I think the claim is more that raising cattle leads to higher methane levels and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. There are other environm

I think the claim is more that raising cattle leads to higher methane levels and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. There are other environmental or social issues with raising animals for meat however (eg inefficient land use, animal welfare, deforestation, zoonotic diseases, etc). I don’t buy your argument because I think people are just not going to significantly change their behaviours because they are scared by some predicted global warming apocalypse, and carbon taxes seem unlikely to be supported in democracies for the same reason. It seems to me that the only way we will significantly curb CO2 emissions is by the environmentally better option being cheaper than keeping the worse option, possibly with some subsidies to help. It seems this is happening with electricity generation now in the US, which is good. Personally, I find environmental arguments to be stronger but I expect any declining meat consumption to be driven by animal welfare concerns, cultural changes, availability of alternatives, and possibly vegetarian/vegan food becoming cheaper or meat becoming more expensive (though that feels a bit unlikely currently).