True. Though maybe also activism until manufacturers are held accountable for their production methods and clean up costs. I do my share but I'm tired of being told it's on me. It's on corporate greed. Instead of spending on lobbying to avoid any changes to the status quo, they could spend much less coming up with different cleaner methods of production.

Wrong:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

I'm not voluntarily giving up jack shit unless the wealthy who devised and profit off the systems that make carbon footprints matter, are brought to heel. If the wealthy can't be stopped, we're all dead anyways. It's their fucking mess, they can be the ones to sacrifice to fix it. We can all die together, better that than let the people who threaten our extinction be the only ones left to inherit the world.

Not having a kid eclipses all of these by orders of magnitude.

plenty of people have tried that, and the production of beef continues to grow.

Eating meat also means lots of animals have to suffer just for yout pleasure. I know people get triggert real fast if you mention how bad eating meat really is. It's like a drug for some people.

your tulane link is not exactly good science. it relies on Clark (2019) which itself relies on Poore-Nemecek (2018). Poore & Nemecek built their data by combining LCA studies, a practice which is specifically discouraged by the studies themselves and the guidance on LCA studies generally. we can't really rely on those conclusions at all.

they also rely on Behrens (2017), which shares a problem with poore-nemecek, though a more nuanced one: they myopically distill data from input-output to calculate environmental impacts like water and land use and ghge. this seems reasonable at first blush, but in fact it overlooks the complexity of our agricultural systems. for instance, one of the things farmers feed cattle is cottonseed. cotton is grown for textiles, and the seed is largely waste product. feeding it to cattle is a conservation of resources, and doing so should in no way count against the land, water, and ghge statistics for cattle.

but that's not really here or there, as it turns out, because the thrust of the paper is not "these foods are bad for the environment" or "these foods are good for the environment". the actual claim made in the paper is "there is not actually sufficient data sources available to determine which foods have which impacts".

Idk, I feel like if you could do something to prevent a mass polluter from polluting further that would do a lot more than giving up meat for yourself.

Nothing can stop me from eating pork, chicken and dark chocolate

Have children. Flying. Driving. Buying a whole range of carbon intense products blah blah blah.

Vegans just are not credible.

the graphic you posted comes from this article, which shows it is based on poore-nemecek 2018. i've detailed teh problems with this study in another top-level comment here, but, basically, it's not good science. i feel you're spreading misinformation.