Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

The article pretty clearly is about how we can phase out meat in a more controlled and practical way, it just uses the thought experiment of what happens if it all goes as a starting point.

Obviously the concept of quitting cold tofu (you're welcome, PETA.) overnight is ridiculous, but the article has some interesting insights about what is reasonable and how different countries disproportionately burden the environment.

I found these two bits particularly interesting, from a US-Centric perspective.

It might be easier for the average American, who eats about 220 pounds of red meat and poultry each year, to trade a daily hamburger for a bowl of lentils than for someone in rural sub-Saharan Africa, who eats 10 times less meat, to give up the occasional goat or beef stew for something less nutritious. Such a shift in beef-loving countries also might reduce heart disease and cancer linked to eating a lot of red and processed meat.

Dutkiewicz suggested using guidelines established by the EAT-Lancet Commission, an international group of scientists who have designed a diet intended to give people the nutrients they need without destroying the planet. It consists of roughly 35 pounds of meat per year. Adopting that diet would require a drastic reduction of cows and chickens in countries like the United States, Australia, China, Brazil, and Argentina, and a slight increase in parts of Africa and South Asia.

Getting people to go from 220 lbs of meat per year to 35 is not going to be easy but feels like a lot easier thing to point to for those reluctant to give up meat - 35 lbs feels like thinking of meat as a special occasion dish, not a monster that should be avoided at all costs.

I definitely see the cause of frustration and despair, but I find articles like this one help me in having frank, educated conversations with friends and family.