If you're making an argument for the less fortunate surely the effects of climate change will hit them hardest?

I hear that paternalistic argument all the time, and almost always coming from the Western countries, but surely food is closer to one's direct needs compared to a climatic thing that might or might not happen according to our models (which models are changing all the time).

In other words you don't need much modelling to see that more expensive food will hurt the world's poor here and now, the climate change thing is in the indistinct future (and it might happen the way we prevision it, or it may not).

> more expensive food

Poor people already eat less meat. On the other hand, climate change will make basic foods more expensive. I'm from India. I've seen the miseries caused when the price of rice or onions goes up. It becomes a major political issue. But if chicken becomes more expensive, no one blinks, because people don't eat that much of it anyway. Maybe some people in the cities grumble because prices at restaurants went up, but that's about it.

Your argument is like saying "Taxing Ferraris more will make life harder for poor people because it increases average transportation prices".

Massive flooding and droughts are here now, climate change isn't a future thing anymore. It will become worse every year, but the disasters are already here.

What's wrong with eating less meat? It's healthier and cheaper. And I'm saying this as someone who loves meat.

That's the WEF playbook. Also, depopulation. Eat the bugs.

If you care about that, then just let everyone eat less of it instead? It could be rationed, or made illegal.