Of course, but in the countries with high beef consumption, like the U.S., there's little plausible reason why one needs to eat so much (especially as opposed to chicken or fish or soy) as they do--a pound and a half per week. It's really a luxury item, not a health necessity, for the large majority of people.

I'm totally happy if the mechanism by which consumption is discouraged is having labeling requirements for estimated global warming impact of the beef from that producer, however. The key, though, is that we shouldn't say that because some people think we could raise cattle to be carbon-negative (so even if methane-positive, arguably a long-run win, and we're in this for the long run), therefore we should just keep eating as much meat as we do.

It's got to actually work. And hopefully not destroy too much habitat at the same time. And if it gets more expensive (grain-finished beef is grain-finished because it's cheap), well, guess what that does to consumption?