You're not going to "save the world from environmental destruction" by telling people to give up meat, because as India and China (not to mention Africa) develop, meat will become a minor component of their CO2 footprint just as it is in the United States. The anti-meat messaging will be seen as both stupid (because it won't help) and hypocritical ("how about we continue to eat meat, and Americans take their turn living the way Bangladeshi subsistence farmers used to live").
> You're not going to "save the world from environmental destruction" by telling people to give up meat
No, but by convincing people to give up meat, to travel less, to stop using disposable everything, to institute a carbon tax, etc. etd. you just eventually might. As 'Pfhreak wrote elsewhere in the thread, this is not a problem of finding 60%-there solution; it's a problem of repeatedly applying 0.5% - 3% solutions. Every component of CO₂ footprint is a minor one.
Also, don't forget the US is extremely good at exporting its culture. It seems whatever fad happens there, very soon half of Europe does it too, and a lot of other places aspire to it. Doing something in the US is likely to have quite big impact outside it as well.
Modulo the wars a sudden and strong carbon tax would likely start.
We're our worst problem in this fight :/. Outside HN, whenever I mention online or offline that carbon taxing is good and we really need more of it, people look at me like I'm crazy and/or call me communist. Regular people here in Poland seem to universally think along the lines of "look at our gasoline places, it's so expensive [compared to the US], most of it is taxes already, and you want to add extra tax?!".
> Regular people here in Poland seem to universally think along the lines of "look at our gasoline places, it's so expensive [compared to the US], most of it is taxes already, and you want to add extra tax?!".
You could suggest changing the road taxes or exempting gas from VAT at the same time as implementing a carbon tax. It would actually come out cheaper, if we can get the carbon capture price down to $100/ton or less (some estimate $60/ton is viable).
Your final point is the big deal. If western countries largely move to vegetable based meat, not only do we win in real terms we get a huge moral argument. Which is worth a lot.
I feel like you and Rayiner might be talking past each other. I read him to be saying that the moral argument you'd get from cutting meat wouldn't be worth much, either, because the US would still be emitting multiples more GHG than developing countries, even if they drove overhead from meat farming to zero.
But that’s the thing, if that’s his argument I disagree as well.
Simply put no matter what the reason to oppose meat consumption in the US still holds up. It’s a great improvement in real terms & it provides a stronger moral argument.
