But it wouldn't produce the exact same thing. Going by the original figures, which were yearly, methane leaks have a harm magnitude of 28 kg/person/year, while the vegan switch would be 1 kg/day, which is 365 kg/person/year, still much more impactful than the savings from sealing leaks.
With that said, the OP's [tgsovlerkhgsel's] general point is still sound, that there is much lower hanging fruit for reducing emissions that would be revealed by a neutral penalty system applied universally, and also show lifestyle changes to be a disproportionately burdensome measure.
Why do you think they don't do that? Could it be because they are evil or because not enough people will care enough to pay for the price difference due to clean production efforts?
It comes down the masses demanding it or not demanding it. You say that personal consumption doesn't make a difference then those who believe you go for the cheaper option even if they can afford the cleaner option. You say that personal efforts can't make a difference then they vote for the party that promises tax reductions instead of the one that promises to enforce fixed gas leaks.
Are there that many industries where consumer choice would encourage companies to make those kinds of pro-humanity choices? I'd like to buy electronics that aren't manufactured in part by children but it isn't like companies advertise whether they do that or not. So outside of occasional investigative journalism or assuming that they (or one of their suppliers) probably do what choices am I left with?
They actually do, that's why some companies also engage in Greenwashing, which is the practise of pretending to be environmentally friendly when you are actually not.
Because the brand of these companies is so valuable, once exposed they actually take steps to fix issues. Perfection is enemy of the good though, but things are actually moving for the better when there is a trend to demand the better.
There's of course counter trends, like eat more meat burn more fuel, screw the foreigners etc. I bet you, if these become dominant, the same brand will be all over it. "For every phone you buy from us, we kill a baby seal and throw a battery in the ocean" could be the next campaign if the ant-environmentalism catches up.
Well guess what, a tax on ghg emissions will make both those that don’t care about environment and those that pretend to care about it, suffer economic consequences.
I agree this kind of consumerism moves the needle, however I'm not sure that this mechanism can be relied on at the scale required to help with problems like climate change. Millions of consumers in many countries would have to be convinced to do research/change their purchasing habits and potentially inconvenience themselves or even increase their cost of living, even to environmentally concious people I'd guess that's a hard sell
"because not enough people will care enough to pay for the price difference" the emissions are invisible, and thus people don't have the choice whether to pay more or not.
Especially as a lot of the consumption is indirect - you don't buy the gas, but you buy a meal in a restaurant that was cooked using that gas, or a car whose manufacturer bought the dashboard from a company that bought the plastic from a company that made it using gas from the national gas market, where all gas is fungible and it doesn't matter how it was produced.
