"There are three solutions to these arguments. "First, **we can all try to eat less beef**. That is the change that would have the biggest impact. It seems possible that people could cut back a bit, but we’re not going to all stop eating beef completely, any time soon. So we need some solutions for the beef that we do still eat. "That brings us to our second solution, which will be unpopular with many: **switching to grain-fed rather than grass-fed beef**. It needs much less land, which is what we’re concerned about when it comes to deforestation. One important conflict that comes up here – and will come up later when we think about other types of meat – is that the goals of animal welfare and environmental impact are not always aligned. Unfortunately, the environmentally friendly or ‘efficient’ choice is often one that is worse for the animal. How you balance these priorities is up to you. "The third solution is to **optimise for beef production in the regions that can do it most efficiently**. The ‘worst’ (where we’re defining ‘worst’ as those that use the most land) **25% of beef producers use up 60% of the total land that is used for beef production**. If globally we were able to reduce the amount of beef we eat by 25%, and eliminate this from the ‘worst’ beef producers, land use for beef production would be cut by a whopping 60%. ([Location 2292](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C3X6X695&location=2292))" --- **Tags** -- [[quotes]], [[food-production]], [[food-emissions]], [[deforrestation]], [[climate-change]], **Source** -- [[260103133118 - B - Not the End of the World]]