I think you missed the point -- that if you tried to replace meat with plants providing the same nutritional profile, then the impact is far less than anticipated by most calculations.
Cattle only contribute GHG when raised on grain as their digestive systems creates excessive methane breaking down corn. If more people understood how cows and ruminants should work vs how they are currently used in the industrialized feed complexes, they'd realize cows are not the problem, it's how we are using them.
It's really not an either-or, something that I feel is often lost in these discussions. Eating plants and meat is complementary, and has been for all of human history.
Basic biology says that when cattle eat feed only of portion of that feed ends up as meat.
The farming industry actually measures this using a measure called the Feed Conversion Ratio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Beef_cat...
For example the FCR for cattle is over 4 meaning for every unit of animal mass you'll need over 4 times that mass in feed.
This basic biology means it is always be more efficient to grow vegetables for direct consumption than to grow them for animal feed.
Returning to the most sustainable method of raising cattle, grazing, (such as simply letting cows graze) is pound for pound the most effective way to greatly reduce the carbon footprint left by industrialized livestock production, and restore soil quality.