He says he's not trying to shock, but without the word "organic" and maybe "pasture-fed" (I'm not even sure what that means, if anything) this would just be a no duh, statement.<p>Plus, do we have to simplify everything this much? Can't we just agree that we want to reduce GHG and animal cruelty and then look for the simplest and easiest way to do so? Eating less processed red meat like your doctor asked you to really doesn't seem that much of a stretch.<p>Looks like the easy wins for farming are:<p>- stop buying animal feed grown on cleared rainforests
- people following healthy eating guidelines a bit better
- using renewable energy more<p>But there's a bunch of others, better management of the cold chain is about 2% of the problem.<p><a href="https://wrap.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/meat-net-zero-world-uk-cut-meat-waste-and-emissions" rel="nofollow">https://wrap.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/meat-net-zer...</a>
Considering how much of Scotland was forcibly converted into pasture for English mutton and wool, this is hilarious. Interesting definition of "damage", because sprawl of housing lowers biodiversity more.<p>Feedlots are far more damaging. Virtually all damage from animal-raising is due to the number of people eating these quantities of meat. Antibiotic-resistant pathogens are a damage we get from intensive meat-raising, and I think even the author of this piece might have to adjust their world view to sleep well while daily observing a US feedlot.<p>Fewer people, eating less meat overall, is how you reduce damages.
The opinion piece is from an author of book on the same subject. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion. Though I have to consider that the statements have been well researched enough to publish in a book, not only this newspaper publication.