As governments and food companies scramble to meet sustainability targets, vague calls to eat some less but “better” meat no longer cut it to keep the planet healthy. To stay within planetary boundaries, we need to drastically reduce meat consumption, especially beef.
But the findings also offer a path beyond all-or-nothing thinking. It’s clear from the study that sustainable diets tend to rely heavily on plants, and the research identified multiple diets that meet health and environmental goals, from pescatarian to flexitarian to vegetarian.
Crucially, combatting climate change by addressing food systems isn’t just about individual choices (though some individual actions like eating less meat and cutting food waste do make a difference!). Personal responsibility alone won’t get us the whole way there. As the study emphasizes, “Achieving truly sustainable diets requires universal availability, which must be supported by policymakers at all levels.” Without clear policies and support from our institutions, consumers are left guessing, and the status quo remains
"How much can you litter to keep the streets clean?" This is essentially the same. Makes it kind of obvious that the answer is 0, you shouldn't litter if you want the streets to be clean. Now if you littered a little bit would it neccessarily make the street so filthy that you wouldn't consider it clean anymore? Maybe not, but it objectively would not be clean.
You shouldn't eat meat if you care about the environment, that simple. But you could make the same argument about cars or planes or quite a few other things we all use. But meat is also murder so maybe don't contribute to it because of that as well?
What you say doesn't apply to hunting.
The climate part doesn't but hunting is the source for about less than 1% of the meat in the world, so your comment is really out of the context of this post.
And the moral part applies to hunting in modern countries, as well.
Morality really doesn't come into it at all.
Into what?