Had the author consulted the literature, he'd know that the environmental credentials of grass-fed beef are extremely suspect; some studies suggest that the carbon footprint is actually greater than intensive feedlot beef and the land use is absolutely vast. He'd know that only a handful of animal sources of protein have equivalent CO2 emissions to plant sources - intensively reared poultry, eggs and some inshore seafoods.
Indeed. Organic beef has more COâ‚‚, because it is about twice as long on the field (and releases therefor more methane into the air). Things become questionable - chickens are way better on CO2/kg of meat, because they are cramped into small cages. Trade-offs...
Not quibbling with the broader point, but... is this actually a problem? When I see center-pivot irrigation circles laid out on a square grid, wasting 20% of the land, I don't get the impression we're short of the stuff.
For America, not particularly. It is a big deal for smaller countries that would like to retain some degree of food independence, most obviously the United Kingdom.
It could become highly significant due to the growing global population and increasing meat consumption in the developing world. Global meat consumption has quadrupled in the last 50 years; continued growth at that rate is entirely plausible and entirely unsustainable.
Had the author consulted the literature, he'd know that the environmental credentials of grass-fed beef are extremely suspect; some studies suggest that the carbon footprint is actually greater than intensive feedlot beef and the land use is absolutely vast. He'd know that only a handful of animal sources of protein have equivalent CO2 emissions to plant sources - intensively reared poultry, eggs and some inshore seafoods.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257160858_The_price...