system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: A diet can include meat and be as environmentally friendly as a vegan diet.

I'm not arguing the average meat diet has the same carbon footprint as the average vegan diet. What I'm arguing is that you can easily include meat in your diet and remain within the carbon footprint of the average vegan diet. 

Examples: chicken has the same carbon footprint as rice

Mussels have the same carbon footprint as tofu

Hunted meat, especially in countries which have overpopulation of some species (eg deer, boar etc) not only has an extremely small carbon footprint, but by removing these animals you are actually helping the environment and boosting biodiversity.

There's a secondary argument about the destruction of land for animal farms, which by nature takes more room than growing crops. The counter to which is that fish and mussel farms take up even less space, and when located correctly do not have negative impacts on the environment. Hunting of course doesn't negatively affect the environment when done sustainably, but this isn't a global solution obviously.
gpt
I'll agree with you, non-vegans can be environmentally friendly; however, a vegan diet will always has the capacity to be more environmentally friendly than an equivalent non-vegan diet.

You have to think of the thermodynamics of our food energy. For every calorie of meat we consume, that animal had to consume many times that amount of calories in feed. If we cut out the middle man, and eat what the animal is eating, our carbon footprint would be reduced.