The greenhouse gas footprint of fast food burgers may be considerably larger than just the grills, refrigeration, and facilities.  Wonder what the greenhouse footprint is for a pound of hamburger. If the above information is correct I suspect it is over a hundred pounds.

I am perfectly willing to believe that a diet of fast-food burgers puts more carbon in the air than commuting in an SUV (or, at least, more than the difference between commuting in an SUV and doing the same in a Prius).

However, having said that, posts like CyberBrook's miss several important points:
The big CO2 number attached to meat (particularly beef) includes impacts from feeding, processing, and transportation
thus, local meat has a much lower CO2 footprint
grassfed beef likewise has a lower CO2 footprint
backyard meat (chickens, rabbits, etc) eliminates 95% of all the carbon sources associated with meat production
no meaningful comparison has been made (as far as I have seen) between the carbon impacts of a meat diet and the carbon impacts of a conventionally-grown vegetarian diet

I think the point that we should be focusing on, whether we're concerned about global warming or animal welfare, is the destructive nature of the conventional industrial food system.  The problem is not the meat, per se.  It's the way it is made.  And the solution is not to go vegetarian, it's to change our food production system.  (Although going meat-light, and carefully sourcing your replacement protein, is a good idea.)

Note that I'm not trying to pick on CyberBrook in particular, here.  I've seen this same broad-brush thinking expressed by lots of people.  It's a problem.  Things are not that simple.

See the Richard Clarke article in the Washington Post.