I understand that there is a divide over the question of agricultural reforms focused on livestock. What I found interesting was this excerpt [link here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … t-excerpt/ ]):

"Roques et al. (2011) estimated that in 2007 there were 19–48 Mha of idle land (an equivalent of 1.3–3.3% of the world’s arable area), that is, land cultivated previously that can be planted again, most of it in North America and Asia. Using 20 ha of this land would produce at least an additional 60 t of feed. And when factoring in increasing crop yields, regular rotations with leguminous forages (producing excellent ruminant feed while reducing inputs of nitrogen fertilizers) and, eventually, slightly higher feed conversion efficiencies, it is realistic to expect that the share of the existing farmland used to grow feed crops could be reduced from the current share of about 33% to less than 10% of the total. Consequently, there is no doubt that we could match recent global meat output of about 300 t meat a year without overgrazing, with real istically estimated feeding of residues and by-products, and with only a small claim on arable land, a combination that would greatly limit livestock’s environmental impact."

I am afraid that cynicism has rubbed-off on me, so I am unsure how to react to this idea. My optimistic side wants this to be true, but I am unsure as to whether this is a reasonable idea?

that quote (not sure about the full article, which I didn't read yet) fails to mention the hugely disproportionate impact of growing meat on the climate.  The footprint calculator shows you how much larger the emissions are that produce a meat meal versus a vegetarian meal.  Land use is certainly one issue, but the % of our diet that is meat has grown tremendously, and I don't believe that is necessary.