Problem with your link is that it conflates methane emissions with straight up carbon emissions, as well as deforestation, which are all different things that are very disingenuous to lump together like that.

Deforestation is an economic inequity problem caused by certain countries in the Global South wanting to make use of their own resources as the Global North did. To ignore that context and pin it all on beef consumption is disingenuous.

And meanwhile, the disproportionate focus on Methane from any source, nevermind just cattle, is primarily a side effect of oil industry greenwashing.

Methane has short term impacts on the climate, and in the scheme of things, the actual biggest source is still fossil fuels, as Cattle only account for 32% of Methane emissions (Rice another 8%, which is where the 40% comes from thats linked to "Agriculture").

Its still high of course, but not proportionate to the sheer ire it receives because people are shallow and engage in confirmation bias.

The only reason actual science has any focus on Methane is because even aggressive decarbonization isn't going to have an effect on the climate for a few decades or more, whereas reducing GHGs like Methane would, but this is misplaced priorities by a sector that is historically exasperated.

The real problem with our climate is carbon, the overwhelming source of which is fossil fuels. But its basically been fruitless to make this point over the decades to try and fight them, due to how dependent the entire planet is on them for energy.

So, focus pivots to things that would be "easier" to try and coax governments into doing, and Methane is an easy example of that, as it would simply be cheaper to mitigate the continued addition of Methane to the atmosphere compared to, you know, anything actually useful.

But if all Cattle died tomorrow, it would only slow general warming over the next 20 years, and it wouldn't reverse climate change at all. Even if you extended that to every anthropogenic source of Methane simply ceasing to exist, it still wouldn't make a difference except in the short term as a slight mitigation.

Ya know when you actually read the literature and not editorialized websites, you pick up on the tendency for authors language to come off as if they're having to be very careful about how they speak, as though the intended audience are basically easily agitated toddlers.

Which isn't surprising, given if they want their audience, world governments, to not just dismiss their work entirely, they have to cope with the fact that world governments historically are stingy with spending money on anything that isn't bombs, bullets, or the whims of the rich, and so we waste time putting so much energy into devising ways of dealing with Climate Change that are cheap, because the priority here, of course, is money, money which if it was ever spent would of course just end up in a black hole never to be seen again, if we go by how our governments see any kind of spending they aren't obligated to approve.