they’re correct that meat is only 25% as effective at best per hectare of land, but cropland and land used for livestock don’t 100% overlap, and not all cropland is used for food; so the reduction is closer to 65%, or ~57% if you don’t include pastures that are otherwise unviable for growing crops, but i guess the argument is to just let that land sit unused and return to nature.
they’re correct that meat is only 25% as effective at best per hectare of land, but cropland and land used for livestock don’t 100% overlap, and not all cropland is used for food; so the reduction is closer to 65%, or ~57% if you don’t include pastures that are otherwise unviable for growing crops, but i guess the argument is to just let that land sit unused and return to nature.