No, if you read that study, the proper inference is "Don't eat meat."

Or any dairy products whatsoever. Or any foods that are shipped long distances.

Is that practicable? No. The alternative is to exercise and eat as little as possible.

So far, I haven't felt a need to replace those calories I spend while biking. There are plenty of them left in my spare tire.

In the extreme, the proper inference is that we should kill ourselves, since that would reduce our consumption of food and transportation resources down to zero.

The British guy is trying to make the point that food production has a big impact on carbon emissions, and we should figure out ways to reduce that. Fine. Still, his hypothetical assumes 100% of calories burned need replacement with beef or milk protein. Has this guy never eaten a peach?

Maybe the proper inference is to eat LESS beef, and more local food. And to drive less when going places other than the store. I prefer that lifestyle change to suicide. Besides, garden tomatoes taste better than hemlock.

I just finished “The Omnivores Dilemma.” If you have the slightest interest in where your food comes from, and the impact it has on your health and pocket book, I highly recommend it.

WARNING: The author uses the word “sustainable” a lot. However, I think most people would agree it is used correctly this time.

"Sustainable" is a 79% regurgitated sales gimmick. I use it all the time in my practice and it sells like crazy. Clients don't even research the claims and if they did they would find a contrary study/report; or I'll find it for them.