[pl-94]

> Also, removing beef consumption would increase consumption of other foods so the emissions reduction wouldn't be as drastic.

Well, since you have a factor between 10x (cereals) and 100x (legumes) in the CO2 emissions between beef and vegetables, yeah it does drastically decrease emissions.

> Objectively, chicken and pork have much lower emissions than beef. Right. However, pork is mostly fed with cereals, inducing a high level of CO2eq/kg + land use + loss of diversity.

[kinjba11]

It is easy for statistics to ignore the big picture, ignoring important details and caveats. There is no single number for CO2 emissions for beef and different crops. If beef is 10x more nutritious than cereals, does that change the equation? If cows are raised on grassland unsuitable for crops, does that change the equation? Would the demand for non-edible products produced by cows be satisfied with more CO2 intensive solutions? Highly efficient, mature and industrialized agriculture in the US is very different from burning down forests to raise cattle or make room for poorly raised crops as happens in some countries - does that change the equation?

I highly recommend watching for more details. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdrhpThqlCo