First, I named coal and oil, and I know the ranking, - and... Cows get blame too, just not near as much. We have a billion and a half cows all belching. For comparison, when we hit the great plains and slaughtered the buffalo in the US, there were about 3 million buffalo. We now have a hundred million cows in the USA. India has gone up even more. We've lost a lot of our green carbon sink. And I know very well about coal and oil, don't focus on cows and pretend I didn't list the others, or am ignorant of the ranking. I argued for nuclear power ages ago with the greens to replace coal, oil, and natural gas, but the anti-nuke folk are short sighted, blind, and all too powerful in influence. One of our main problems is China's use of coal, and the politics of climate change denial is the another.
1kg of beef provides a lot more nutrients, calories and protein than 1 kg of any vegetable or fruit ever could. Vegetarians and vegans would love everyone to switch over to their eating habits but that simply wouldn't be sustainable. Want to replace milk? Let's look at the almond/pistachio/nut/soy industry and see how much more damage they would be doing to the environment if they scaled up large enough to produce their products to the same level that dairy currently does. Animals take plants (a lot of that feed isn't fit for human consumption) and turns them into something we can use. Also, a lot of the land that cattle grazes on is not suitable for growing plants that humans can consume. The water intake issue: yes, cattle need water, but a lot of that water is rain water that collects in ponds. Livestock is not our problem. About 70% of the world's pollution comes from 100 corporations. Fossil fuels (that adds captured carbon in to our atmosphere) is the issue. I don't think that is a reasonable thing to stop though, it is just too essential to our civilization.
Agree, nuclear is the way to go for most developed countries (that aren't sitting on fault lines, in the path of a dozen or so typhoons every year, or vulnerable to other natural disasters). But I disagree that livestock plays any significant role in global warming. One person p@ssing in the ocean will raise the sea levels as much as a single cow burping will. (Hyperbole, I don't have a source for that one.)
it appears that cattle are contributing to the greenhouse gas problem but also one which can be improved unlike those 100 corporations that you mentioned.... https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable
The farming industry has politicians in their pockets just as much as any other major industry. Personally, as soon as they come out with a meat substitute that has the same calories, protein, taste and price (or cheaper) as real meat I'll switch over. Until then no thanks.
I agree it is important not to take our eyes off the ball of CO2 production - however, if the production of methane by cows is reduced then there would be a net decline in atmospheric methane and that is a good thing because of the fact that methane has a far greater impact on global warming. Anyway, no problem - our governments have sorted it all out and we can sleep well at nights (as long as we don't live too near sea-level).
A good article on that subject is https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy The point you raised about growing trees is so important when it is acknowledged that forests are currently being destroyed to create land for meat production (especially beef) and for animal foodstuffs. It is destruction upon destruction - but tell a British toff that he can't eat beef and he goes red in the face and starts spluttering (hence why there is a need to curb the wealthy and to force them to toe the line ... or else).