If priced accurately, why do you think the externalities of CO2 are anywhere near enough to destroy demand for meat?

I only perennially bring this up, because one time I was interested in what the numbers might be, and I looked up the National Resources Defense Council estimates were for the economic impact of global warming in ~a half century. The rather startling figures were only a few dollars per gallon of gas. Not to be at all precise, by "a few" I mean 1-10. Not, it seems to me, qualitatively different that the difference between US and European gas prices. Obviously people still eat meat in the EU and haven't radically changed their lifestyle.

I'm not saying that therefore we should not stop climate change, just that as far as I know, the NRDC is reasonably reputable, not a nest of deniers, and they didn't seem to be supporting an economic case for major changes to everyone's lifestyle. That should be shocking, or at least require some resolution.

Some people do have the opinion that mainstream sources downplay the consequences of global warming so as not to be too alarmist, and in fact we can't be too alarmist because it really is too late. Maybe that is correct, but when there is such a disconnect and people just don't talk about it most of the time, it deeply worries me. Not just the idea that the world might be ending and we aren't resolving how to prevent it, but that maybe nobody who is talking about these things is serious at all.

Protein prices would likely benefit still under that scenario, at least in the short run, as you are talking about drastically limiting supply. Presumably the demand would still be there.

Don't base your investments on wishful thinking.

All of your suggestions will also cause the prices of animal-based foods to rise. I hope those price increases are substantial.

Multi-year could be just 2-5 years. You're talking a much longer-term structural thing. China has to deal with soaring pork prices. I don't think they care about environmental impact.