Does 'net zero' mean zero cows?

A significant share of anthropogenic global warming comes from livestock production. There is debate about whether there can be any role for livestock in a climatically sustainable future; the debate is particularly heated for cows and sheep, largely due to the methane they burp out. However, short-lived gases like methane affect climate in a fundamentally different way than long-lived gases like carbon dioxide. Consequently, climate stabilization does not require zeroing-out cattle herds. But this doesn't mean we can eat our beef and have it (a tolerable climate) too—livestock still contribute to global warming. Preventing or limiting future growth in livestock-related emissions can represent a sensible part of the portfolio of responses to the climate crisis, particularly when carbon dioxide emissions are not on track to reach net zero sufficiently quickly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]