That language has my BS detector going off. First of all, the words alamrist is there. So I start looking at the BBC article, which is less doom and gloom than the disco-institute's take, and then I looked up the ( original peer reviewed paper ), and here's the main takeaway:
We conclude that cultured meat is not prima facie climatically superior to cattle; its relative impact instead depends on the availability of decarbonized energy generation and the specific production systems that are realized.
In other words, a great deal of the carbon intensity of labgrown vs naturally raised depends on the source of the power hook-up for the lab. Lab grown meat looks better under a carbon-free energy regime (solar/wind/nuclear) than a carbon energy regime (CH4 or Coal).
Furthermore, if you look at the discussion section of this paper, the authors put so many caveats about the assumptions needed to run the numbers since there's no commercially viable, let alone extant, lab grown meat production at the moment that they had to estimate their energy use. At best this paper should be seen as back of the envelope math, that's been checked over by a few volunteers that are knowledgeable in the field. This is definitely not the final word on the topic.
As for the source of the link, I looked at sidebar and see an article by Micheal Egnor (or as I think of him Ignore) the about page, and of course it's published, so I look at the about page, and the website is published by the Discovery Institute. That's a major red flag.
Armand, I'm not saying you should outright ignore this source, but if you can find anything on the same topic from another site, please do.