A no-beef diet is great – but only if you don’t replace it with chicken
vox.com
vox.com
It is important also to note that if the land were instead used for growing crop for human consumption, then the carbon capture effect would be far higher, and that generally grass fed beef in the US are fed grain in the final months before slaughter. Other factors like water usage of cattle farming per calorie produced compared to human consumed crop can put even grass fed cattle farming in a bad light.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is...
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-l...
If we conclude that bovine grazing is harmful, should we conclude that exterminating the American bison was green?
My point is that "giving up meat" doesn't feel like I've given up anything. I don't miss it like I thought I would. There's no craving for it. What's been interesting is that attempting to be vegan has led us to eat a much larger variety of foods. Thai and Indian, of course, but also more diverse choices that are traditionally meat-based but with tofu or bean substitutions.
Beyond the carbon footprint argument presented in this article, there's also the water footprint to consider, where industrial animal farming plays a large role in that shortage through usage and pollution (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0483-z.epdf).
That's assuming that supply remained basically the same.
If demand for meat dropped to the point where people were only eating it a once or twice a week instead of daily, supply would dry up to the point where it would actually become a rare delicacy and most people wouldn't be able to afford it much.
Animals suffer immensely, and we have no reason to believe their experience of suffering is more tolerable than humans.
No I don't think it is reasonable at all.
> Animals suffer immensely,
Untrue. Eating chicken or cow meat does not require the animals suffer immensely.
Some farming, transport, and slaughter practices cause needless suffering. But others don't, they actually allow pretty decent lives for the animals.
>pretty decent lives for the animals
There is a romanticized vision of nature which isn't entirely accurate. Consider animals in a state of nature. Most will die horrible deaths after suffering sickness or death. Humanely treated domestic animals live charmed lives in comparison. Their health is valued, protected by human incentives.