I fully agree with you that a food culture that centers around meat is a Bad Thing for the environment and for many individuals. I also agree that true pricing of meat, car-based transportation, and other lifestyle choices we make is a Very Good Thing. As I was reading your article I was reminded, though, that for people with fewer diet options-- the poor, the elderly, the very busy, those with certain health issues-- meat can actually be a really essential, protein and iron-packed part of the diet. I guess I share with Al Gore the pragmatic concern that certain environmentally-friendly lifestyle changes are going to seem all liberal-elite (yeah, we're going to have to get over that and I think we can, but that's another post). But also, I'm uncomfortable with the awareness that I am lucky to be able to absorb the higher costs of gas and grain because I have the time, money, and education to change my habits in certain ways. Lots of other people don't. How do we move to true pricing and respect that other people have fewer options? It's easy to be glib about this.

How do we move to true pricing and respect that other people have fewer options?

One way would be to enact a sort of "affirmative action" policy--government subsidies--for local farmers who grow fresh fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, and other healthy foods that are currently at a serious disadvantage, price-wise, compared to beef and corn, which are heavily subsidized.

The imbalance caused by the artificially low cost of beef will require, for a time, some artificial support on the vegetable/fruit side of the equation.

In addition to the environmental benefits, all of this ties in with a future in which universal healthcare is available: improve the diet of every American citizen by making healthy food affordable, and you'll see lower rates of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc., all of which come with high costs to the individual as well as society.

Of course, you can just hear the carnivores squealing already...

What if "true pricing" isn't enough? Then we should impose a heavy tax on meat until meat consumption gets down to a level you approve? BTW, meat eating isn't the main contributor to the obesity epidemic. We could solve that problem too by making all food a lot more expensive. How about a simple calorie tax? Let loose your inner Milton Friedman.

Ezra, I followed you out on this food limb. http://www.realitybase.org/journal/2008/6/6/eating-is-worse-for-the-planet-than-driving-update-no-its-no.html But I did some more research and retracted it in a June 8 update to that post. EPA data show that 80% of US GHGs come from burning fossil fuels and that the total from all agriculture is only about 6%. Driving contributes 3 times more to global warming than does eating, instead of being 1/2 as significant, as was implied by misusing data in the Carnegie Mellon report. It's still OK to be a foodie.

Don't forget to add to the list of people with fewer diet options: Those of us who have nut allergies.

Read the labels of many of the vegetarian and vegan foods out there today; a very significant percentage include walnuts, almonds, etc. Fail.

Of course, there's also the fact that killing the cows to make the burgers is wrong.

I'm a vegetarian, but really, when it comes to the f!#%ing climate I don't care if people choose to eat meat or drive or whatever. It's up to them. Carbon's carbon. Just price the carbon high and let the market decide.

That said, along the lines of Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble To Invest In, I wouldn't mind a government-financed energy efficiency bubble. Installing insulation, new windows, geothermal heating and cooling, solar water heating might not always be cost-efficient, but it's pretty close, and it would have long-term strategic benefits, and provide a lot of blue-collar jobs in the short run.

litbrit, it must be very nice to be able to survive well on a low (or no) meat diet. For some of us (a fair amount of us, I actually expect), eating at least some meat is not optional. I tried vegetarianism for over a year, and it gave me a lot of health problems. I'm not even close to alone. If I had to guess, most of whether someone can comfortably be a vegetarian has to do with their genetics (how they process different foodstuffs into ATP), especially carbohydrate metabolism and insulin response.

You will not get any argument from me that a lot of people over-consume meat, but being genetically blessed with a metabolism that allows one to eat a vegetarian diet and making disparaging remarks about those "meat eaters" really isn't useful.

There is increasing evidence from anthropology that, at the same time they began finding marks on bones that correspond to human tool marks (even just being cracked open between two rocks), the human brain-case began to expand relative to body size. It looks like meat eating (at least in small amounts) may not be optional.

Technology may be able to solve these problems (because meat eating is really just consuming amino acids and certain minerals), but I have yet to find a protein powder that doesn't leave me feeling awful in a few hours, whereas a similarly sized portion of beef, chicken, fish, etc don't. It is the amino acid composition that I believe will be key, but animal protein has a much different amino acid distribution than the commonly available vegetable sources of protein.

This discussion also leaves out people who are borderline (or over the borderline) Type II diabetics. The eating of protein stimulates the pancreas to secrete a hormone called glucagon, which is a counter-part (and in many ways, opposite to) insulin. Metabolism is hellishly complicated and does not lend itself to simplistic "pretty much everyone can go vegetarian if they would just get off their meat addiction" type ideas.

What if "true pricing" isn't enough? Then we should impose a heavy tax on meat until meat consumption gets down to a level you approve? BTW, meat eating isn't the main contributor to the obesity epidemic. We could solve that problem too by making all food a lot more expensive. How about a simple calorie tax?

Nice attempt at strawman-building, but that's like saying, What if vacuuming the floor doesn't catch every single one of the dust bunnies? Should we not bother vacuuming at all, then, and just let the mess build and build?

Thing is, the current subsidies for Big Ag bring us cheap, factory-farmed meat that's full of growth hormones, antibiotics, and pesticide residue, all of which are linked to health concerns like, oh, cancerous tumors to name just one. They also bring us high-fructose corn syrup, a cheap, high-glycemic sweetener that is stuffed into every kind of food imaginable. This means it's cheaper for the less-affluent shopper to choose sweet, high-calorie/low-nutrient foods that people would otherwise eat much less frequently. And these foods, to name just two, do indeed contribute significantly to the obesity and diabetes rates in this country. This is not to say they alone are responsible--there are numerous behavioral factors to consider, though that's another post--but a balanced diet in which meat is used more for seasoning or special meals (i.e. Sunday dinner), as it is elsewhere in the world, as opposed to being a daily, every-meal feature, and in which cheap sweeteners like corn syrup become a thing of the past, will benefit everyone.

Removing artificial price constraints for meat and corn (subsidies) would be a tremendous first step toward reordering and balancing the American diet. A first step, to be followed by other important ones, like nutrition education in high school Home Ec classes (remember those?) and mandatory phys. ed. classes, too (remember those?)

Roger Chittum: I only had a very brief look at the post on your site, so I may not have understood you. But is your point that "processes like fertilizer manufacture, tractor fuel, electricity used in agriculture and food processing, etc." should not be included in the GHG cost of food? Given the high inefficiency of meat in terms of converting plant calories and protein for human consumption, as compared with consuming plants directly, surely one's overall GHG output can be substantially reduced by changing one's diet, especially if we're talking about industrially produced meat.

"Of course, you can just hear the carnivores squealing already..."

And then voting Republican. In droves.

Blazing Dragon, actually, it's not that much fun. Fellow diners and even complete strangers are always attacking my food choices, telling me I'm too skinny, accusing me of starving myself, accusing me of hating on meat-eaters (even though my husband and three sons eat poultry and would confirm that I do not hate them) and going so far as to say I am treading on dangerous territory by calling the Typical American Diet into question.

Yes, there is plenty of scientific argument as to whether all humans really need meat, in any quantity, of if instead it's something that some can do without while others can eat less of (but not eliminate). And yes, there are some nutrients that are more readily available in meat--B12 being one. As someone with inherited pernicious anemia, though, I would point out that if I'd followed my first doctors' recommendation and started eating pounds and pounds of meat and liver, I'd be worse off than ever--the reality is, I cannot absorb the vitamin, period, due to a lack of intrinsic factor (IF), and I must get monthly shots or I'll die. Eating a ton of meat would have taxed my digestive system while doing nothing to boost healthy red cell production.

meat consumption isn't an issue that really lends itself to technological fixes

So, you don't see much hope of growing cloned bovine muscle cells in vats?

mijnheer:

There is no single set of correct assumptions to make, but one should be consistent across the same study. For example, if I'm going to count the CO2 generated by people who work in agriculture or tractor plants, then I should also count the CO2 generated by people who work in the petroleum business and car factories.

The CMU study was done to compare the relative importance of having food be grown more locally verses the content of the food, and I don't dispute the finding. But I erred in jumping to the invalid conclusion that agriculture is a big part of the GHG problem in the US.

Whether you look at the 6% of GHGs that are emitted directly from agriculture (fertilizer, gassy ruminants, manure management, etc.) or the 11% emitted by that plus every person and every process associated with our food chain, even shifting our diets to 100% Soylent Green won't save the planet.

I meant to say only two things in my post: Global climate change is overwhelmingly a fossil fuels problem. Rationing food by price sounds more like Milton Friedman than The American Prospect.

And then voting Republican. In droves.

Nah... I'm a Democratic carnivore to the end!

litbrit, it must be very nice to be able to survive well on a low (or no) meat diet. For some of us (a fair amount of us, I actually expect), eating at least some meat is not optional. I tried vegetarianism for over a year,

librit did not, in his comment, mention vegetarianism. I'm not sure where, exactly, you got this idea from.

While I understand that the general public is a little too hypersensitive to have this convesation, I would hope that Ezra Klein's readers could grow the fuck up and be able to have a rational conversation about meat consumption without throwing a tantrum about how a conversation is an attack on their person.

For example, during times when I am doing a really intense exercise routine, I really need a decent amount of carbohydrates. Not a lot, but more than I typically eat. When someone says, "Americans shouldn't eat so many starchy foods," I acknowledge the truth of this statement, rather than getting all defense about how I need carbohydrates in my diet that come from starch and complain that someone is attacking me.

Tyro, just for the record: litbrit is a (very attractive) woman.

"But none of those complaints invalidate the questioner's point: The intensity of meat in our diet is a huge contributor to global warming, and folks who think this the transcendent challenge of our age are undermining their own argument when they refuse to mention it."

There's another way to look at the question. If energy is finite, we need to make choices about what we want to do with it, just as our paycheques are all finite, and we need to make choices about what to buy with it.

The bottom line is that we use too much carbon-based fuel. Something has to go. Either it's gonna be cars or its gonna be meat. Nothing else will really rectify the problem. If I had a vote, I'd keep my diet intact and give up my car. (Disclosure: already did it.)

I don't think many people will choose their cars over having food on the table, so by asking people to choose between meat and transportation, we can win the car war and save the meat rationing for later.

The resaon for doin this is to avoid the problem you mentioned of "imposing liberal cultural preferences". If we seem to be debating two plans -mandating a reduction in car use and mandating a reduction in meat consumption - conservatives will vote them both down.

On the other hand, if they are depicted as two alternatives to the same goal, conservatives will pick the one that bothers them the least, and we'll be able to run with it. It's probably true that we need to deal with both problems, but I would rather get a broad mandate to deal with one instead of fighting an equal amount of resistence on both.

if they are depicted as two alternatives to the same goal, conservatives will pick the one that bothers them the least

No, they will pick the one that (they believe) antagonizes liberals the most.

Although carbon pricing will almost certainly increase the price of meat relative to most other food sources, I doubt ending the subsidies (mostly to grain producers) paid to farmers by US taxpayers will have the same effect. People assume subsidization translates into larger supplies and lower prices. But I suspect what's really happening is the subsidies are propping up inefficient producers. In the short term and end to agricultural subsidies may drive less efficient producers out of the market. But in the long term, an unsubsidized market is an efficient market. It's entirely possible that the end of grain subsidies will ultimately mean lower grain prices, as efficient producers increase their market share. This in turn might lower the price of animal feed, and meat.

@Splitting Image: Your plan only holds up when presented to people for whom both options are equally viable.

For an exurb-dweller, they will view the "no car" option as a non-starter, and therefore perceive it as having the "no meat" option forced upon them.

I think some people are missing the point here. It's not about the content of the diet, but where the content comes from. Local markets (farmers markets, CSA's, etc.) are fine places to get ones produce and meat. The prices are usually quite competitive and the carbon footprint is very small. Large industrial agribusiness is the problem and it is quickly becoming unsustainable.

"I don't think many people will choose their cars over having food on the table, so by asking people to choose between meat and transportation, we can win the car war and save the meat rationing for later."

Another brilliant strategy for winning elections! What better way to ensure a permanent majority?

You people kill me sometimes.

"Of course, there's also the fact that killing the cows to make the burgers is wrong"

Fact? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

"there's also the fact that killing the cows to make the burgers is wrong."

i am sure that cows regard that as very factual.
it puts me in a bad mood
even thinking about it.

To Ezra and all meat-eaters- Please do read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Bottom line: there's no environmental harm caused by eating the meat of cattle raised on grass. The harm comes eating meat from cattle who are force-fed corn, which is grown on land heavily fertilized with petroleum-based fertilizers. Lots more to learn in that book - you really should read it if you're going to post about food.

By "made meat much cheaper than it actually is" you really mean "we don't tax it as much as Ezra Klein believes it should be taxed".

How about this: I won't tell you how to live, and you stop telling me how to live.

Don't forget diabetics for whom carbohydrates are poison.

Ah, the myth of don't tell me how to live. Rules, laws, morals, from stop signs to anti-trust laws to the Golden Rule -- if you don't want to be told how to live, find yourself an unoccupied desert island.

Short definition of society: a group of people who tell each other how to live.

Short definition of politics: how people go about telling each other how to live.

James Robertson - you're just not correct on the facts.

Every year Congress passes a farm bill that subsidizes the growing of corn. Farmers all over the country - in Iowa and Illinois in particular - are paid to grow corn fencerow to fencerow. They literally lose money on the corn - the cost of fertilizer, diesel, and their mortgages are more than the market will pay them for their crop - but the government sends them an annual check that pays their bills and lets them spend February in Florida.

So what is done with these rivers of money-losing corn that you and I paid the farmers to grow? It's fed to cattle - cattle that evolved to eat grass but can be trained to eat corn and fattened up quickly.

The meat we buy at the store is much cheaper than it would be if our taxes didn't go to pay farmers to grow corn that the market doesn't want. If they weren't growing feed corn, they would be growing food that would be more healthy for people and the environment.

So no one is telling you how to live. You can eat whatever you want if you're willing to pay for it. But I am telling you that I don't like my taxes paying for your heart attack.

I'd be ecstatic to see the stupid agricultural subsidies ended - I just don't want them replaced with the enviro left's hairshirt based tax scheme telling me to eat more grain and less meat. Which, incidentally, would be extremely unhealthy for me personally.

Hey meat is already too high for these ladies. Maybe we can all look like them if we stop eating meat.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92592545

I'll stop being a carnivore as soon as all of those that think I should not and they themselves have a pet, go out back and pop a cap in Fido or Fluffy's ass. If you ban Dogs and Cats from the US, then I'll listen.

""if they are depicted as two alternatives to the same goal, conservatives will pick the one that bothers them the least

No, they will pick the one that (they believe) antagonizes liberals the most."

Actually, I resent the idea that conservatism is driven entirely by antagonizing liberals. I agree with you that people like Ann Coulter will do exactly that, but I'd hardly call her a conservative. Turning society upside-down just to upset "leftists" is as much an injustice to conservatism as connecting it with fascism is to liberalism. Either the words have meaning or they don't.

If conservatism is to have any meaning with respect to environmental issues, it involves preserving our way of life (i.e. continuing to be lazy pigs) as much as possible under the circumstances.

The circumstances don't look good for keeping either of them, in my opinion, but it seems to me that getting rid of cars is the easier option (at least in cities, which is where most of the wastage is).

All for a higher tax on meat as long as Spam and Vienna sausages are exempt.

Roger Chittum: "What if "true pricing" isn't enough? Then we should impose a heavy tax on meat until meat consumption gets down to a level you approve?"

This is incoherent. Whatever level people decide to consume at once prices reflect costs is-by definition-the right level and "enough". Period. So what are you talking about?

Lux: "Don't forget to add to the list of people with fewer diet options: Those of us who have nut allergies.

Read the labels of many of the vegetarian and vegan foods out there today; a very significant percentage include walnuts, almonds, etc. Fail."

What the heck are "vegetarian and vegan foods"?

Last I checked, things like black beans and avocados were walnut and almond free. Ditto spinach, eggs, potatoes, pizza, beets, mushrooms...Vegetarianism needn't entail eating any hippy health food crap.

Bloix: "Bottom line: there's no environmental harm caused by eating the meat of cattle raised on grass. The harm comes eating meat from cattle who are force-fed corn, which is grown on land heavily fertilized with petroleum-based fertilizers."

It's not really correct to say there's no harm, though there may be less.

A lot of the GHG emissions from meat production (and agriculture in general) are nitrous oxide emissions by soil bacteria. Obviously this is going on wherever there's living soil, but whenever the soil is disturbed, or cultivated more intensely with fertilizer (even "natural" fertilizer like animal waste) and ploughing and so forth, the emissions are higher than they would otherwise be. Most nitrous oxide emissions would happen regardless, but something like a third can be attributed to human causes.

So, unless your grass-fed cattle are grazing on land that is not fertilized or ploughed in any way, and there are no more of them than there would naturally be buffalo or deer or whatever, and their hooves are not disturbing the soil and affecting the nitrogen activity in an adverse way, they ARE still producing pollution.

It may be less than grain-fed meat produced in factories, or it may not. (There are techniques for growing grain with far less environmental impact - no-till, precision fertilizer, etc. - and factories may have an advantage in terms of manure management, so it's a close call, in theory.)

Also, to the extent it IS better, this doesn't really make it easier for the meat fans. The quantity of beef that could be grown in a fully sustainable way would be MUCH smaller than is consumed now (note that there are other factors in play too - water pollution, overgrazing - that ought to really limit the supply of land that could be used this way).

Much better to just pay the carbon taxes.

michael: "I think some people are missing the point here. It's not about the content of the diet, but where the content comes from. Local markets (farmers markets, CSA's, etc.) are fine places to get ones produce and meat. The prices are usually quite competitive and the carbon footprint is very small. Large industrial agribusiness is the problem and it is quickly becoming unsustainable."

Local food isn't necessarily better. Ships and trains are so much more fuel efficient than trucks, it is entirely possible that meat shipped all the way from Argentina might be "greener" than meat trucked in from a couple towns away. "Localness" just isn't a good proxy for carbon content.

Ditto small farms vs. large. It really matters very little whether the same number of cows are produced by one big farm or 20 small ones. Same number of cows. Same biological processes. Same pollution. (If anything, larger operations might be able to do things in terms economy of scale with manure management, rail shipping, and so forth that make them a net win.)

And see above comment about grazing vs. factories.

James Robertson: I'd be ecstatic to see the stupid agricultural subsidies ended - I just don't want them replaced with the enviro left's hairshirt based tax scheme telling me to eat more grain and less meat. Which, incidentally, would be extremely unhealthy for me personally.

Is this global warming denial?

Also: there are things called "vegetables" which are neither meat nor grain.

jenga: "I'll stop being a carnivore as soon as all of those that think I should not and they themselves have a pet, go out back and pop a cap in Fido or Fluffy's ass. If you ban Dogs and Cats from the US, then I'll listen."

Since no one is asking you to be a vegetarian (or even cares), this is a bizarre non sequitur.

You should pay the full price for your steak. Pet owners should pay the full price for their steaks and pet food. There's no hypocrisy involved.

In General:

I swear this thread is absolutely hilarious in the alternate universe where Ezra proposes an elimination of the caviar subsidy: "Cheap caviar is an important source of vitamins for the poor!"..."I tried switching to frog eggs for a month, but they upset my stomach!"..."What about people with peanut allergies?!"

And I don't know why these posts on meat seem to so adversely affect reading comprehension.

This is not a debate about vegetarianism.

This is about the fact that meat, particularly beef, is both heavily subsidized and imposes large externalities.

We need to correct those market distortions. And when we do, the result will not be universal vegetarianism. Nor is that anyone's goal.

The result will probably be pretty mundane. Grain prices will go up, so meat producers' prices will go up. Meat prices on the shelf will go up. Maybe double or triple. Applebees will decrease the size of their burger patties and increase the number of chicken dishes on the menu. Middle class people probably won't even notice that much.

As for the poor, artificially cheap meat is not - and should not be - a key weapon in the war on poverty.

Whatever the price of meat, we should double up on programs that actually fight poverty. Food stamps. Improving schools. Whatever.

If nutrition and food choice seems to be an issue, the solution should be things like dietary guidelines, PSAs, and a mandatory semester or two of home ec. in high school.

Artificially cheap meat is not a solution for anything.

Yes, I'm engaging in skepticism about global warming. If your biggest concern over meat is greenhouse gasses, then I suspect that you need a hobby.

jack lecou:

In your comment to me you say whatever outcome “true market pricing” delivers is, by definition, the correct outcome. In your general comment, you reinforce this by noting the “large externalities” in agriculture and saying “we need to correct those market distortions.” You don’t argue that the outcomes are bad, just that "distortions" are bad. That’s garden-variety free market fundamentalism, and I was not going to reply. But, in your comment to Bloix, you seem to accept a carbon tax which, so far as I know, has no purpose other than to alter market outcomes. That makes your position seem less coherent but also more interesting. Care to explain?

To clarify the part of my comment you quoted, where I said “down to a level you approve,” “you” means “Ezra,” not all consumers.

Roger:

A carbon tax is the preferred economic remedy to correct the environmental externalities.

What's less than coherent about that?

And of course, call for correction of a market failure is always based on outcomes. There's nothing 'market fundamentalist' about it.

Grain subsidies unnecessarily promote both an unhealthy diet for Americans, and do harm agriculture in less-developed countries overseas.

Externalities such as water pollution and greenhouse gases damage property values, impair use of the resources for other users, possibly even kill people.

And in both cases, resources are allocated in a less than fully productive way.

It would be different if these explicit and implicit subsidies could be viewed as appropriate remedies for some other market failure, but so far I've not seen anyone suggest what that might be.

jack lecou:

I’m open to the concept of translating externalities into a tax rate. How would you recommend Congress go about assessing the cost of the GHG externality and translating that into a carbon tax? Would it literally be a tax on carbon, or would it be on CO2-equivalent emissions like CO, CH4, NOx, and NF3? Any exemptions or different rate categories? What tax rate do you estimate would just save the planet and not go overboard?

I think the optimal solution is a permit system, rather than a tax proper.

I think the level is likely to be set by treaties and broad targets of stabilizing GHGs at a certain level, rather than any detailed assessment of costs. (And that's probably as good an approximation as any, given the difficulties in cost assessment.)

Obviously CO2 almost never literally means CO2 in global warming discussions, and other gases must be included in any sane permit system. (This whole thread is about agriculture, where N2O and CH4 are major players...)

To be honest, I can't say I know the details of how enforcement of non-point sources such as agricultural soil would be handled, if they end up handled properly at all.

Why should there be exemptions or different rate categories?

I have no idea what the final $/ton of carbon might work out to, but I think not uncomfortably high, since there are so many easy mitigation strategies (change light bulbs, drive less, eat less meat). The economy is extremely flexible, and it always amazes me that conservative global warming deniers are usually the ones loudly declaiming the adaptability of the free market system...

Are these questions leading somewhere? I don't pretend to be the world's leading expert on GHG permits. Even Ezra could probably be more enlightening about proposals that are actually mainstream, and there are probably lots of even better sources out there.

Do you get how your original comment was kind of silly, though?

It's pretty clear Ezra doesn't have a target level of meat consumption. He's just been making what should be a pretty bland observation that if externalities are priced, meat consumption is likely to fall. (Just like public transit use is likely to rise.)

It's hardly militant vegetarianism.

I'm all in favor of setting the price of carbon high, and letting individuals sort out how to spend their carbon.

As to meat, there is plenty to suggest that red meat, beef in particular, isn't that good for you. As someone with coronary artery disease, I eat plenty of meat, but very little beef. But we have a major cultural fetish for it.

In Collapse, Jared Diamond talks about Eric the Red's Greenland colony, and how they attempted to survive as a dairy farm culture, in a climate that was very inhospitable to dairy farming. Furthermore, they appear to have eaten absolutely no fish. They all died, because dairy farming in Greenland just doesn't work.

This story illustrates to me the power of beef as a cultural symbol. Would you, like them, rather die as a beef-eater than live as a fish-eater?

If your answer is yes, I think there might be a place on the next rocket to Mars for you.

(Guess that should be "loudly decrying" above. Declaiming doesn't mean what I thought it did.)

jack lecou:

I regret my original comment came across as silly because I was aiming for snarky.

Ezra’s post and your comments assume a “market magic” solution even though neither of you, nor anybody else, knows how much less meat consumption and associated GHGs will occur with “true pricing.” You may be satisfied just to eliminate market distortions, as I might be. But Ezra said meat is a “huge” contributor to global warming, an assertion my comment refuted. Also I hinted that, if meat is a “huge” contributor, true pricing probably will not curtail meat consumption enough to save the planet. I’m still curious to hear if Ezra will endorse a Chicago School theory as his backup plan.

Why not divert subsidies to vegetables for human consumption? Make the good stuff cheaper?

I swear this thread is absolutely hilarious in the alternate universe where Ezra proposes an elimination of the caviar subsidy: "Cheap caviar is an important source of vitamins for the poor!"..."I tried switching to frog eggs for a month, but they upset my stomach!"..."What about people with peanut allergies?!"

jack lecou wins both this thread and all of Ezra's food threads, both past and future.

Tyro: Wow. Thanks.

Roger Chittum:

Ezra’s post and your comments assume a “market magic” solution even though neither of you, nor anybody else, knows how much less meat consumption and associated GHGs will occur with “true pricing.”

We know for certain that total GHGs will be reduced because we are issuing a fixed number of permits. (Or, alternatively, offsetting the pollution damages with an equal and opposite tax.)

What particular fraction of the GHG reduction actually ends up coming from a decrease in meat production is completely unimportant.

It's reasonable to speculate that some of it will, but the beauty of the permit system (or tax) is that the reductions will be made in little pieces here and there, wherever they are easiest and cheapest. It may be that people really like meat so much that they will happily just pay enough to continue consuming it at the same level.

And that would be absolutely fine.

Millions of years of evolution has made us into omnivores--and it works really well. We could certainly alter some of the production of meat and other animal products in order to decrease energy usage, cruelty, etc. But to force people to give up meat--or even merely to keep up this puritanical finger wagging to shame them into vegetarianism--is absurd and, well, just plain wrong for basic biological reasons.

Anonymous: you may want to read the last sentence of Ezra's post.

Anonymous-

You should perhaps consider posting your comment on a PETA blog, or somewhere that it might actually be, you know, relevant. This post contains absolutely ZERO "puritanical finger wagging".

Gore and Ezra are pointing out, quite correctly, that if and when carbon is fully priced, a number of relatively carbon-intensive products may increase in price substantially. One of those products is meat.

Ezra, Mark Bittman and others have provoked no end of bizarre, uncomprehending outrage by further noting that most Americans will probably find it relatively easy to eat delicious food while using substantially less meat. As an added bonus, this sort of meat-in-moderation diet is much healthier than what "average" Americans eat now.

P.S.: Magical invocations of "millions of years of evolution" notwithstanding, meat--particularly beef--is not by any stretch an essential nutrient for the human body. In some cases it is a convenient source of protein and energy, but that's all. With the possible exception of a small number of people with severe allergies or other problems, anyone can live as well--or better--on a varied vegetarian diet. (FYI, that's not "puritanical finger waving" either, just my grow irritation with bogus amateur Evolutionary Nutritionistics.)

Actually, the environmental impact of meat consumption does lend itself to fixes, albeit not technological ones. And I don't think pricing meat higher will change anything: people will pay more, not eat less.

It's not just "eat less meat and more veggies". It's also how it's done. For example, two existing farmed plants can easily help us reduce the impact of meat production by 50% or more.

The first is Asafoetida, or "the root that stinks" in Sanscrit. Our lust for meat is in much part actually a lust for decomposing things - as every butcher knows (which is why meat is never sold fresh). Hindus figured this out long ago and use tiny amounts of Asafoetida, which smells like a decomposing animal, to give their tastebuds the same punch as a week-old dead cow. (Personally I think that Indian cooking is the only vegan cooking that satisfies.) If we did as the Indians do, we could reduce our craving for dead animals.

The second is Colocasia, better known as Giant Taro, which when mixed with soya or corn dramatically increases the efficiency of protein extraction by animals (and humans) since it contains precisely that amino-acid which soya and corn lack. Only around 40% of the protein in soya or corn becomes animal protein. That percentage increases dramatically - to perhaps 55 or 60% - when the right amount of Colocasia is added. In other words, with a Colocasia-corn or soya mix, the same meat production can be achieved with much less feed.

Promotion of just these two plants - Giant Taro and Asafoetida - could help us decrease the environmental impact of meat consumption so much, that it might not even be an issue anymore. It would be nice if such promotion benefitted peasant farmers (by creating a market) rather than Cargill and Monsanto, but I suppose that's too much to ask.

I like your idea of removing subsidies for food that the meat industry feeds the animals whom they later kill. Another subsidy the meat industry should no longer receive is that the industry should be made to pay the full cost of the pollution it causes.

Globally, we humans eat about 60 billion other animals every year. And, none of them use toilets to do their business. That's an awful lot of nasty going into the air, water, and soil. The meat industry should pay to stop that pollution and to clean it up.