Those are all good points, and to be sure, I do expect that the development of non-animal protein that satisfies PTC will reduce meat consumption. By just how much, I agree that we can’t predict, as it depends on many other factors. I strongly support the development of good alt-meat.
But I think some other historical analogies are instructive. For example, with aquaculture and wild-catch fishing and with low-carbon energy and fossil fuels, there have been major rebound effects that made these substitutes much less effective as replacements than one might have predicted in advance. I expect a similar thing to happen with alt-meat.
An analogy that I’ve seen—and I apologize that I don’t remember where now—is that in the early years, environmental legislation tore through the body politic like a smallpox in the Americas just after contact. In time (around the 1980s), critics learned how to respond properly and thus they greatly slowed further legislation. This analogy is not to imply that environmental legislation has been a destructive force; it’s only for the dynamics.
Since the Republican Party has always been the business-oriented party since its founding, it makes sense that opposition to environmentalism would reside in the Republican Party. In recent years, climate change has emerged as a central organizing principle for Democratic politics, which culminated in the Inflation Reduction Act, although the climate movement has greatly declined since the 2024 election.
When I look at this, for one thing it is not entirely clear to me that partisanship is the reason for the decline in environmental legislation, but more than that, it seems like partisan polarization was largely inevitable. Certainly, there are some environmental activists for whom I get the impression that organizing for the Democratic Party is the main objective and environmental protection is secondary, but even then I see their behavior as a reaction to circumstances more than a cause.
There is another important aspect to the story. For people who are not familiar, it is difficult to appreciate how central the fear of overpopulation was to environmental politics of the 1960s and early 1970s, and thus how central population control was. The belief that there were too many people in the world was almost universally held among major figures. Several developments, most notably the rise of the pro-life movement after Roe v. Wade in 1973, turned the Republican Party against population control, which was a major factor in their turn away from environmentalism more broadly. I highly recommend Derek Hoff’s 2010 paper on the Nixon administration’s evolution on the subject with regard to the Rockefeller population commission report.
Today, the pro-life movement is a shadow of its former self, and opposition to immigration has emerged as a central point for right-wing parties all over the world. I recommend Nils Gilman’s article on the subject. The stage may be set for a return of population control and a bipartisan form of environmental politics, but this may be a case of being careful what you wish for.