FWIW I don't think your points are totally invalid, and it is not me (and maybe not GP) that is flagging you. That aside, your primary argument if I understand

FWIW I don't think your points are totally invalid, and it is not me (and maybe not GP) that is flagging you. That aside, your primary argument if I understand it right is that there is no (or at least diminished) cost to cattle raising because the emitted carbon came from food that was sequestered as part of a cycle. The problem I would call attention to is that the planet's carbon capacity is simultaneously nerfed by the land required for feed. About 40% [0] of arable crop land is used to feed cattle, a process which faces huge caloric efficiency losses (consider that the caloric output of meat cannot be higher than the input). It is pretty well understood at this stage that meat consumption is a gigantic contributor to climate change. Anyway, I _also_ agree about cars. We don't need to rely on whataboutism here: we have a common objective. And, by the way, I still eat meat, but much much less than I used to, so I don't mean any of this as an attack on meat eaters. 0: https://fefac.eu/newsroom/news/a-few-facts-about-livestock-and-land-use/#:~:text=The%20total%20arable%20land%20used,from%20cereal%20harvesting%20for%20feed. https://fefac.eu/newsroom/news/a-few-facts-about-livestock-a...