Beef alone accounts for 6% of greenhouse gas emissions with livestock in total accounting for 14.5%. That is not a rounding error by any means:
https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/492...
https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/492...
People in the US sometimes focus on global action, but as a US resident it seems completely inappropriate to be telling people who emit far far less carbon that they need to stop eating beef, before people in the US have stopped far far worse activities.
Why does it need to be one or the other? It's definitely true that the US has higher greenhouse gas emissions per person than most other places. Shouldn't we focus on reducing emissions anywhere we can?
I've spoken to lots of Americans who are under the false impression that food miles are the most important factor when it comes to sustainable food, this article makes the case that it's actually meat.
I think it's reasonable to say people should eat less meat (especially in the US) and we should also reduce emissions from transportation and energy.
But for systematic change, and systematic change is what's needed, there are sever political consequences for focusing on hugely unpopular actions that have little effect. Attacks on meat have empowered those who oppose climate action, which is just below 50% of the population in the US. Focusing climate action on meat consumption has been counterproductive, just as doomerism about climate action is used to make people feel helpless and then abandon taking any action at all.
We have very little time to make massive climate strides, and anything that slows down the fastest action in the US, like prioritizing meat consumption and not placing it in the proper context, causes great harm to the cause. Just as focusing of food miles by hapless media has caused great harm for climate action.
Animals rights activists often hide this type of information to tie themselves to climate activism.
So right there off the bat, beef CO2 / calorie is 30x higher than the plants they eat (or whatever the multiplier was).
We didn't do any of these for the bison.
I grew up ranching and have read the research on this. They don't graze the same, they don't migrate the same, they don't eat the same plants, they don't have the same predators, etc. infact, we massacred to near extinction several keystone species to make way for cattle.
We also killed all the bison to cause famine in native American populations.
The real facts are: 1) beef is optional. Great during food scarcity, not necessary when food is abundant. 2) beef is extremely inefficient to produce. We're talking 20x+(likely much higher) than plant based proteins. 3) beef is horrendous for the environment. 4) over consumption of beef is the cause of a ton of public health issues. 5) animal cruelty 6) industrial ranching creates diseases or facilitates their spread.
Beef is a status symbol food. The propaganda around it is strong and constant in countries like the US, where we're blasted with Christian-Patriot conquerer messaging constantly. (god gave us the earth and all animals to exploit. As the conquerers it is our right to exploit all things.)
Start looking at all the ways US culture still pushes the over consuming conquerer mentality. We all joke about how capitalism is bad and then we fall for the propaganda to eat more beef. Look at how primed people are and how constant the messaging is. You can't go 5 minutes with beef being thrown at you. Once one starts to look at the constant capitalist advertising and societal propaganda telling us to keep over consuming it becomes really obvious.
A lot of Americans get deeply offended at the mere idea of eating less meat. The propaganda and advertising is strong.
Be a good patriot. Eat more beef to be a strong man. /S
(The sarcasm in this comment is meant to convey how stupid the beef mentality is in countries like the US. Phrasing it in a sarcastic way showcases how obvious it can be )