Well, it'/s hard to tell exactly WHAT point the author was trying to make with the article, because no points are developed beyond the rhetorical stage: It DOES seem that thte author leaves him(her?) self open to ridicule for the suggestion that human "emissions" due to the wrong diet are responsible to some degree for global warming. This contention is demonstrably more ridiculous than the same argument put forth against SUVs and numerous other villains.
Either way, the article is foolish in both its claims and its "preaching to the choir" rhetoric.
Am I missing something? The emissions the author speaks of are emissions produced in the production and delivery of the food as opposed to our general flatulance.