> I think the best thing that we could possibly do is simply require meat to cost what it actually costs. The price is heavily subsidized for the factory farm i

> I think the best thing that we could possibly do is simply require meat to cost what it actually costs. The price is heavily subsidized for the factory farm industry, mostly to corn and grain, but also through not requiring any environmental regulation. This is the meat of it for me. What I don't understand is that most activists seem to push the "regulation" angle, when perhaps the simplest solution is to just stop artificially reducing the cost of meat. If we simply stopped subsidizing dairy, corn, and other agriculture products and instituted a tax on methane pollution (start small and work our way up to an estimate of the damage it causes), we'd see a decline in demand for animal products. Or maybe we'll see some innovation in reducing the impact of raising meat products (I saw something somewhat recently about decreasing methane production for cattle by adjusting diet). But no, we have this weird conflict between "climate change believers" and "climate change deniers", and both want to use government to force their will in different ways. It's weird because simply making things cost what they cost to produce would do more to help fix climate change than all of the bickering on both sides. This should be an area that liberals and conservatives can agree on: less government involvement in business is a conservative taking point, and ending agricultural subsidies is a liberal talking point, so why aren't we doing it? Let's cut oil subsidies as well while we're at it.