternative-protein research, in the hopes vegan and cultivated options can achieve price and taste parity with animal-based protein. Consumers frequently cite these two factors to explain why they don’t adopt alternative options. For those who aren’t aware, cultivated meat is grown from livestock cells, without killing. Scientists believe the product, which remains in early stages of development, will eventually require a fraction of the greenhouse-gas emissions necessary to produce slaughtered meat.

In professional taste-test panels run by the nonprofit Food Systems Innovations, no existing plant-based options fully satisfied omnivores’ expectations, though the Impossible Burger came close, according to Good Food Institute founder Bruce Friedrich in his fantastic 2026 book, Meat. This makes sense, given Impossible spent years and millions of dollars developing the product. I see no reason, however, why it can’t be improved upon, with the help of artificial intelligence and further human research.

A significant problem for the plant-based sector is there is a wide variation in quality and those products which come closest to meeting omnivores’ desires are often significantly more expensive than traditional meat. Ecosocialists could help address this with publicly-funded, open-access research into vegan meat. The goal, of course, would be to make the taste of Impossible Burgers the plant-based sector’s floor, as opposed to its ceiling, and improve upon taste from there. Such research would aim to lower the costs as well.

In contrast to plant-based meat, cultivated meat is identical to incumbent options at a cellular level. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to try the product, which has only been sold in a handful of restaurants, but I’ve heard — aside from an occasional comment saying the texture needs further work — the taste is indistinguishable from slaughtered meat. The main barriers to cultivated products appearing in your local grocery store are various technological hurdles which, for now, render the protein too expensive to mass produce.

Ecosocialists should back the creation of facilities like the Tufts University Center for Cellular Agriculture at schools across the country. “Our goal is to do really good research, and propel educational opportunities for students as the field grows, and the field will grow,” TUCCA’s director, David Kaplan, said to Tufts Daily. “At the same time we try and build partnerships with industry to understand where their needs are going forward.” I have no doubt that, working together, government-backed scientists can overcome the technological hurdles impeding the mass production of cultivated meat.

TUCCA has been funded with an initial $10-million grant from President Joe Biden’s Department of Agriculture, supplemented by $2 million from Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey’s administration. More recently, Senator Adam Schiff and Representative Julia Brownley introduced a bill that would allocate more than $500 million toward the research and development of alternative proteins, including cultivated meat. Surely self-avowed ecosocialists can offer more robust funding to this effort to usher in an environmentally-friendly food system than centrist Democrats like Biden, Healey, Schiff and Brownley.

Animal agriculture is a leading cause of greenhouse-gas emissions. Ecosocialists refusing to acknowledge this, and making their policy platform reflect that reality, due to political inconvenience, isn’t so different from climate denialism. It’s especially egregious given moderate liberals appear willing to engage with the issue. The Democratic Socialists of America‘s Building for Power campaign should include animal agriculture as an area of focus and agitate for a host of government interventions intended to transition the country toward an agricultural system centered on greater consumption of plant-based and cultivated proteins.

Jon Hochschartner is a member of Connecticut Democratic Socialists of America. Visit his website at SlaaughterFreeAmerica.Substack.com.

---