A third of the population would agree to ration meat to combat climate change

He food rationing This usually has a very negative connotation. It takes us to moments in history that should never have happened. But it’s precisely because climate change shouldn’t happen either that many experts recommend rationing goods with high carbon footprints. for example, fossil fuels or certain foods such as meat. What does the population think about this?

A team of scientists from Uppsala UniversitySweden recently conducted a study aimed at analyzing this issue. They took part in this 9,000 people from five different countries with radically different cultures, economies and places. They were all interviewed regarding their perceptions food and fossil fuel rationingcompared to the introduction of taxes on its consumption. That is, what do they prefer? Pay for the consumption of those products that harm the planet, or forcefully reduce their consumption?

On average, the answers were almost the same. Scientists were surprised to find that, despite the negative connotations of the term, many people advocated rationing. Same as tax proponents if we stick to the overall average. On the other hand, when separated by country, the data did vary greatly.

Why should meat be rationed?

There is no need to explain the risks associated with fossil fuels. But why should limit or charge on meat consumption? The key is in yours carbon footprint.

From the time animals are housed and fed on boards, to the transport and storage of their meat in stores, there are many processes that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It’s powerful greenhouse gastherefore it is directly related to global warming. The extent of this pollution is determined by the carbon footprint.

Carbon dioxide is measured directly. But these processes also produce other greenhouse gases, such as methane or nitrous oxide. Therefore, to calculate your total carbon footprint you need grams CO2 equivalent. Carbon dioxide coefficients are obtained directly, and equivalents of the rest are added to them by multiplying the mass of the gas by its global warming potential.

In Spain it was observed that 4.8 kg CO2e/kg meat produced. This is the total amount, but only the pig has a carbon footprint.e 3.5 kg CO2 equivalent/kg meat of that animal.

Often recommended Replace your omnivorous diet with vegetarian or vegan options. Not just for the sake of protecting animals. And also because although growing vegetables emits greenhouse gases into the environment, their amount is much smaller. The problem is that this diet is difficult to implement in a general population. Many will refuse, and besides, the industry will have to change a lot. Therefore, rationing of products such as meat may be the lesser evil.

Food rationing or tax increases?

The countries that took part in this study were Germany, USA, Brazil, India and South Africa. On average, 38% of respondents supported or strongly supported fuel rationing, and 39% supported fuel taxes. As for rationing of products such as meat, the percentage was almost the same – one third of the population.

However, when countries were analyzed separately, large differences were found. For example, in India and South Africa It was there that there were more people willing to accept the rationing of foods like meat. They also advocated for fossil fuel rationing. Instead, in Germany and USAmany have taken a stance categorically against the food and fuel debate. They didn’t have any problems with taxes.

Overall and logically, it was clear that the people who were most supportive of both measures were those who were most concerned about the environment. But also younger and participants with higher level of education.

For now, food rationing to slow climate change is more of a project than a reality. However, if the situation continues to develop as it is already developing, such radical measures will have to be resorted to. At least we already know that the population doesn’t think things are as bad as we might think.