The emissions of the remaining categories in the pie chart (namely: Industry, Transportation, Buildings, Electricity and Heat Production and Other Energy) are primarily the byproduct of burning fossil fuels (and to a lesser extent from cement production).

If you take each of those categories on its own, you can compare them almost favorably to land use changes. But if you take them all together, they add up to 76%.

That is the percentage of greenhouse gas emissions that come from burning fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels is the major contributor to anthropogenic climate change, in fact is is the cause of anthropogenic climate change.

Again: 76% of all emissions (only a small part of that is from cement production).

Note also that the economist article makes it clear that land use change would be only minimally reduced, at best, from everyone going vegan because the majority of reduction would be in the use of pasture, much of which is not possible to cultivate anyway. So we'd still have to use the same land for cultivating food for humans that we do now to grow feed for animals.

The conclusion to draw is that even if everyone on the planet went vegan, but we continued to burn fossil fuels the same as before, we would still not have done anything to stop climate change and we would only slow it down a little. To eliminate climate change we must radically reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.

But, to directly respond to your argument. Yes, eating less meat helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[0] Until you can find a reliable source that says that it doesn't, we can stop talking about your baseless speculation that it doesn't.

To your other argument that it's useless to go vegetarian or vegan because it's not the primary source of emissions, that's just an excuse not to do anything. If you want to look at any of the causes of emissions in isolation they all look like the minority and your argument works equally well. "We shouldn't focus on solar because power production is only 25% of emissions." "We shouldn't look at industrial emissions because they are smaller than electric and agriculture." "We shouldn't look at concrete because it's really only a small percentage." "We shouldn't look at vehicular emissions because they are dwarfed by electric emissions." If we can't act on any problem because it's a small subset of the issue, then we can't look at any of the sources of emissions.

[0] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9926/htm#:~:text=The%20....

Can you show me where in my comment I made this baseless speculation?

> The conclusion to draw is that even if everyone on the planet went vegan, but we continued to burn fossil fuels the same as before, we would still not have done anything to stop climate change

Strictly speaking, eating less meat does something for climate change because it lowers greenhouse gas emissions. It can't be the only thing we do, but it does do something.

Because I said that everyone going vegan would not do anything to stop climate change not that it doesn't help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Correct?

Climate change can only be stopped (stopped from getting worse, that is) by eliminating or drastically reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn. That is because 3/4s of greenhouse gas emissions come from burning fossil fuels and only a much smaller amount comes from raising animals for meat, and then not even all animals that we reais for meat are significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, only ruminants are.

I find it shocking that, in order to promote the animal rights agenda, the indisputable fact that anthropogenic climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels is sidelined and the weight is placed on meat production. That is dangerous propaganda and if you care about the climate you should not promote it.

You could solve this without reducing consumption as well. Food additives exist which bring down methane emissions to practically nothing.