No, it's correct to say that cattle don't contribute to climate change, but clearly I haven't managed to explain it properly. Let's try with an analogy. You h

No, it's correct to say that cattle don't contribute to climate change, but clearly I haven't managed to explain it properly. Let's try with an analogy. You have a lake, that has an inflow (river) and an outflow (river and/or solar evaporation). They are in equilibrium, and the lake has existed for thousands of years, never overflowing, never drying out. Then you build a factory/farm that takes some water out of the lake. If the amount of water is sufficiently small, the ecosystem can adapt (e.g. less outflow and/or evaporation). But if the amount of water you take out is over that "adaptable" threshold, then the lake WILL eventually dry out. Blaming the outflowing river is non-sensical; it didn't contribute anything to the drying of the lake, the entire fault lies with the factory. Note that the amount of water the factory takes is irrelevant (as long as it's over the "adaptable" threshold); the lake will dry regardless, the amount only influences when, not if. river->natural CO2 + methane cycle, lake->climate, factory->fossil fuels, less outflow->plants growing more because of extra CO2, lake drying->climate change (could work the other way as well, lake overflowing...)