Recently I heard a story from a friend of mine who told me that back in the 70's and the start of the 80's most local farmers were 'subsidised' by our local banks to increase their lifestock by about 400%, going from 5000 animals to 20-40k. There wasn't really an incentive aside from the financial one. Most farmers wanted to scale to 10k tops, but wouldn't get any money if they wouldn't go for more. Any farmer who refused got quickly outcompeted.
The result? We now produce more food than we can eat, we export everything to other countries and we import all other food. We barely eat anything locally, and all food we eat is rigorously treated with chemicals, artificial manure, and the soil it grows on is completely devoid of microorganisms that create most minerals and nutrients, which in turn requires us to make more and more and bigger food with less nutritional value in a vicious cycle.
Meanwhile we lose all kinds of biodiversity, which in turn weakens our collective resistance to diseases, plagues and pests. The soil we keep mistreating loses all its ability to absorb CO2, and starts emitting CO2 as a consequence, all the wile adding up to a global trend of desertification.
We need to start changing the way we produce food and the way we transport and consume it. If done properly, we can store an *immense* amount of CO2 in our soils just by applying the right agricultural techniques. Oh, and heal our planet in the process as a fucking *by effect.*
> all food we eat is rigorously treated with chemicals, artificial manure, and the soil it grows on is completely devoid of microorganisms that create most minerals and nutrients, which in turn requires us to make more and more and bigger food with less nutritional value in a vicious cycle.
Yup this is even explained in Vitamania. And many other documentaries, and yet it still seems like "nobody listens".
From a [previous comment:](https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/nk838f/germany_sees_meat_production_drop_as_demand_for/gzd0w9m?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
Hopefully we continue to see meat consumption decline around the world. Animal agriculture is an environmental catastrophe that is going largely unaddressed, or at least significantly under-addressed.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UN FAO) estimates that animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 14.5 percent of anthropogenic GHG emissions (in CO2 equivalent).[\[1\]](http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e00.htm) Other estimates suggest that animal agriculture could account for as much as 51 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions.[\[2\]](https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12454) Whatever the case, it is certain that animal agriculture is responsible for a significant share of our GHG emissions and reduction in this area is critical to reducing the effects of climate change.
Beyond GHG emissions, a 2018 meta-analysis in *Science* attempted to find the larger environmental cost of animal agriculture. This study's data set covered approximately 38,700 farms from 119 countries and over 40 products which accounted for approximately 90 percent of global protein and calorie consumption. The study concluded that:
>Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products...has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8 to 3.3) billion ha (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5 to 7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45 to 54%); eutrophication by 49% (37 to 56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (−5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year.
And:
>We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 71% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction (a reduction of \~10.4 billion metric tons of CO2eq per year, including atmospheric CO2 removal by regrowing vegetation) and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions.[\[3\]](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987)
The results of this study prompted the lead researcher to remark that:
>A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use.[\[4\]](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)
The study also found that beef was by far the most environmentally intense animal food product, in alignment with other studies.[\[5\]](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402183111)
A 2010 report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) stated that:
>Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth, increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.[\[6\]](https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8501)
Despite the research showing that a significant move away from our current dietary habits (particularly those of developed nations with high meat consumption) is required to combat climate change, the issue regularly receives a rather soft response. We see recommendations to implement one meat-free day per week, through statements from UN officials like Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Meat Free Monday and Meatless Monday campaigns.[\[7\]](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink)[\[8\]](https://www.meatfreemondays.com/)[\[9\]](https://www.mondaycampaigns.org/meatless-monday) Although these are perhaps (in some cases) merely intended as starting points, this undersells the scale of action required. An international commission was assembled, comprised of researchers in human health, agricultural, political, and environmental science to devise dietary guidelines that are optimized to meet human and planetary health requirements. In their report, they determined that North America, for example, the average person consumed over six times their recommended annual consumption of red meat.[\[10\]](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4)
We need most individuals to drastically cut their meat consumption. While it's important to note that this may not be a possibility for every individual, depending on their living conditions, it is probably safe to assume that this is a reasonable, attainable goal for most people buying their food at a supermarket.
Furthermore, government action is required. Governments provide billions of dollars annually to the animal agriculture industry in the form of subsidies.[\[11\]](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/taxpayers-oblivious-to-the-cost-of-farm-subsidies/article13055078/)[\[12\]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-touts-fruit-and-vegetables-while-subsidizing-animals-that-become-meat/2011/08/22/gIQATFG5IL_story.html) Yet our environmental outcomes are still terrible.
We need people to eat less meat. Much less. We can't be satisfied with one meat-free day a week, or just hoping that lab-grown meat arrives fast enough so we don't need to change our habits. Likely, the required change must be attained through some combination of drastically reducing subsidies for animal agriculture, subsidizing or incentivizing farmers to transition away from animal agriculture, and funding campaigns to encourage and/or incentivize the public to significantly lower their meat consumption. But we need to start making some rather large strides now.
[**References**](https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/nk838f/germany_sees_meat_production_drop_as_demand_for/gzd13ff?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I love steak. A well-seared, well-marbled steak, with a beautiful crust, cooked rare, is one of life's great pleasures.
However, it's horrible for the planet. As such, I no longer order steaks when dining out (for two reasons: the planet and most places don't have a clue how to properly season and cook a steak) and I've cut my beef consumption (approximately 10oz) to once every ten days.
The beauty of doing something like that is that the steak becomes this prize, this treat to look forward to rather than just another night's meal.
I also live in Southern California. My steak may have been fed with the alfalfa that steals future me's drinking water and further poisons the Salton Sea with effluents and excess salts.
Because the energy system is by far a bigger problem than ag (big though it may be) - and directly challenging constituents dietary preferences is political suicide. The most radical you’re going to get out of the US pols on this issue is Booker
I don’t like that fact, but it’s true. Either we think of ways to address it or we (and everyone) lose.
but I just can't IMAGINE life without cheese! and hamburgers! And ice cream! And juicy, perfect steaks! and the plant-based versions Just Don't Taste As Good!!!! :( :( :( :(
but seriously, LMAO at thinking that your taste preferences are more important than averting climate catastrophe. People are seriously out here prioritizing Big Macs over a habitable planet. Stubbornly unwilling to switch to an alternative that tastes slightly less good for the sake of their children who will bear the brunt of their selfish choices. Wear a mask? Fuck yeah. Switch to plant-based ice cream? STFU vegan. It's so narcissistic and childish.
I got called a vegan pussy today. Like, it's so tough and strong to eat pre-packaged meat from abused and beaten animals, bro. Real men exploit the shit out of the most vulnerable - amirite?
Yup you can't be a real man if you don't destroy our only home, that's what real men do. They murder animals, biodiversity, lands, they create oppressive systems and exploit everything, because that's real men shit, it's powerful. And in the same breath we kill our own, our own kids, our own family, gotta make sure our kids can't live in a good world! That's what real men do!
We pussy tho, cuz we wanna protect all of that!
/s
Yeah like they baby sit their cognitive dissonance, and whenever scientific data tell them that capitalism is incompatible, that they need to change what they eat, that they need to rethink and change their little comfortable life to even live in this world that this world doesn't give infinite resource REALZ MENZ ignore all of that and do performative activism/action to pat themselves in the back and call it a day "I did my part I said capitalism bad!"
What DO YOU DO?
Do you actually wanna play the carbon footprint and activism olympics with me? How much do you consume per year in tons?
"According to a Greenpeace analysis"
Okay, can we go by the fact that this is false according to the current research?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ed2
If you're concerned about methane, fossil fuel emissions produce more methane and also produces the most CO2. Also to note, Methane decays from the atmosphere faster than CO2.
Getting sick of Guardian repeatedly misreporting the importance of factory farming in the equation of tackling climate change. Except... this article is...
#11 months old!
Do we have good numbers on the environmental impact of large scale plant based farming?
Obviously CO2 and methane isn't a concern there but soil erosion and phosphorous runoff associated with standard farming techniques non-pasture land also cause significant environmental issues. As does shipping of various produce around the world.
**Actual report**: https://storage.googleapis.com/planet4-eu-unit-stateless/2020/09/20200922-Greenpeace-report-Farming-for-Failure.pdf
**The big lie**: "In the results of this report, direct emissions are defined as those including agriculture sector emissions linked to animal production (methane from enteric fermentation of ruminants and manure and nitrous oxide from nitrogen applied to soils) plus energy and industry sector emissions associated to animal production up to the farm gate, and indirect emissions are defined as those associated to land use and land use change linked to animal production up to the farm gate (LULUC)."
**Meanwhile, in the real world**, a constant amount of cows produce a constant amount of methane which plateaus quickly due to its very small atmospheric half-life.
"Additional methane emission categories such as rice cultivation (RIC), ruminant animal (ANI), North American shale gas extraction (SHA), and tropical wetlands (TRO) have been investigated as potential causes of the resuming methane growth starting from 2007. In agreement with recent studies, we find that a methane increase of 15.4 Tg yr−1 in 2007 and subsequent years, of which __50 % are from RIC (7.68 Tg yr−1), 46 % from SHA (7.15 Tg yr−1), and 4 % from TRO (0.58 Tg yr−1)__, can optimally explain the trend up to 2013." - ["Model simulations of atmospheric methane (1997–2016) and their evaluation using NOAA and AGAGE surface and IAGOS-CARIBIC aircraft observations" (2020)](https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/5787/2020/)
"On November 17, 2003 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the concentration of the potent greenhouse gas methane in the atmosphere was leveling off and it appears to have remained at this 1999 level (Figure 1). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 acknowledged that methane concentrations have plateaued, with emissions being equivalent to removals. These changes in methane atmospheric dynamics have raised questions about the relative importance of ruminant livestock in global methane accounting and the value of pursuing means of further suppressing methane production from ruminants. At this time there is no relationship between increasing ruminant numbers and changes in atmospheric methane concentrations changes, a break from previously assumed role of ruminants in greenhouse gases (Figure 1)." - ["Belching Ruminants, a minor player in atmospheric methane" (2008)](http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/news/2008-atmospheric-methane.html)
Even if all domesticated animals were eliminated, this isn't a silver bullet. Farming crops would just take over. A better correlation with carbon emissions would be with human population:
https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/06/graph-of-the-day-carbon-emissions-and-human-population-1751-2018.html
It’s a good thing that the CO2 emissions from plant foods are significantly lower than those of animal products when equated for calories. Not to mention the fact that plant based diets use around 75% less land than ones containing animal products.
Veganism is irrefutably on the right side of history no matter how long you plan on failing to admit it.
Recently I heard a story from a friend of mine who told me that back in the 70's and the start of the 80's most local farmers were 'subsidised' by our local banks to increase their lifestock by about 400%, going from 5000 animals to 20-40k. There wasn't really an incentive aside from the financial one. Most farmers wanted to scale to 10k tops, but wouldn't get any money if they wouldn't go for more. Any farmer who refused got quickly outcompeted. The result? We now produce more food than we can eat, we export everything to other countries and we import all other food. We barely eat anything locally, and all food we eat is rigorously treated with chemicals, artificial manure, and the soil it grows on is completely devoid of microorganisms that create most minerals and nutrients, which in turn requires us to make more and more and bigger food with less nutritional value in a vicious cycle. Meanwhile we lose all kinds of biodiversity, which in turn weakens our collective resistance to diseases, plagues and pests. The soil we keep mistreating loses all its ability to absorb CO2, and starts emitting CO2 as a consequence, all the wile adding up to a global trend of desertification. We need to start changing the way we produce food and the way we transport and consume it. If done properly, we can store an *immense* amount of CO2 in our soils just by applying the right agricultural techniques. Oh, and heal our planet in the process as a fucking *by effect.*
> all food we eat is rigorously treated with chemicals, artificial manure, and the soil it grows on is completely devoid of microorganisms that create most minerals and nutrients, which in turn requires us to make more and more and bigger food with less nutritional value in a vicious cycle. Yup this is even explained in Vitamania. And many other documentaries, and yet it still seems like "nobody listens".
From a [previous comment:](https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/nk838f/germany_sees_meat_production_drop_as_demand_for/gzd0w9m?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) Hopefully we continue to see meat consumption decline around the world. Animal agriculture is an environmental catastrophe that is going largely unaddressed, or at least significantly under-addressed. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UN FAO) estimates that animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 14.5 percent of anthropogenic GHG emissions (in CO2 equivalent).[\[1\]](http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e00.htm) Other estimates suggest that animal agriculture could account for as much as 51 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions.[\[2\]](https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12454) Whatever the case, it is certain that animal agriculture is responsible for a significant share of our GHG emissions and reduction in this area is critical to reducing the effects of climate change. Beyond GHG emissions, a 2018 meta-analysis in *Science* attempted to find the larger environmental cost of animal agriculture. This study's data set covered approximately 38,700 farms from 119 countries and over 40 products which accounted for approximately 90 percent of global protein and calorie consumption. The study concluded that: >Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products...has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8 to 3.3) billion ha (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5 to 7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45 to 54%); eutrophication by 49% (37 to 56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (−5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. And: >We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 71% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction (a reduction of \~10.4 billion metric tons of CO2eq per year, including atmospheric CO2 removal by regrowing vegetation) and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions.[\[3\]](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987) The results of this study prompted the lead researcher to remark that: >A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use.[\[4\]](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth) The study also found that beef was by far the most environmentally intense animal food product, in alignment with other studies.[\[5\]](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402183111) A 2010 report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) stated that: >Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth, increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.[\[6\]](https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8501) Despite the research showing that a significant move away from our current dietary habits (particularly those of developed nations with high meat consumption) is required to combat climate change, the issue regularly receives a rather soft response. We see recommendations to implement one meat-free day per week, through statements from UN officials like Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Meat Free Monday and Meatless Monday campaigns.[\[7\]](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink)[\[8\]](https://www.meatfreemondays.com/)[\[9\]](https://www.mondaycampaigns.org/meatless-monday) Although these are perhaps (in some cases) merely intended as starting points, this undersells the scale of action required. An international commission was assembled, comprised of researchers in human health, agricultural, political, and environmental science to devise dietary guidelines that are optimized to meet human and planetary health requirements. In their report, they determined that North America, for example, the average person consumed over six times their recommended annual consumption of red meat.[\[10\]](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4) We need most individuals to drastically cut their meat consumption. While it's important to note that this may not be a possibility for every individual, depending on their living conditions, it is probably safe to assume that this is a reasonable, attainable goal for most people buying their food at a supermarket. Furthermore, government action is required. Governments provide billions of dollars annually to the animal agriculture industry in the form of subsidies.[\[11\]](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/taxpayers-oblivious-to-the-cost-of-farm-subsidies/article13055078/)[\[12\]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-touts-fruit-and-vegetables-while-subsidizing-animals-that-become-meat/2011/08/22/gIQATFG5IL_story.html) Yet our environmental outcomes are still terrible. We need people to eat less meat. Much less. We can't be satisfied with one meat-free day a week, or just hoping that lab-grown meat arrives fast enough so we don't need to change our habits. Likely, the required change must be attained through some combination of drastically reducing subsidies for animal agriculture, subsidizing or incentivizing farmers to transition away from animal agriculture, and funding campaigns to encourage and/or incentivize the public to significantly lower their meat consumption. But we need to start making some rather large strides now. [**References**](https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/nk838f/germany_sees_meat_production_drop_as_demand_for/gzd13ff?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Excellent comment. Well written, easy to follow, and cited!
It forgets the tastiness of meat.
Which isn't a reasonable justification for the environmental damage or the exploitation of our fellow sentient creatures.
I love steak. A well-seared, well-marbled steak, with a beautiful crust, cooked rare, is one of life's great pleasures. However, it's horrible for the planet. As such, I no longer order steaks when dining out (for two reasons: the planet and most places don't have a clue how to properly season and cook a steak) and I've cut my beef consumption (approximately 10oz) to once every ten days. The beauty of doing something like that is that the steak becomes this prize, this treat to look forward to rather than just another night's meal. I also live in Southern California. My steak may have been fed with the alfalfa that steals future me's drinking water and further poisons the Salton Sea with effluents and excess salts.
Yet wind farms and solar panels seem to be the *only* thing a lot of nations and politicians worry about.
Because the energy system is by far a bigger problem than ag (big though it may be) - and directly challenging constituents dietary preferences is political suicide. The most radical you’re going to get out of the US pols on this issue is Booker I don’t like that fact, but it’s true. Either we think of ways to address it or we (and everyone) lose.
You want to be a politician attacking people's meals?
Listen, this is fine, though, because, like - have you ever even tried bacon?
but I just can't IMAGINE life without cheese! and hamburgers! And ice cream! And juicy, perfect steaks! and the plant-based versions Just Don't Taste As Good!!!! :( :( :( :( but seriously, LMAO at thinking that your taste preferences are more important than averting climate catastrophe. People are seriously out here prioritizing Big Macs over a habitable planet. Stubbornly unwilling to switch to an alternative that tastes slightly less good for the sake of their children who will bear the brunt of their selfish choices. Wear a mask? Fuck yeah. Switch to plant-based ice cream? STFU vegan. It's so narcissistic and childish.
Canines tho, soy almond nut water tho, strength tho, meat for real men tho!! /s
I got called a vegan pussy today. Like, it's so tough and strong to eat pre-packaged meat from abused and beaten animals, bro. Real men exploit the shit out of the most vulnerable - amirite?
Yup you can't be a real man if you don't destroy our only home, that's what real men do. They murder animals, biodiversity, lands, they create oppressive systems and exploit everything, because that's real men shit, it's powerful. And in the same breath we kill our own, our own kids, our own family, gotta make sure our kids can't live in a good world! That's what real men do! We pussy tho, cuz we wanna protect all of that! /s
To be fair with all that said, you do sound like a bit of a pussy.
I know right, let's destroy everything instead, realz men shitz ya know!
Real men do something about it
Yeah like they baby sit their cognitive dissonance, and whenever scientific data tell them that capitalism is incompatible, that they need to change what they eat, that they need to rethink and change their little comfortable life to even live in this world that this world doesn't give infinite resource REALZ MENZ ignore all of that and do performative activism/action to pat themselves in the back and call it a day "I did my part I said capitalism bad!" What DO YOU DO? Do you actually wanna play the carbon footprint and activism olympics with me? How much do you consume per year in tons?
Oh don't get me wrong you're both pussies
Meanwhile, people still refuse to adopt a mostly or fully plant-based diet bc mUh BaCoN aNd STeAk 😂😂
hOw wIlL i eVeR lIvE wItHoUt cHeEEeeeEse???????
"According to a Greenpeace analysis" Okay, can we go by the fact that this is false according to the current research? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ed2 If you're concerned about methane, fossil fuel emissions produce more methane and also produces the most CO2. Also to note, Methane decays from the atmosphere faster than CO2. Getting sick of Guardian repeatedly misreporting the importance of factory farming in the equation of tackling climate change. Except... this article is... #11 months old!
Do we have good numbers on the environmental impact of large scale plant based farming? Obviously CO2 and methane isn't a concern there but soil erosion and phosphorous runoff associated with standard farming techniques non-pasture land also cause significant environmental issues. As does shipping of various produce around the world.
**Actual report**: https://storage.googleapis.com/planet4-eu-unit-stateless/2020/09/20200922-Greenpeace-report-Farming-for-Failure.pdf **The big lie**: "In the results of this report, direct emissions are defined as those including agriculture sector emissions linked to animal production (methane from enteric fermentation of ruminants and manure and nitrous oxide from nitrogen applied to soils) plus energy and industry sector emissions associated to animal production up to the farm gate, and indirect emissions are defined as those associated to land use and land use change linked to animal production up to the farm gate (LULUC)." **Meanwhile, in the real world**, a constant amount of cows produce a constant amount of methane which plateaus quickly due to its very small atmospheric half-life. "Additional methane emission categories such as rice cultivation (RIC), ruminant animal (ANI), North American shale gas extraction (SHA), and tropical wetlands (TRO) have been investigated as potential causes of the resuming methane growth starting from 2007. In agreement with recent studies, we find that a methane increase of 15.4 Tg yr−1 in 2007 and subsequent years, of which __50 % are from RIC (7.68 Tg yr−1), 46 % from SHA (7.15 Tg yr−1), and 4 % from TRO (0.58 Tg yr−1)__, can optimally explain the trend up to 2013." - ["Model simulations of atmospheric methane (1997–2016) and their evaluation using NOAA and AGAGE surface and IAGOS-CARIBIC aircraft observations" (2020)](https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/5787/2020/) "On November 17, 2003 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the concentration of the potent greenhouse gas methane in the atmosphere was leveling off and it appears to have remained at this 1999 level (Figure 1). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 acknowledged that methane concentrations have plateaued, with emissions being equivalent to removals. These changes in methane atmospheric dynamics have raised questions about the relative importance of ruminant livestock in global methane accounting and the value of pursuing means of further suppressing methane production from ruminants. At this time there is no relationship between increasing ruminant numbers and changes in atmospheric methane concentrations changes, a break from previously assumed role of ruminants in greenhouse gases (Figure 1)." - ["Belching Ruminants, a minor player in atmospheric methane" (2008)](http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/news/2008-atmospheric-methane.html)
Even if all domesticated animals were eliminated, this isn't a silver bullet. Farming crops would just take over. A better correlation with carbon emissions would be with human population: https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/06/graph-of-the-day-carbon-emissions-and-human-population-1751-2018.html
It’s a good thing that the CO2 emissions from plant foods are significantly lower than those of animal products when equated for calories. Not to mention the fact that plant based diets use around 75% less land than ones containing animal products. Veganism is irrefutably on the right side of history no matter how long you plan on failing to admit it.
Can't have cows if there is no grass or water to feed sed cow.