The study they so heavily cite completely removes meat eating from the equation and supplements the US's need for meat with alternative methods in every scenari

The study they so heavily cite completely removes meat eating from the equation and supplements the US's need for meat with alternative methods in every scenario. It's obvious that, with such a drastic change, the change in emissions would be minimal, since many of these industries that would be replaced would have been the most optimal industries for these products. But if we consider instead, that meat can still be consumed instrumentally, for required nutritional needs, or perhaps even omit some of those needs entirely; we could end up in a scenario much better off than 2.6% reduction of emissions. So simply taking 10% of the proposed reduction of emissions won't cut it. It's really lazy, as the study cannot account for that in its current form. Not to mention that "green water" sounds like the most invented term I've ever heard. Like, c'mon, rain water doesn't grow on trees, whatever you don't use goes back into the ecosystem. So of course using it would be more impactful than not.