You may be right that targeting the producers is a more-effective strategy than targeting individuals, but you claim too much. The consumers are only in power b

You may be right that targeting the producers is a more-effective strategy than targeting individuals, but you claim too much. The consumers are only in power because individuals keep giving them money. And targeting the producers often works by making their clients aware of the suffering (college campuses went cage-free when enough students complained to their college that they didn't want their tuition money purchasing suffering). In the end -- why not both? As an individual, over the course of your lifetime, if an American eats even 50% less meat than typical, they would produce a lot less pollution and a lot less suffering in the world. Meanwhile, they'd still be eating more meat than historically normal. Win-win-win?