4 ms·
That would be cruel and unethical because it would be very regressive.
by ichbinwiederda 6y ago
That would be cruel and unethical because it would be very regressive.
- ryan_j_naughton 6y agoYou're ignoring that the externality of meat consumption is massive environmental harm, which disproportionately affects the poor (at least in the case of climate change). Pricing in the negative externalities of meat is the best way to address this, which has a started goal of reducing the consumption of environmentally harmful meat. It enables meat that is sustainable to be priced competitively and to shift consumption, but we should be very honest -- the goal of any pigouvian tax is to reduce the consumption of the harmful product. Thus, meat should become more of a luxury, which means yes, it would be less accessible to the poor. But with billions becoming richer and demanding more meat consumption, the path we are on is entirely unsustainable.
- mhh__ 6y agoOnly if the lab-grown meat had no prospect of becoming cheaper. Farming is expensive. The aim is only to nudge the scale rather than tax the farmed meat out of existence.