Last I checked, the best estimates of the impact of direct subsidies on cost seemed to be around 1-2% of cost for beef and pork and less than that for chicken/​eggs/​milk. (Can’t find this now, so lower credibility, but AI estimates seem to agree) Based on this, removing them would be great, but probably wouldn’t be tractable enough compared to other interventions given the difficulty.
I think my point is less about the impact of subsidies per se and more about what their presence tells us about the effective difficulty of taxing meat. In other words, the same political forces that give rise to these subsidies would also fight any attempt to tax meat. If you don’t think it’s realistic to end meat subsidies, then I argue you should also think it’s not realistic to start meat taxes.
Last I checked, the best estimates of the impact of direct subsidies on cost seemed to be around 1-2% of cost for beef and pork and less than that for chicken/​eggs/​milk. (Can’t find this now, so lower credibility, but AI estimates seem to agree)
Based on this, removing them would be great, but probably wouldn’t be tractable enough compared to other interventions given the difficulty.
I think my point is less about the impact of subsidies per se and more about what their presence tells us about the effective difficulty of taxing meat. In other words, the same political forces that give rise to these subsidies would also fight any attempt to tax meat. If you don’t think it’s realistic to end meat subsidies, then I argue you should also think it’s not realistic to start meat taxes.