They aren't expected to "eat" healthier, they are expected to invest in healthier food crops. See... when you destroy crops, the supply drops relative to the demand. The price of the crop to the customers increases and it becomes more profitable and investors will invest in these profitable crops.
I hate this argument. How does buying something incentivize more of it to be made when there is a substitute(dirty energy)?
It's like saying you're going to incentivize people to eat healthier by destroying vegetable crops
They aren't expected to "eat" healthier, they are expected to invest in healthier food crops. See... when you destroy crops, the supply drops relative to the demand. The price of the crop to the customers increases and it becomes more profitable and investors will invest in these profitable crops.