[gambiting]

But that's an issue with where we feed the cows, isn't it?

For instance - cows are raised on many parts of moorlands in the UK, where they eat only the grass growing there. But if you removed the cows, the moors would be exactly as they are now - they cannot support forests or any other kind of vegetation, because they are basically solid rock with an inch of soil on top. I understand that on the "intensive farming" lots where cows are fed corn/hay specifically grown for them that doesn't really apply - but farmers do absolutely raise cows in such places where it makes no difference - even in the absence of cows or sheep you aren't going to have a forest there.

I understand this isn't potentially isn't helpful, but the problem is very nuanced - some cows are fed in such a way that their methane emissions are a net positive. But I'm also sure there are some where the emissions aren't positive at all, yet it's all bundled into the same "meat causes climate destruction" bandwagon.

[telchar]

I think you're underselling moorlands here. Trees can be planted on moors, and other even more carbon-sinking activity too: "It’s worth remembering that the peatlands of the UK store more carbon than the woodlands of the UK, France and Germany combined!" [0]

[0] https://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/our-purpose/habitats-fo...