So, meat eating causes climate change.
To which, in the comments, the answer was given, that there is x vegetation growing, that’s going to be eaten by something, somewhere, the same amount of methane/CO2 whatever is going to be emitted, so eating the beef doesn’t make any difference.
At one level this fails because of nitrogen. We deliberately add it in order to boost growth and there are emissions from that.
But at the other, larger, scale, what’s is actually wrong with the idea?
Or rather, what will some warmist tell us is wrong with it so that we may examine their logic?
A few occur off the top of the head, that perhaps cows eating it produce more emissions than rabbits, (termites are a major source of emissions themselves I believe).
But even if there are corrections to be made like that this means that it is the marginal emissions of meat eating that must be considered, not total.
So, why isn’t the idea right at heart at least? Vegetation will be eaten/rot (which is only being eaten by bugs etc) and so who eats it and what happens to them doesn’t make a difference.
That is, are there any emissions from meat eating?
I truly don’t know which is why I ask. I’d expect the correct answer to be that there is some difference but that it’s not total emissions at all but marginal. But who knows? And where is it discussed in the literature? It must actually be discussed in the academic literature, so where?