The Earth will fix itself, eventually, no matter what we do to it. It's seen worse. I mean it apparently went from a ball of lava pelted with meteorite-nukes to the only verdant garden we have ever known, and it has already been through at least a few cataclysms.
Even if the planet disappears overnight, the universe at large will still go on as if we never existed.
You choose the scale you want to care about, and some levels require some sacrifice on other levels.
I suppose this depends on your definition of "fix," but this sounds suspiciously like the Gaia hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
Which is closer to wishful thinking than science. Sure, Earth will go on, because Earth doesn't care. But humans are facing a climate catastrophe if they do not course-correct their impact on the planet, and that is what we mean by "good for the Earth" -- that is, good for the maintaining the planet as a place where we want to live.
If anything does matter, we should reduce our consumption and production of animal based products.
And without this assumption the "own good vs. common good" argument doesn't hold. Because in reality, "own good" and "common good" align at a lower consumption of meat. (Ignoring taste, obviously. Meat is delicious!)
That's behind Italy (188 liters per capita) and Germany (175 liters per capita). The EU average is 117 liters per capita [2].
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183377/per-capita-consum...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/455422/bottled-water-con...
Many parts of the US have excellent tasting tap water, and in those places everyone drinks it. California is one exception, and many parts of it have infamously discolored and poor tasting/smelling water. When I lived in California I drank bottled water, most everywhere else I drank tap water. California water is safe, it just tastes terrible and is sometimes discolored because of where it comes from.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. And clearly that's aligned with the mission of the WWF. But I think you'd get a much different list if it was just about maximizing the health of the eater. E.g. meat.
When I choose food at the grocery store I'm focused on which are better for me, not Earth. If I were convinced that there is a genuine discrepancy between those goals, I'd likely still choose me. Am I the bad guy?