The scientific consensus is that the climate change is one of the most acute problems humanity is facing right now, and to address big issues it is sometimes necessary to look for creative solutions.
Meat rationed at the table to fight climate change
A team of Swedish scientists wanted to test the appetite for out-of-the-box climate initiatives, so they surveyed around 9,000 people from five countries, with some surprising results.
The study, the first of its kind, recruited people from Brazil, India, Germany, South Africa and the United States, asking them what they thought about increasing taxes on fuel and certain foods or, alternatively, rationing those same foods. products.
“Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change,” Oskar Lindgren, a doctoral student at Uppsala University who led the study, explained in a statement.
The foods highlighted in the survey were those considered to have a high climate impact, in particular meat. When asked about a hypothetical monthly limit for meat purchases, 33 percent of participants responded favorably. However, when they were asked to increase taxation on these foods, 44 percent said they were in favor.
Similarly, 38 percent of respondents accepted the idea of rationing fossil fuels and 39 percent accepted the idea of taxing fossil fuels.
“The most surprising thing is that there is almost no difference in acceptability between rationing and taxing fossil fuels,” said co-author Mikael Karlsson, senior lecturer in Climate Leadership. “We expected rationing to be perceived more negatively because it directly limits people’s consumption. But in Germany, the percentage of people who strongly oppose fossil fuel taxes is actually higher than the percentage who strongly oppose fossil fuel rationing.”
Acceptance levels varied among different demographic groups, however. Opposition to meat rationing was strongest in Germany and the United States, perhaps not surprising, as the United States and Western Europe have historically seen some of the highest levels of meat consumption per capita in the world. On the other hand, the acceptability of rationing for both food and fuel was highest in India and South Africa.
Overall, those who had already expressed concern about climate change, as well as younger people and those with a higher level of education, were more likely to support rationing.
The effects of climate change are already visible in our weather, the geography of our planet and human health; Experts warn that tipping points are coming, and they are unpredictable. While the cooperation of governments, large companies and international bodies will be essential if we are to slow or reverse the situation, it is also important to understand what measures people will accept on an individual level.
“Water rationing is taking place in many parts of the world, and many people appear willing to limit their consumption for climate mitigation purposes, as long as others do the same,” Lindgren noted. “These are encouraging findings.”
And if meat ever had to be rationed, there would always be other sources of protein.
The study is published in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.
#Climate #change #people #accept #meat #rationing #combat