cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/4664992

(the audio associated to the link will air on BBC World Service again in a couple hours from now [20:00 GMT today], if anyone is on a strained internet uplink) (that’s in the past now)

A panel of climate experts answered questions related to #COP28. Someone asked about the viability of an agenda to get people off animal products. IIRC, the answers basically boiled down to:

• An elected politician telling people not to eat meat would be political suicide
• Nutrition would be a problem

IMO both answers are accurate. But isn’t there an oversight in terms of subsidies? The US gives huge subsidies to farmers and that includes livestock subsidies (not sure about other countries). A politician would not get away with intervening in people’s diets but canceling livestock subsidies would not be an intervention - it would actually be non-intervention. Would that still necessarily be political suicide?

W.r.t nutrition, someone who works 2 jobs and struggles for a survivable income would not have time/resources to study avoiding malnutrition on a strictly plant-based diet. So if animal products were priced out of the market for poor people, it would cause real problems, no?

Would it make sense to cut the subsidies, let animal product prices skyrocket, but then put the subsidies on the consumer side so overworked underpaid workers could maintain their diets? Apart from that, it seems a bit shitty that vegan taxpayers still finance animal exploitation by simply paying their tax.

Are there any states/countries known to not subsidize animal exploitation, where vegans can be vegan in the most absolute sense?