Shouldn't per-capita consumption be factored in? Otherwise "the global problem" just boils down to whichever country is the "biggest" (by population or by GDP).
That's a deeply biased stance though, isn't it? It seems to say that USA and Brazil eating vast amounts of beef, the latter clearing the Amazon to do so, isn't a problem, it's only a problem now because of the Chinese.
The US and Brazil have eaten a lot of beef for a significant amount of time, so that had already been priced into the market.
A sudden spike in price requires a change in the market - e.g., the Chinese suddenly starting to eat more beef, wildfires wiping out grazing land, fuel price spikes making it more expensive to ship the product around, screwworm outbreaks reducing cattle headcount, crackdown on migrant workers reducing available labor for meatpacking plants, etc.
Shouldn't per-capita consumption be factored in? Otherwise "the global problem" just boils down to whichever country is the "biggest" (by population or by GDP).
That's a deeply biased stance though, isn't it? It seems to say that USA and Brazil eating vast amounts of beef, the latter clearing the Amazon to do so, isn't a problem, it's only a problem now because of the Chinese.
The US and Brazil have eaten a lot of beef for a significant amount of time, so that had already been priced into the market.
A sudden spike in price requires a change in the market - e.g., the Chinese suddenly starting to eat more beef, wildfires wiping out grazing land, fuel price spikes making it more expensive to ship the product around, screwworm outbreaks reducing cattle headcount, crackdown on migrant workers reducing available labor for meatpacking plants, etc.
The word "problem" lacks nuance here. But it's a reasonable stand-in for "the factor that shifted and is the root cause".