[ericd]

As a sibling commenter alludes to, should we ban lettuce?

Trying to tackle sources one by one is going to be a mess and give us a crap solution full of holes, and tons of argument and inaction as people fight for their preferred solutions.

Tax the carbon entering the carbon cycle and let the costs of that flow through all the supply chains, soften the blow for people via rebates and by ramping the amount up over time to a well-telegraphed future target, and things will adjust. The poor will generally come out ahead after the rebate, since they tend to generate a lot less carbon, the rich will pay much more. Things like flying will probably triple in price, or more, if we set it at the price for durable sequestration, and so people will fly much less for recreation. And maybe we'll survive as a species to see another couple generations.

[MikeHolman]

The point is that it is much more land efficient for us to directly eat plants than to route the plants through animals first. Cattle use 99% of the calories we feed them for their own functioning. Only 1% actually make it into the meat that we eat.

I wasn't proposing any specific solution, just stating that eating animals does in fact contribute more CO2 than eating plants. And I have no problem with carbon taxes, in fact I'm in favor. A carbon tax could certainly cover this case if it taxes the CO2 that animals emit.