Of the total area that is used by humans (Agriculture, Urban and Built-up Land),
- urban and built-up land is 1m km²,
- agriculture is 48m km²,
so agriculture is 48 of 49 millions km² used, that’s 98%. The remaining 2% are all streets and housing and other infrastructure together.
This chart is designed to push that agenda but the raw numbers disagree.
They are using some favorable math that excludes all the waste goes into human food products and including all of the waste in animal feed.
Humans throw away a vast majority of our calories, not just at the individual level but across the entire supply chain. It makes the numbers really easy to play with.
Anyone who focuses on beef is manipulating the data. Pork, poultry and dairy are far more efficient so it’s left out. The price of each these things directly reflects this because it turns out global capitalism is actually really good at determine comparative values.
Pork and poultry might not use as much land as beef directly but they use a lot of land to grow animal feed. I don’t think the chart focuses on beef, but beef might skew the land area chart for meat indeed.
You might not like “the agenda”, but the truth is still that eating meat is an inefficient way to produce calories on a global level. On a small scale, it makes sense - animal farming often feeds off of human waste, contributes fertiliser, provides some extra calories in the winter. But at a global scale, what happens is whole countries are dedicated to producing animal feed and pastures. And if you remember the trofic levels from science class, you lose an order of magnitude of energy when you go up a level in the food chain.
Humans throw away food across the board. I don’t understand how this is relevant to the point you’re making.
Oh, and don’t forget how much meat is subsidised in most countries. Capitalism loves to hide the real costs of the product.