You bring up some points worth talking about. For example... > Articles will choose to highlight the fact that about a quarter of global emissions are due to a

You bring up some points worth talking about. For example... > Articles will choose to highlight the fact that about a quarter of global emissions are due to agriculture — but if you stick to developed countries, it's a tenth. The reason this is discussed in percentages is that developed countries put out more GHG that developing countries. So, the percent from the food supply chain is a smaller percentage but still a large amount. There are also different GHGs. Those from our food supply chain, outside of CO2, last in the atmosphere less time and have a greater impact. This means that lowering them has a shorter time to seeing the impact. > The "plant-based" lobby is well-funded and manages to insert themselves all over the conversation while other industries like cement/steel/landfill/heating/shipping get little to no political or regulatory attention. If you follow the money you'll find that big AG is far more well funded than "plant-based". I recently learned that 60% of cholesterol studies are funded by the egg industry alone. Big AG is massively funded. Digging into the details rather than the surface discussions is illuminating.