Couple of very important caveats they threw in there:

“Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment.”

…which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity.

Takeaway from the article shouldn’t be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right.

yes. when you look at charts and such. Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan. Sheep did not show up so well either so im guessing ruminants in general are not going to be so hot. Anyway I would encourage folk to keep it in mind and do what they can. I realize go vegan results in many. Well eff it all then but man just avoiding beef is big impact.

Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan.

But that first person could have an even bigger environmental impact by becoming Vegan instead of only eating chicken.

yes but if you actually convince someone who eats just chicken to go vegan it will have less of an effect if you actually convince a big red meat eater to limit to chicken.

Watch as I solve this trolley problem with the Ole dual track drifting solution. They should all go vegan. You, too.

you convinced me. don't try something because its just not good enough. stay the course. good convincing.

Thank you for helping me to convince everyone else just how pathetic you sound.