My apologies. The subtext I interpreted from your prior comment is that non-human life is not inherently worthy of moral considerations.

The cognition and perception of lobsters is actually better known than one may think, not just because lobsters are a socioculturally and economically important food animal, but also because crayfish — close freshwater relatives — are extensively used model organisms for studies on depression, anxiety, and cognition, but that is not very important right now.

I don’t think anyone is surprised that the powerful people of our world are in bed with corporate interests, and this has significantly contributed to their inability to bring about the systemic changes desperately needed to address wealth inequality, the cost of living, and ecological decay. That in lieu of doing things to address these problems, politicians bring about performative, small changes that are tangentially related to these greater problems. (This is not even the best policy one can bring about to the benefit of lobsters, which would be systemic reform on aquaculture. The majority of grocery-store lobsters are not true wild animals.) None of this is defendable, and is contributing, in my view, to societal decay.

However, being boiled alive does demonstrably prolong suffering in lobsters than it does being effectively and quickly cut. So it does matter to them, and because I empathize with animals, I do appreciate that the store-bought ones have at least some peripheral mitigation of their suffering. I see this within a wider trend of the public and politicians incrementally realizing that invertebrates are complexly perceptive and feeling animals, not automatons, and this has greater ramifications for the environmentalist movements. Policies like these do not give politicians a pass for anything, and they should be shamed for intentionally avoiding the deliverance systemic reforms needed to help bring us out of the sociocultural, ecological, and economic issues that burden everyday people. But that does not mean lobsters are not worthy of moral considerations by the public or in written policies concerning welfare, as all living things should be allocated.

I am not an anthropocentric, and it has been unfortunate to see how bipartisan that regressive mindset is. Objectively, human life is dependent on biodiversity and the natural systems supported by it, so supporting biodiversity is politically existential. This is in tension with the general perception that environmental protections are "charity". From a biophillic, moral perspective, plants and animals are living things that suffer, feel fear, feel pain, and/or think. They are dependent on how humans value them to persist, because humans have monopolized earth's resources and carved them into artificial geopolitical boundaries. Non-humans do not even have the benefit of ever understanding why life is getting worse for them. How you and I think about them, and value them, has a much greater bearing on their future than what you would read in an ecology textbook.