Despite the extensive research supporting the reduction of animal product consumption, there’s long been a disconnect between what the research shows and what the public understands.
Photo by
Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals Media
For many years now, climate researchers have been warning that the
world can’t meet its Paris Agreement climate goals of limiting
global warming to 1.5°C without reducing meat consumption. Multiple
studies have affirmed that between 11.1 and 19.6% of global
emissions come from meat and dairy production, and leading global
food and climate agencies are also in agreement, recommending that
people, particularly those in the Global North, reduce meat
consumption in favor of a plant-rich diet.
The effects of animal agriculture on the environment and climate are
vast: It is a leading cause of deforestation, it’s responsible for
significant biodiversity loss and pollution, and emits large amounts
of greenhouse gases, particularly methane. Methane alone is the
cause of over 25% of global warming, for which reason reducing
methane emissions is critical. If emissions continue as they are
now, the food sector alone is enough to push global warming past
that 1.5°C limit, while just reducing meat consumption could get the
world much closer to our emissions goal. In the United States, this
reduction would mean that the average person would consume about 70%
fewer animal products on a daily basis, with the greatest reductions
coming from red meat and chicken—92% less red meat and 81% less
chicken, according to EAT-Lancet Commission recommendations.
Despite the extensive research supporting the reduction of animal
product consumption, there’s long been a disconnect between what the
research shows and what the public understands. According to a
recent consumer study conducted by Purdue researchers: “The belief
that ‘eating less meat is better for the environment,’ which is
strongly supported by many climate and environmental researchers, is
at an all-time low” (Lusk & Polzin, 2023). The reason for this
disconnect is multifaceted, but at least one factor is the
information the public receives regarding the connection between
animal agriculture and climate change.
Given the role of the media in informing the public about important
issues like climate change, this partner project between Faunalytics
and Sentient Media sought to understand how the media communicates
the environmental implications of animal agriculture to readers. By
analyzing recent climate articles from top U.S. media outlets, we
drilled down on how often the media makes the connection between
animal agriculture and climate change when reporting on climate
issues, and how reporting on animal agriculture in relation to
climate change misses the mark.
Key Findings