depends on the meat and the non-meat.

There is carbon-negative beef, and there are plants that require enormous amounts of artificial soil additives. Probably the biggest factor is whether the meat comes from a ranch in your general area and if the bell-pepper in your salad was flown in from holland.

meet the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Hq8eVOMHs&t=4s

Great video.

What seems obvious to those of us interested in the topic is clearly quite foreign to most people in this forum after reading the comments.

Did I say somewhere that meat consumption is not problematic?

I'm responding to "people disagree with the notion that reducing meat consumption is helpful from an emissions perspective". People may disagree but it's like disagreeing that 100 > 1 -- who cares what they think?

What it says is

> "not ... that people disagree"

Right you are...

Sorry, I managed to misread your comment a few times.

You should probably sit still and not move around too much in order to minimize the number of calories you need to stay alive. If that's the metric we're optimizing for, anyway.

This is the sort of childish reply I see when folks talk about emissions from meat consumption/production. What's next, are you going to tell me that every steak I don't eat you'll eat two more? That's a classic.