I don't really have time to discuss this any longer, so I'll use some shortcuts (and you'll surely know what helpers I'm using), before I leave this discussion, sorry.

Your argument overlooks several important factors:

- Methane Emissions: Cows and other ruminant animals produce methane (CH4) as a byproduct of their digestion. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, about 28-36 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2 over a 100-year period. This means that the methane cows produce significantly contributes to global warming.

- Land Use Change: Livestock farming often involves deforestation to create pasture or grow feed crops. This process involves burning or decomposing trees, which releases stored carbon into the atmosphere. It also removes forests that would otherwise absorb CO2, reducing the Earth's capacity for carbon sequestration. This isn't a factor in the carbon cycle of individual animals, but it's a significant part of the carbon footprint of meat production.

- Fossil Fuels: Modern livestock farming uses significant amounts of fossil fuels, for example in the manufacture and transport of feed. Burning these fuels releases additional CO2 into the atmosphere.

When these factors are taken into account, it's clear that while livestock farming is part of the carbon cycle, it is not carbon neutral.

Livestock Farming:

- Carbon Storage: In livestock farming, carbon is stored primarily in the bodies of the animals themselves. This is a temporary storage, as the carbon is released back into the atmosphere when the animals respire or decompose after death.

- Carbon Sequestration: Livestock farming does not contribute significantly to carbon sequestration. In fact, it often results in a net release of carbon, as forests are often cleared to make way for pasture or to grow feed crops, releasing stored carbon.

- Other Emissions: Livestock farming, particularly cattle rearing, produces a significant amount of methane (CH4), a potent greenhouse gas. This contributes to climate change much more effectively per unit than CO2.

Reforestation:

- Carbon Storage: Forests store carbon in the biomass of the trees and other plants, as well as in the soil. This storage is long-term, as trees can live for many years and the carbon they store is not released until they die and decompose.

- Carbon Sequestration: Forests are effective at sequestering carbon. They absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into biomass via photosynthesis, effectively removing it from the atmosphere for as long as the forest remains intact.

- Other Benefits: In addition to sequestering carbon, forests provide other environmental benefits. They support biodiversity, regulate local climates, protect water resources, and can help to improve soil health.

> It doesn't really matter, truffles are expensive, yet are still widely consumed. No one argues for complete abandonment of truffle consumption purely because they're expensive.

Hm ... that's strange argument. I was talking about "expensive" in the sense of us being unable to properly value the destruction of the environment, biodiversity with extinction of milions of species and pollution.

How would you put into the price of meat extinction of a specific animal, which we could study in the future and from its genetic information learn how to cure widespread diseases or an recipe for an eternal life (for example).

> Spices are even more unnecessary than meat as they provide zero caloric value

While it's true that neither spices nor meat are strictly necessary for a nutritionally adequate diet, it's important to look at the broader impacts of each. In terms of environmental footprint, the land use, water, and emissions associated with livestock farming far outweigh those related to spice cultivation. In fact, the World Bank estimates that livestock farming uses 80% of all agricultural land, and the FAO states that it contributes to about 14.5% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, the land area and emissions associated with spice cultivation are relatively minor.

Furthermore, spices, while low in calories, are packed with antioxidants and other phytochemicals that contribute to our health in ways that calories alone do not. Meat, on the other hand, while rich in protein and certain vitamins and minerals, is also high in saturated fats and, in some cases, contributes to health issues such as heart disease and certain types of cancer.

You're correct that there's no exact plant-based substitute for the taste of a steak, just as there's no substitute for the taste of chili or vanilla. But the aim of a plant-based diet isn't necessarily to replicate animal-based foods exactly; it's to find satisfying and nutritious alternatives. There are plenty of plant-based foods that provide ample protein and a range of flavors that many people find just as satisfying as meat.

Lastly, it's worth noting that pleasure in food doesn't solely come from individual ingredients like meat or spices. It's about the combination of flavors, textures, and even the experience of sharing food with others. There are many ways to find pleasure in food that are compatible with a sustainable and health-promoting diet. So, while we could technically live without spices or meat, a varied diet that includes some spices and plant-based proteins can be both enjoyable and environmentally responsible.