Beef isn't bad for the climate any more than the cattle that were present before humankind showed up to invent livestock. Cattle eats plants that largely obtain their carbon from the atmosphere. They emit CO2 and methane, the latter of which degrades after ~12 years forming CO2, meaning cattle has and always been a part of the atmospheric carbon cycle. The only aspect of livestock that can be bad for the climate is the fossil fuels used in the transportation of live animals and slaughtered animal meat.

Yeah, no shit is using fossil fuels, which unleashes carbon from earth's crust, is worse for the environment than beef.

Of course that's not really something the author of this article from The Register is even considering. Even the paper seems to treat all CO2 emissions as identically damaging to the climate, which is counterscientific.

Could Bitcoin miners be built into solar roofs?

No matter how big of a battery you put under a solar roof, there will always be some times when the sun shines while the battery is already full.

Then a Bitcoin miner could use the free energy.

Why would I get my climate opinions from an economist? I prefer getting my opinions from politicians.

Discussion yesterday on the same study: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33023115

There have been many studies over the years done on bitcoin's impact on the environment.

Everything published about bitcoin's alleged threat to the planet, take into account none of them.