Putting aside the (legimate) animal welfare arguments associated with animal agriculture and fishing (which kills thousands of marine mammals and other creatures), the fact is that it is extremely inefficient and and environmentally damaging on almost all dimensions. A new study by researchers at the University of Chicago shows that the CO2 emissions of an animal-based diet are significanly higher than for plant-based diets. What's surprising is that most types of fish require almost the same amount of energy as industrial beef because of the long boat rides required to catch them. Of course, there's also the new article in Science that discusses the potential collapse of most of the world's fisheries by the middle of the century due to over-fishing.
As economists, we have many ways to address the pervasive externalities associated with animal production. Here's a partial list:
1. Tax animal agriculture for the damage due to the waste, water pollution, soil erosion, air pollution, foul smells, damage to marine ecosystems, etc.
2. Tax carbon, which will lead to higher energy prices, which will then be internalized in the costs of all production (but particularly in animal agriculture)
3. Stop subsidizing the inputs for animal agriculture- namely the grain, water, and fishing boats
4. Create enforceable property rights over fisheries that protect the ecosystems (this requires a lot of money and effort and new legal statutes since many fisheries are in international waters)
If all of this was done then the price of meat, dairy, and fish would rise dramatically, which would reduce demand (and be regressive). But even this solution wouldn't necessarily be efficient and/or equitable if the tax revenue generated didn't actually go to mitigating the negative environmental effects, which such taxes rarely do.
Since the chance of most of these policies being enacted is very small we are stuck with a situation for the forseeable future where the lifestyles of carnivores are being massively subsidized (both passively and actively) in ways that severely damage the environment and contribue to global warming (and harm animals).
So what do we do about this? Chalk it up to market failure and move on? Political failure and move on? Brush it under the rug because economics is only a positive science and shies away from normative conclusions?
This is where theory hits the pavement and I'm curious what you all think.
J.S.
