Additionally we might need to reevaluate how damaging eating meat really is. It certainly has a larger impact, but cows for example convert grass into human digestible energy. Sure, the cows use a lot of land that could perhaps be used to grow crops. But usually they are held in places where growing crops isn't too easy. Most farmland does not support crops for human consumption (although you could eat wheat with less protein as well, you just cannot use it for baking anything). But this farmland can grow grass or feed for animals...
We usually saw nutritional values compared to rice or potatoes. This is extremely reductionist and doesn't tell the whole story. I think it is really bad science, shouldn't even qualify for pop science. We should listen to farmers here. Their methane output is not relevant as well, what started as a joke about cow farts ended in silly propaganda.
I believe for animal welfare we should curb the worst excesses; the cows should have a decent life and people need to eat meat more consciously. Would mean the meat would be more expensive than it is today of course. It would become more exclusive.
This is a problem of logistics of large supermarket chains. These dictate the prices for farmers in the name of the customer. Instead of complaining to farmers, you need to complain to supermarkets if you want to change anything. They demand low prices in the name of their customers. They want as few suppliers as possible, so they tend to prefer contracts with giant agricultural corporations that try to squeeze out animals as much as possible. This will kill any smaller farms in the long run.
Eating meat does have an imprint on nature on the scale we do it today. But compared to oil and gas this is almost negligible. We also do not have a problem with food production, that there are people going hungry has completely other reasons, mostly logistical ones.