Individually, even most of the rich don't directly pollute so much as entire industries. On the HN front page there's an article stating that shipping companies have collectively spent $12 billion to cheat and instead of polluting the air, they pollute directly into the sea while technically adhering to standards.

Who do you think directly benefits from that industrial pollution?

Consumers.

But the solution for consumers is for the industry to be tighter regulated and pay more for goods, not for consumers to become ascetics. Consumers can't simply make industry change how they serve other consumers.

You can't stop murder simply by waiting for anti-murder people to stop murdering.

My point is more around who benefits. It’s not industry alone.

And I would argue consumers have a very big impact on how industry acts. There are a number of environmentally friend products offered that are regulatory requirements at all.

I would have said share holders

When consumers get cheap products because environmental regulations are being ignored, they certainly benefit.

I'd daresay that middle lower-middle and income Americans eat quite a lot of meat, probably largely in the form of ground beef and chicken.

We could always try to convince the US middle class to convert over to consuming roaches. It's a much more eco-friendly approach. Also, roaches are a super food. So besides being able to survive nuclear holocoast they are actually good for you.

https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a20950388/cockroach-mil...

Oddly though, ground beef and chicken are the two substances that are the easiest to replace. There's almost nothing that doesn't taste a little like chicken once properly prepared. Similarly, there are plenty of ground up things that can substitute for ground beef. Then you can go into cost and life cycle. The cost of chicken is lower because of cycle cycle. The cost of ground beef is lower because it's low quality.

I'm fairly certain it's not the ground beef and chicken industry that are holding up the meat industry on the whole.

And those people are rich, on a global scale.

I believe you are conflating some arguments. You don't have to spend a large amount of money to have an outsized effect on the climate. I'd wager that a Burger King Whopper for $4.19 contributes more to climate change than a 8oz ribeye from locally raised cattle at a high-end restaurant for $39.

In this case you should spend more money on less meat. Just saying 'spend less money' continues to ignore the enternatilies that make meat production such a driver of climate change.

You're saying meat production is bad, but then blaming those that are actually eating less of the meat. I don't think the viewpoints you have presented are consistent with each other.

I didn't say meat production was bad, I said meat production contributes to climate change.