Final answer:
The author likely recommends continuing meat consumption, highlighting that meat's environmental impact is overstated and it's a nutritionally efficient food source. The evidence supporting this is the line dismissing the environmental case against meat as a stretch.
Step-by-step explanation:
The author of “CON: Don’t blame farm animals for all those greenhouse gas emissions” would most likely advise readers to continue to eat meat as part of a healthy, balanced diet. This is based on the perspective that the environmental case against meat is overstated and that meat is a highly efficient source of nutrition.
Supporting this viewpoint, the most relevant evidence from the article is the quote “It is one thing to push vegetarian diets on the basis of health claims or animal rights. The environmental case against meat is a stretch, however.” This indicates that the author believes the sustainability argument used to advocate for vegetarian diets is unconvincing and that meat consumption is not as harmful to the environment as stated by some.