3 ms·

The problem with this analogy is that personally reducing demand is ineffective at stopping production. If I stop eating beef (which I have) there isn't an equ

The problem with this analogy is that personally reducing demand is ineffective at stopping production. If I stop eating beef (which I have) there isn't an equivalent reduction in beef production. Instead the price goes down fractionally and someone else eats it. If a whole bunch of people stop eating beef (which I hope I'm part of) then we'll start to see some reduction in production. The answer to global warming like any externality is market regulation. Exactly _how_ you regulate that is less important: Maybe revenue neutral tax on producers? Maybe a ration book for consumers? Personal change is certainly helpful to demonstrate you're serious, but structural change will be necessary to actually tackle the problem.

rabidrat 6y ago
> If a whole bunch of people stop eating beef (which I hope I'm part of) then we'll start to see some reduction in production. It doesn't seem to work this way either. First there will be a long period of beef sources trying to create demand, through marketing, lobbying, etc tactics. Only after they have spent through substantial subsidies, loans, bailouts, etc will they be forced to downsize. As an example: we recently saw a huge decrease in air travel demand. Response from the airlines? Keep flying the same number of routes in order to maintain status at airports. Run promotions to increase sales.