I feel like this came out a shambles, but hopefully someone got something interesting from it.

Yeah, you're basically saying that advocating something like Meatless Mondays is more likely to cause worthwhile change than starting an article with

Between widespread economic disparities, population growth, unsustainable agriculture and climate change, a study partially funded by Nasa predicted that civilization as we know it could be steadily heading for a collapse within the next century – and the window to create impactful change is narrowing.

I read somewhere that limiting your red meat consumption to twice a week was... magically good for the environment or something and also not bad for you, so I do that. I also pat myself on the back when I eat vegetarian once or twice a week (not one meal, one day). It's a hell of a lot more approachable for me than forswearing animal protein because critters be delicious.

I make no bones about the fact that my carbon footprint is much greater than your average Han Chinese but my everything footprint is much greater than your average Han Chinese so rather than becoming Han Chinese all at once, I attempt to do better. Doing better is so much more approachable than doing perfect.

So yeah. Suggesting that the apocalypse is directly due to my love of burgers does not put me on a footing for dialogue, if that's what the article is trying to do. Especially when it follows up with some vague statistics and hand-wavey proclamations involving Einstein.

Electric cars do pencil out, cradle to grave, for the environment. However, things get a little muddier if you compare a brand new hybrid with a used car that already exists.