img credit
I think the fad about veganism largely comes from a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the animal industry, as well as misuse and malpracticed studies
A lot of the studies were performed on people who were chronically unhealthy (switching their diets to saturated fats and unsaturated), and also, they refused to publish the parts of the study that mattered; these studies often show that saturated fats cause a higher amount of 'survivable heart attacks', awful, right? Well, no, because non-saturated fats cause a higher amount of lethal ones, so the actual data would conclude that saturated fats increase your likelihood to have a less lethal heart attack, and would also indicate that you are less likely to suffer one at all. Unless, you were to only publish non-lethal heart attacks. And that is exactly what they did. This is very typical in most anti-meat studies. It could not possibly be that a person who is 200 pounds overweight has a higher chance of misfolding cells, and therefore cancer, or that they spend too much time in teh sun, and do no exercise, it must be that they eat red meat!
The other thing is this: animals are treated as if they are resource inefficient, when it is quite the opposite. Whereas 90%+ of almond water comes from unnatural sources, that is to say human irrigation, 96% or more of water for most livestock comes from rain alone. So you know how they talk about how many litres of water go into a beef patty? That is because they measured the rainfall of the entire paddock, and then attributed all that water to just one cow, when realistically, it would be tens of them, and also, it is ignoring the fact that plants take far, far more water, so much so that most of their water has to come from humans, not rain. But they talk about how much it takes for a single straw of wheat, as if that compares to a several hundred kilogram cow.
Methane also is non-damaging to the environment, methane itself is quite literally responsible for the water cycle in most places, it is actually vital to us living. It is also historically ~5 - 10%, which is not much lower, if, for the most part, not any lower, than it currently is. It also has very limited effects, carbon, however, has very significant effects, and is produced in major excess all of the time. It also makes other parts of the environment more likely to have a negative effect - methane is only adding to the greenhouse effect because carbon has allowed heat retention, methane normally cannot do such. The other thing is this, animals are upcyclers, especially domesticated ones. They actually reduce the methane produced by excess food production and compost and such, I cannot remember how much exactly right now, but, I believe it is by something as profound as four times. I could be off, but I definitely know they reduce it. So the idea of removing the animal industry to have less methane production would actually produce more.
In conclusion: do not feel bad about eating livestock! The non-lab grown is actually better for the environment. Animals constantly excrete high-nutrient, mineral-dense fertiliser for the plants we grow, that feed them and us, and also improve the soil, making it more suitable for oxygen production and such, and keeping it healthy for future crops. They also turn the waste products that we do not eat, like soy bean husks, and turn it into the most nutritious form of food for humans. Almost all meats have high contents of every macro and micronutrient that you want (fats are actually really good for you, it is just that they tend to base what is good and bad for you on people who are chronically ill and morbidly obese, of course more fats does not help when your heart is failing), they are also unbeatable in terms of environmental impact