biden may not want to ban meat, but i think policies to reduce meat consumption are a necessary step in the right direction. the insistence that he'd never do anything like that, and relegation of it to a "conspiracy theory", is a deflating reminder that he's not actually serious about limiting emissions.
a specific meat tax on top of a carbon tax is actually a good idea that i'd probably support.
that said, the focus on meat production as a specifically carbon-intensive industry is actually an empirically wrong approach, and the confluence of environmentalism with animal rights movements, while positive, has produced a fair amount of misleading information around the consumption of meat products and it's effects on the environment; more specifically, the messaging ignores or obscures that, while grazing is a poor use of land, it's actually industrial plant agriculture that creates the larger amount of total greenhouse gas emissions, due to it's reliance on oil-based pesticides and nitrogen-based fertilizers.
that's right: the way we do plant-based agriculture today actually creates more emissions than the way we do animal-based agriculture. so, while the animal rights activists and health advocates are right to try to convince you to reduce your meat consumption, this specific argument that meat is bad for emissions is misleading, so long as we're comparing animal grazing to industrialized plant farming. if you want an improvement, you'd have to move to different methods to produce plant-based agriculture, and the technology required to do that while producing enough to feed billions of people on top of a reduction in meat consumption is currently just getting ramped up.
on this day, you can look that up yourself.