More effective for climate but with tradeoffs still in likely increased pandemic and antibiotic use risk, & likely more runoff/eutrophication than beef.

A lack of clear messaging (although it's improving) & yeah even if perfectly done, I agree, simply telling people won't do much. Just like telling people to buy less stuff, fly less, use less plastic, etc. is less effective than building better institutions/choice options/incentives/cultural change.

This is all changing quickly and I think you're right in a recent uptick again.

The title of this is misleading but signs still of some slowing growth (maybe peak) in certain countries, unfortunately it's not going to more lentils but instead more chicken:

www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11...

I think I see your semantic point around the word "must", and I also think you're misinterpreting the purpose of the survey. The general public is much less aware of this urgency, as difficult of course as it is, relative to other wicked problems needing change based on the science.

I think those areas simply require some more active rewilding, reintroducing native plants that were displaced, in many cases, with european pasture monocultures. & good to consider native carnivore re- intro too.

Anyway, if this one day ends up being the real world debate, it'd be huge progress.

Well I don't think it's cart blanche either, but have not seen any evidence that grazing cattle is a better land use than a wild ecosystem or actively rewilded area nearby. And that's what should be compared.

Been going through a ton on this over many years:
drive.google.com/drive/folder...

Sure, and at the same time, cattle grazing is a leading driver of degradation of grasslands. I'm suspicious of the rebranding of it as the solution to the issue.

Have you ever seen a study that shows grazing cattle is better than rewilding grasslands that reintroduces native plants and animals?

Lastly, my conclusion is not to paint it all with the same brush, but ask, compared to what? And acknowledge tradeoffs.

Soil, C drawdown, methane, biodiversity, water retention, etc. all improves in rewilding scenarios vs. continuing to graze cattle. And many are misled otherwise by sketchy methods

As I cited to a few different ways in the report, grazing and more broadly animal agriculture is the leading driver of habitat & biodiversity loss. It's not because intensive grazing that this happens, but simply that it's not a native forest or wetland with mix of native plants and animals.

There are studies that show careful/amp grazing can improve biodiversity relative to previous more intensive land uses. But that's not what I was comparing and, even those are very minor benefits (bit more birds and insects really).

On the methane claim from that one qualitative paper, the broader evidence disagrees. Much less methane from wild ruminants, not to mention lots of benefits of wild animals travelling large distances vs. domesticated cattle.
bsky.app/profile/nich...

@georgeelliot19.bsky.social we have common ground in the need for a major reduction. Note though, even land not suitable for crops can have major biodiversity value. And the logic you shared doesn't acknowledge major increase in food, on less land, with plants.

I cover this in detail in the report.