One of the things you hear about the role of meat in greenhouse gas emissions (19% of the global total, for folks keeping track) is that it's not necessarily the sort of thing you're going to fix with carbon pricing. It's funny to talk about cow farts -- no, seriously, it is, and it's even funnier when farmers light them on fire -- but given the potency of methane and the number of cows, it's a serious contributor, and no one is going to dispatch government bureaucrats to count farts and charge farmers. But animal emissions are not the whole, or even the bulk, of the carbon used in livestock production. You also have the feed needed to raise the animals, and the fertilizer needed to grow the feed, and the clearing of land, and the machinery, and all the rest. And all of that uses carbon in a more quantifiable way.So a sensible cap-and-trade plan would probably have a disincentive effect on a lot of this, as would an end to corn and soy subsidies, but fundamentally, there will have to be a cultural component if you're going to make a dent here. People like their beef. And what's even trickier is there will need to be a heavy global component. Via Simon Donner comes this chart on meat consumption over time on different continents:
We are by far the worst offender, but certainly not the only offender, and Asia has a lot of people. So all told, I'm pretty pessimistic. Global warming doesn't care if you kept emitting greenhouse gases because they were delicious.
We are by far the worst offender, but certainly not the only offender, and Asia has a lot of people. So all told, I'm pretty pessimistic. Global warming doesn't care if you kept emitting greenhouse gases because they were delicious. 
