Hmm, you seem to acknowledge that I'm talking about the global population's total emissions (which I felt was obvious when I started my first response with 'We [humans]' and from the phrasing I used in subsequent comments), but then revert to 'proving' how international tourists create a disproportionate level of emissions through flying (or that the emissions from a family of four flying is higher than the emissions from their diet and housing) - which is a straw man argument since I never disputed that.

It would be a far quicker and easier carbon 'win' to stop air travel for all but essential uses

But I will dispute this! So to borrow your phrase, I think you pulled this out of your arse!

Unless you can show how it will be demonstrably 'far quicker and easier' for the world to adapt to an instant banning (or phasing out) of all non-essential air travel than it would to the instant banning (or phasing out) of beef. I've assumed you're not referring to it being politically easier/quicker to enact, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Firstly, how would you define 'non-essential'; visiting family? politicians holding meetings face-to-face/global summits? Forging business contacts (and then inspecting factories for example)? visiting friends? conducting on-the-ground academic research? Transportation of commercial goods? - all of these have alternatives, involving computers, delegating tasks to someone in-country or alternative means of transport. But to do so would be pretty disruptive; certainly not 'quick and easy'.

Or does 'non-essential travel' mean banning just tourism? Which is fair enough if that's your view. But it seems to be based more on values (the disproportionate impact of a wealthy individual flying) than on what is by a significant margin the greater source of global carbon emissions.

Secondly, where's your source for: consumers of beef 'make up a huge proportion of the global population'? I'd be interested to see what the percentage is and which countries. Beef is a luxury out of the reach of many people in the world. It's non-essential. Currently, like international air travel, beef consumption is dominated by the West and the BRIC countries. Those consumers in the West (especially, but increasingly in the BRICs) have the ability (through income and availability of other foods) to adapt. For those in the developing world where the rate of consumption is rising very quickly from a relatively low level - meaning global beef consumption overall is predicted to double by 2050 (while remaining stable or falling in the West) - I think turning them away from the beef that they aspire to but does not yet form a staple of their diet is better than telling their wealthier compatriots (and perhaps/hopefully their kids or grandkids) that they can't visit on holiday the countries in the West from where all the 'tourists' they've met come from because flying for tourism is now deemed non-essential.

Or perhaps you can show me how adapting to not being allowed to fly for tourism is easier than adapting to not being permitted beef. The majority of the world's population do both of these already. And I personally think it's far more valuable and important for us as human beings to see more of the world and interact with people different from ourselves than it is to eat beef.