Meat is a leading emissions source – but few outlets report on it, analysis finds
Meat is a leading emissions source – but few outlets report on it, analysis finds
Meat is a leading emissions source – but few outlets report on it, analysis finds
Food and agriculture contribute one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions – second only to the burning of fossil fuels. And yet the vast majority of media coverage of the climate crisis overlooks this critical sector, according to a new data analysis from Sentient Media.
The findings suggest that only about a quarter of climate articles in 11 major US outlets, including the Guardian, mention food and agriculture as a cause. And of the 940 articles analyzed, only 36 – or 3.8% – mentioned animal agriculture or meat production, by far the largest source of food-related emissions.
The data reveals a media environment that obscures a key driver of the climate crisis. Meat production alone is responsible for nearly 60% of the food sector’s climate emissions and yet its impact is sorely underestimated: a 2023 Washington Post/University of Maryland poll found 74% of US respondents believe eating less meat has little to no effect on the climate crisis.
This statement itself is very misleading, as animal agriculture's total contribution to climate warming is much greater than that of fossil fuels. [1] [2] [3]
When trying to change others perspectives, it's all about phrasing new information in an approachable fashion. For those who've never truly thought of agriculture's impact on the climate, hearing there's a much bigger footprint for it when compared to oil isn't exactly approachable. So first explaining it's larger is the smart move, as only after this is understood does it make sense to cover the extent.
This could just be me though, as a vegan I'm often asked why by others. Explaining the primary reason is the environment alone gets a crazy range of responses, from confusion to disbelief. This being the case, I'd say getting people to accept the climate footprint ranking of each is the logical first step. Especially when breaking this down for someone who's never actually considered the impact of agricultural on our planet!
I agree. And the line that I quoted from the article is the opposite of this; it is leading the reader to believe that the "climate footprint ranking" of animal agriculture is lower than that of fossil fuels. Regardless of whether we are trying to change anyone's mind or what we think is the most effective way to do so, providing false or misleading information is something to avoid.