It is an environmental problem because the resources required to obtain the same caloric/nutritional content from meat is far higher than the alternatives. If the "better method" is better than our current method of meat production but still too intensive to maintain at scale then it doesn't solve the problem without reducing the scale of meat consumption.

That doesn't mean nobody can eat meat, it just means that on average people need to eat LESS meat.

Why are you so against people eating less meat? Your arguments here are akin to the "nuclear energy" bros who rag on renewables all day. Just like we can use renewables and rely on nuclear to fill any gaps, we can lessen meat consumption and rely on less intensive forms of meat production to fill the gaps.

It's not available. It's an expensive, comparatively hands-on process that can only produce good ground beef and shitty everything else.

You know something that tastes like meat, has the texture of meat, and has the nutritional qualities of meat? Fucking meat, which you could still have if you really wanted it, you'd just have to do it once every few weeks instead of twice a day.

Failing that, there's already a high protein meat substitute that has good texture, flavor and is super cheap in terms of labor and water, it's called a mushroom.

it really proves that it's not about the environment and y'all just want to force your choices

Lmao. Believe it or not, most people don't give a single shit about your dietary choices. I love meat myself, if lab grown meat were as good, could be as cheap, or as labor efficient, I'd be all for it like I am for, say, nuclear. But it just ain't so, this futurist fetishism that some libs have is so fucking ridiculous and it's really telling that when people tell you why it's just not feasible your first instinct is to go "you're literally 1984ing me rn"