Have you considered health? Pseudovegetarianism is not amenable to all phenotypes.

Why wouldn't they be? Quite a claim.

This assumes the same bioavailability with plants and micro/macro nutrient parity between plants and meat products which is not true.

You would need exogenous supplementation for parity.

There are exceptions to this. Marginal land can't be used for crops but can support cattle, the permaculture people use animals for various purposes that help them grow plants more efficiently, pigs have traditionally been fed waste that would go to compost today (and are thus somewhat more efficient than just feeding the pig something you grew), diverting existing waste products like whey or mechanically reclaimed meat can be more efficient than growing new plants, etc.

less cancer in current situation where US has 30% of people drinking water with lead pipes / lead solder in waterworks ? Or google what everything was dumped nilly willy into EPA Superfunds, or atomic tests in nevada with fallout on most of US citizens.. lesss cancer is nonsense. you get cancer from everything you touch these days, what you eat is no issue, because that is one thing which is actually tested...

less heart disease - you drink carrot shakes while you exercise vs you eat steaks while you sit behind table...

There are two types of climate inventories that account for emissions either at time of production or time of consumption. Production-based inventories are easier to measure, but consumption-based inventories can be more informative for individual consumers.

I'm mostly familiar with California-centric inventories because I want to influence state and local policies.

California State's inventory: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data

There used to be really great consumption-based maps at this site, but I'm not finding them at the moment. Instead here is a per-city breakdown of estimates: https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/inventory

One thing that takes a very long time to change is transportation. City planning is pretty ossified. Cars have multi-decade lifespans. So starting the change for transportation is a very very urgent need. Diet is far more flexible, and there are innovations such as specific types of algae added to cows' diets that drastically reduce methane emissions. Changing the diet of cows is a far faster change than replacing every consumer's vehicle with a clean one.

The history of environmental action shows that it's very easy to regulate and bring business in line. It when it comes to consumers, it's far far trickier. Tackling meat, which is a quarter of the emissions of the diet of folks, may need to happen eventually but it will have far less impact than legalizing apartments in dense urban cores and allowing people to live without cars.

Not interested pal, my family is going to eat meat. I'll be reasonable about other topics but this one's a non starter.

The population of bison in the US before Europeans was similar to the current population of cows.

Animals rights activists often hide this type of information to tie themselves to climate activism.

You linked to a global analysis, not one for the US, as I was talking about. I live in the US and am interested in tackling the massive massive amount of emissions from the US. People in the US emit far far more carbon than nearly anywhere else. Solving that huge problem means tackling transportation.

People in the US sometimes focus on global action, but as a US resident it seems completely inappropriate to be telling people who emit far far less carbon that they need to stop eating beef, before people in the US have stopped far far worse activities.