> Abolishing agriculture subsidies won't cause a reduction in meat consumption ... can continue to grow without the subsidies Without subsidies animal ag is de

> Abolishing agriculture subsidies won't cause a reduction in meat consumption ... can continue to grow without the subsidies Without subsidies animal ag is deeply unprofitable. Removing them and taxing the negative externalities "properly" would mean the price of such products would be a multiple of what it's now, so it would be out of reach for most of the population. > that be will be vastly easier if abundant energy Yes, it would. But we don't have it at the moment, and it will require a lot of fossil fuels and time to get there. At the same time EROI of fossil fuels is falling down. It's at 5 IIRC, down from more that 100+ at the start of the previous century - meaning that previously for every 1 barrel of oil invested into extraction you'd get 100-150 barrels back, now it's about 5 barrels. Soon it could become unprofitable to extract more oil, as it would cost more energy to get it out of the ground that what would be gained, no matter how much is still in the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain#Examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8