Thanks Vasco! I have written a reply to both you and Austin in the thread under Austin’s comment.
One thing that applies to your reply specifically: I don’t see how a market for farmed animal welfare could decrease animal-years, as you suggest it might in the near term (though I may be misunderstanding how the system is supposed to work).
I get that animal welfare improvements often carry a cost, and that imposing an animal welfare improvement on a farmer with no compensation would therefore shift the supply curve, raise prices, and ultimately decrease the number of animals being farmed.
But my understanding of the animal welfare market idea is that these welfare improvements are not imposed, but bought. The person paying for the improvement would now need to pay enough that it is worth the farmer voluntarily implementing that improvement, which presumably would involve covering all of the cost of the improvement and then some. Since this is now an additional source of the income for the farmer, I think you’d expect it to shift the supply curve of animal products in the opposite direction, causing a drop in prices, and an increase in the amount of animal products consumed?
Thanks for the great point, Toby! Strongly upvoted. I now agree iii) would tend to increase animal-years because the improvements in the welfare of farmed animals would be bought instead of imposed (by legislation, or animal welfare corporate campaigns).
Thanks Vasco! I have written a reply to both you and Austin in the thread under Austin’s comment.
One thing that applies to your reply specifically: I don’t see how a market for farmed animal welfare could decrease animal-years, as you suggest it might in the near term (though I may be misunderstanding how the system is supposed to work).
I get that animal welfare improvements often carry a cost, and that imposing an animal welfare improvement on a farmer with no compensation would therefore shift the supply curve, raise prices, and ultimately decrease the number of animals being farmed.
But my understanding of the animal welfare market idea is that these welfare improvements are not imposed, but bought. The person paying for the improvement would now need to pay enough that it is worth the farmer voluntarily implementing that improvement, which presumably would involve covering all of the cost of the improvement and then some. Since this is now an additional source of the income for the farmer, I think you’d expect it to shift the supply curve of animal products in the opposite direction, causing a drop in prices, and an increase in the amount of animal products consumed?
Thanks for the great point, Toby! Strongly upvoted. I now agree iii) would tend to increase animal-years because the improvements in the welfare of farmed animals would be bought instead of imposed (by legislation, or animal welfare corporate campaigns).
Here is a related article about how carbon offsets actually raised emissions in China.