I always understood that the comparison was between the entire meat cycle versus direct burning of oil, natural gas, and coal and not the entire cycle of the oil, natural gas, and coal industries. Direct burning of oil, natural gas, and coal is huge in terms of CO2 emissions. Meat and dairy production from one end of the cycle to the other produces huge CO2 emissions. That was the original point, and it still stands.
The article in the Telegraph is twisting for sound-bite sake – for the sake of those who will not think beyond the article's title. The article is incredibly dumb, and Frank Mitloehner, University of California at Davis, is a shill for the meat industry. He's paid one way or the other by the meat industry to create "positive" propaganda for them (http://www.news.ucdavis.ed
Refrigerating and freezing meat and dairy products right now requires huge burning at coal-fired power plants for instance. Yes, cutting coal-fired power plants and the rest of the oil, natural gas, and coal industries cycle would be another way to curb CO2 and should be done too – that's "too," as in addition to being as vegan as possible, which isn't hard at all. The idea is that the whole of humanity together must cut everywhere it's able to slow and reverse the tidal wave. Just saying that the sum total of everything that goes into the oil, natural gas, and coal industries has a greater impact than does meat and dairy and that therefore, we should ignore the meat and dairy industries is really, really dumb. Don't be stupid by echoing this false-propaganda coming out from Frank Mitloehner and the Telegraph, which I have yet to see produce an intelligent article on climate change and global warming.