I thought the argument was that methane was more destructive than CO2 and has a shorter shelf life, so drastically reducing meat consumption would help quite a

I thought the argument was that methane was more destructive than CO2 and has a shorter shelf life, so drastically reducing meat consumption would help quite a bit. Nevertheless, it would be a short term win, so it would only buy time in solving the CO2 elephant in the room. Is that wrong as well? I didn't see anything in the argument address that point at all.