But all of the things you advocate for in your previous post are things that could be achieved with less pain. Even the fuel tax, while the goal is to drive ch

But all of the things you advocate for in your previous post are things that could be achieved with less pain. Even the fuel tax, while the goal is to drive change, you can drive change by rewarding the desired behaviour (e.g. a revenue-neutral gas/carbon tax that paid back to low income folks), rather than punishing people. Maybe not as drastic a change since you don't get people not driving because they can't afford it, but it would incentivize doing something else to the same extent. Or we could be much more aggressive about moving people to electric cars. Or we could simply invest more money/energy into making public transport better. We could say try and convince people to fly less, or we could legislate carbon offsets for air travel. So while, yes, serious change is needed, I think we really need to think about this from a political angle, rather than a moralising angle. I would avoid even touching the diet angle if you want people to listen to you and not write you off. Meat does contribute noticeably to global warming, but food is culture, it is the hardest change to achieve, so we should really leave it to last, politically. It would be far better to deal with meat in an overall carbon tax solution, rather than singling it out as a thing people have to change.