That Guardian article switched between the various environmental harms of meat production in a confusing way. Here is what Wikipedia has to say with respect to

That Guardian article switched between the various environmental harms of meat production in a confusing way. Here is what Wikipedia has to say with respect to greenhouse gasses: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#Greenhouse_gas_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... From the article: >At a global scale, the FAO has recently estimated that livestock (including poultry) accounts for about 14.5 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions estimated as 100-year CO2 equivalents. >A PNAS model showed that even if animals were completely removed from US agriculture and diets, US GHG emissions would be decreased by 2.6%(or 28% of agricultural GHG emissions). This is because of the need to replace animal manures by fertilizers and to replace also other animal coproducts, and because livestock now use human-inedible food and fiber processing byproducts. So if you live in the US, decreasing meat consumption will help significantly, but people in the US use a heck of a lot of GHG producing energy in other forms: * https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...