meh comments on Essay-Question Poll: Dietary Choices - Less Wrong

12 Post author: Alicorn 03 May 2009 03:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (234)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: mattnewport 03 May 2009 10:49:26PM 2 points [-]

Environmental and efficiency concerns are my main motivation, particularly GHG emissions.

Would it be accurate to say that your primary concern is that there are negative externalities involved in meat production that are not reflected in the price of meat products? If the largest negative externality that concerns you is GHG emissions do you feel that your reasons for not eating meat would be eliminated if the negative externalities were priced in through some kind of energy tax or cap and trade system? Did you ever consider eating meat and purchasing carbon offsets to make up for the unpaid negative externality? It sounds like you don't miss meat much any more but you say that you used to enjoy it so presumably there would have been some additional price you would have been willing to pay in the form of a carbon offset or perhaps a charitable donation of some kind?

Comment author: meh 04 May 2009 09:18:02AM *  1 point [-]

I think that's an accurate characterization of my concerns. I didn't take the offset route for three main reasons.

  1. I do have other concerns besides GHG emissions, which offsets wouldn't address.
  2. In general I prefer to reduce where I can, and save offsets for things I struggle more to do without (necessary plane trips being the main one). Which is another way of saying that I'm not willing to pay the increased (offset inclusive) price. I guess I was also banking on adapting to meat-avoidance fairly well; perhaps if I'd ended up finding it more difficult, I would then have considered offsets more seriously. Also, offsets are still somewhat difficult to verify; my own meat consumption isn't.
  3. The impact of my own reduced meat consumption is relatively minimal. However, if my example convinces one other person to reduce their consumption similarly, then that's doubled it's effectiveness. Perhaps I'm wrong, but offsets don't seem to have the same example value.
Comment author: MichaelBishop 04 May 2009 12:49:06PM 1 point [-]

The impact of my own reduced meat consumption is relatively minimal. However, if my example convinces one other person to reduce their consumption similarly, then that's doubled it's effectiveness.

Seconded. We're also helping to create a larger market for vegetarian food or vat meat and reducing stigma against vegetarians.