> It matters because convincing people to eat soy in the western world does absolutely nothing for the Amazon forest. It's a false narrative. First, I think th

> It matters because convincing people to eat soy in the western world does absolutely nothing for the Amazon forest. It's a false narrative. First, I think the reason to stop eating as much beef is because of the GHG impact of doing so. That occurs regardless of whether the beef is raised in Brazil or otherwise. There is a global meat market, so convincing people in the Western world shifts the demand. > That won't do much either, but at least we'll get that off the table. Are you kidding? Removing the subsidies would have an absolutely massive impact on the affordability of meat and dairy, at least in the US. For every 30 cents of milk sold, the US govt pays dairy farmer the equivalent of 70 cents - ie. 70% of the earnings dairy farmers make are from subsidy. If animal feed were not subsidized to the extent it was, meat would be significantly more expensive. I strongly favor removing agricultural subsidies. Renewables are actually competitive enough now that they cost essentially the same, the problem is the switching cost requires up front capital.