I fail to see how this is the case, but perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make? What you're referring to is about colonialism, whereas here the USA is very much incentivized to work within its own borders, on its own food industry. It just so happens that climate change is a global problem as well, and the USA being a large rich country it has more causal influence on the outcome of climate change.
No it's not. The US must lead in reducing environmental destruction and emissions because it leads in producing environmental destruction and emissions (per capita.)
Why does per capita matters? The resources of the Earth are limited, and don't rise with the population. Focusing on the per capita means that we shouldn't take into account overpopulation because they don't consume much, for now. That doesn't sound right.
Presumably 97% of cattle are dependent on feed imports. After all, it means the huge non arable grasslands of the USA that people pretend are super important aren't enough to feed them.
> Getting China to stop coal would be more effective than getting the USA to stop beef.
Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do". Both _must_ be done.
> Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do".
I don't agree. We have limited time and energy to act. Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste, compared to using that time and energy to focus on a more important problem. I think focusing on moral imperatives instead of the most efficient actions is actually dangerous, as it's a denial of the reality we live in.
> Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste
It's a problem. Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein which could come from many other sources besides dead animals.
Again, America is not the only country in the world and is not the country that I was talking about when I said "beef in countries where it's not a problem".
> Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein
I doubt that's true. Meat has always been rich people's food, especially beef, and people like consuming like rich people.
> which could come from many other sources besides dead animals
Is the problem ecological or moral here? If the dead animals were more efficient than the other sources (which they sometimes are), would it still be a problem?
Most americans are consuming 100+ grams of protein a day (its very likely all of that coming from meat - I don't know anyone who consumes a lot of beans).[1] Average person needs about .36 grams of protein per pound of body weight.[2]
China emits less than half the greenhouse gases per capita irt the US. The US should begin by emitting at the rate of China, then we can all reduce together.
Why? If China wants to emit more greenhouse gases per capita, they could reduce their population and maintain the same emissions on the country level. What you're proposing is biaised in favor of countries with large populations.