Sorry but i have to call you out here, because the list of sources is huge and it is even common sense, that meat consumption requires more resources.
I think you urgently need to esacpe the bullshito sphere in which this is disputed. It is sickening to read such ad hoc bs on evident and pressing issues.
How can they be disputed? It's a fact clear as a day that deforestation in many places is caused by people making room for farmland… that don't produce food for people but fodder for livestock. And livestock has a calorie conversion efficiency much lower than unity. So you need to cut more forest to feed the same number of people. It can also scarcely be disputed that cattle produce large amounts of methane, enough that it's a significant factor in total greenhouse emissions.
There's also no disputing the fact that turning uncultivated land into monocultural farmland is a great cause of biodiversity loss – it's essentially the definition of farmland!
If you mean the claim that the beef, pork, poultry, eggs and milk represents a huge emissions footprint, then no. That's not in dispute and it isn't particularly hard to prove that by looking at how much of the agricultural output goes into producing these protein sources.
And that's _before_ you consider the emissions from raising cattle, swine or poultry.
It is also useful to consider the scale of these industries. In terms of biomass, livestock represents more than 30 times the biomass of land based wildlife. In terms of creatures living on land, our food completely dominates the planet.
And if you wonder: I eat meat (in moderation) and I plan to continue doing so as part of a healthy, balanced diet. But that doesn't mean I'm unaware of the environmental cost of what I eat. If we're going to keep eating animal proteins we can't ignore this as the global population grows, and even more importantly, as more and more of the global population is moving up the wealth ladder (see Hans Rosling's talks and how the global population is moving out of the lower income categories).
Are you projecting your own need to have others think you are good? I can assure you I have no need to make strangers think I'm good.
The point I was making was that it is possible to know, and acknowledge, that you are doing something that has negative impact without having to deny reality. I don't think anything is gained by departing from what observed reality tells us and turning the discussion into a moral discussion. When something becomes a moral discussion it stops being about solving problems and it becomes a spectacle where assholes unashamedly pleasure themselves in public and expect applause. It solves nothing.
