Grass fed beef does not add to Climate change, as all bio-emissions are bound in a cycle. Unlike typical mass production which is importing feed from far abroad, often burning a good chunk of rainforest in the process on doing so.
Not to take away from your primary point, though. I'd much rather have meat be valued as a high quality nutrient source rather than something cheap you can take for granted.
>Grass fed beef does not add to Climate change, as all bio-emissions are bound in a circle. Unlike typical mass production which is importing feed from far abroad, often burning a good chunk of rainforest in the process on doing so.
There are many studies that show that beef, grass fed or not, add to Climate change.
The grass fed meme crowd thinks they are saving the rainforest by not eating beef fed with soy from monocultures in Latin America but conveniently forget that in order to feed the whole world with grass fed animals you would need more land than the world can provide. Much of the amazon is being cut down to create pastures for cattle. It's a complete tragedy.
>Beef cattle use nearly 60% of the world’s agricultural land but account for less than 2% of global calories and 5% of global protein consumed.
It adds a lot. Cows produce a lot of methane which is more destructive than CO2 (though lasts shorter). Also, in transportation, the main contributor is the last mile so "local" produce doesn't necessarily have less contributions per transported unit.
Grass-fed cows still produce methane and require vehicles to transport them when bought and when slaughtered. The fields they are kept in will also need trees to be cleared and plants killed in favour of grass. How does that not add to climate change?
Not to take away from your primary point, though. I'd much rather have meat be valued as a high quality nutrient source rather than something cheap you can take for granted.