Right. Cattle produces a lot more than just beef. Leather, horns, bones, and hooves are additional products that come from the cow. Then there's all the animal feed and plant fertilizer that come from the less desirable parts of the cow. I wonder what the carbon footprint is when the entirety of the cow is taken into account. No part of the animal is wasted during rendering.

Why is Kilograms of food product the one axis? shouldn't it be kcals or something?

Though this is a great chart, it isn't quite the whole picture either for climate impact. Almonds and almond milk get to be a lot worse alternative option if you consider the water consumption concerns where they are grown in California. They have many similar charts that attempt to quantify holistic carbon footprint.

Long story short, though not eating animal products is best for the environment, even just eating beef less often and not worrying about eggs and chickens can get you to over half the climate impact of full veganism and is a much easier transition for some.

The website has a graph for that and for protein as well. It's pretty neat

Fortunately, we have a series of tubes connecting every computer on the planet that can help answer questions like this!

Source

In short Aviation (1.9%) and Shipping (1.7%) are smaller than Livestock & Manure (5.8%) even before factoring in the secondary impacts that are largely driven by the livestock industry, like land use change, soil loss, and deforestation.

If you're specifically talking about transportation emissions for food, there's a graph for that as well!

Supply chain represents ~18% of the overall food footprint, smaller than livestock and land use changes.

Source

Talking meat specifically, the transportation emissions are a tiny piece of their overall footprint, as is shown in the OP.

Agriculture makes up a full quarter of our total emissions. Some of that is because of shipping it, of course, but there is absolutely no question whatsoever that agriculture is a huge contributing factor to climate change

I don’t see as much coverage on that issue.

No, there's plenty of coverage. If anything, there isn't enough coverage on animal agriculture because people can't fathom a world where they don't eat meat (or even just significantly reduce their consumption).

Data about greenhouse emissions from transportation is talked about more frequently than any other source in my experience. I don't see the relevance to this data as beef and tofu can be produced locally or shipped overseas, so the emissions to produce the product would be a separate discussion versus emissions in transit.

I always find the comparison between tofu and meat a bit unfair, as it wasn't invented for that purpose. In many asian cultures it is simply a thing in its own right, only we in the West have popularized it as a meat substitute and I don't think that does tofu justice.

other meat substitutes

Tofu is not a meat substitute. Tofu is just tofu, unless someone specifically picks it as a substitute for meat and sticks to it, in which case I guess it's their personal substitute for meat.

You know who says changing beef consumption is impossible so it's meaningless to even try? Beef industry spokespeople.

I mean, what's more impossible - changing Western dietary habits or changing the entire structure of capitalism and representative democracy that allows rich people to own private jets?

From a quick glance, it seems they didn't consider emissions coming from exporting kangaroo meat abroad. Though I fancy the total will still be way lower than the alternatives.

I think just because dairy cows live longer. Beef cows are killed younger, you don't need to wait until their milk production dwindles. It's not clear if accounting for the milk carbon footprint was taken into account or not.

Someone shared below, but here you go: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore

Can you expand on that or at least link me to the people smarter than me?