The Vegan Vs. Carnivore Narrative Distracts From Climate Action

The majority of us want to see more done on climate change. According to recent research, a striking 80 to 89 percent of people around the globe want stronger climate action. But one of the most impactful individual climate actions a person can take — diet change — often gets lost in the public discourse. Though study after study shows that meat, especially beef and dairy, are fueling most food-related emissions, much of the American public has not made the connection: a whopping 74 percent say cutting back on meat would have little to no impact on climate change, when the opposite is true.

Worse, there has even been a cultural shift towards foods that come with a higher carbon emissions cost, like tallow, grass-fed beef and raw milk. Some news outlets play a role in exacerbating this disconnect — the New York Times recently touted “Meat Is Back” for instance, with no mention of how eating more steaks and tallow fuels climate pollution. The same is true for the many popular podcasts and social media influencers feeding misinformation to a growing number of Americans. When our collective attention is captured by food fights rather than information, we tend to overlook what remains a highly actionable — albeit less viral — climate solution.

“One of the best things we can do for climate change — not to mention biodiversity loss, habitat decline, water consumption and more — is to cut back on excessive levels of red meat and dairy consumption,” Project Drawdown’s executive director, Jonathan Foley, tells Sentient in an email. “Despite this fact, shifting our diets does not get the attention it deserves, whether from media outlets, policymakers, investors or philanthropists. And what little attention it garners is dominated by shrill debates and polarized rhetoric.”

“Pitting the two [diets/ dieters] against one another creates this nice conflict that engages the public,” Rebecca Gregson, a social psychologist who researches plant-forward eating, tells Sentient. Conflict is a clever and successful media engagement tool, she explains, especially in the vegan versus meat-centric diet space, where cultural, political and gender divisions already exist.

These narratives are much louder than what Gregson calls “the space to consider points of agreement between those two positions,” where unifying concerns about factory farming — and the desire to eat less meat — can and do exist. “In our research, we do find that anti-vegans agree with vegans on a lot of things,” she says, “including this distrust of industrial agriculture.”

What the Science Says About Shifting Diets

Concerns about just how much meat many of us are consuming are certainly warranted. A third of all global greenhouse gas emissions come from food, with the majority driven by meat production, particularly beef.

Demand for beef also gobbles up a lot of land. Agriculture currently occupies about half of the world’s habitable land — with land for farm animals and feed crops taking up about 80 percent of that. This means that over 38 percent of the world’s habitable land is used to produce meat, dairy and other animal products, despite contributing only 17 percent of the globe’s caloric intake and 38 percent of the protein.

Industrial meat and dairy production is also a leading contributor to deforestation, biodiversity loss, ocean degradation and fresh water pollution and use. Despite all this, a 2023 study conducted by Sentient and Faunalytics found that a mere seven percent of news articles on the topic of climate change mentioned animal agriculture as a source of climate pollution.

This oversight has real consequences: although research shows that the majority of the global population wants stronger climate action, a 2023 survey conducted by the Washington Post and University of Maryland revealed about 74 percent of Americans believe eating less meat would have little to no impact on climate change. A similar Newsweek poll that year found 40 percent of Americans didn’t think eating less red meat would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

These beliefs aren’t actually true. The research shows eating a plant-based diet lowers one’s environmental footprint across the board as compared to meat eaters, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and land use, according to a 2023 study.

Meat Reduction May Be More Attainable

For Raychel Santo, senior food and climate research associate at World Resources Institute, public discourse is more likely to make an impact when we talk about attainable changes. “Focusing on all-or-nothing approaches misses the point that big climate benefits are possible even by shifting a portion of our meat consumption toward other foods,” she tells Sentient via email, “particularly if these changes are achieved across large numbers of people.”

Project Drawdown’s Jon Foley adds that small, targeted changes in diet can “offer tremendous opportunities.” For example, “about 50 percent of America’s beef is consumed by 12 percent of the population. If those folks could cut back on these excessive beef consumption levels while still enjoying the occasional steak or burger, they could see outsized health benefits and the country could significantly cut our greenhouse gas emissions.” (Eating less meat is good for reducing harm to farm and wild animals too).

Journalists and editors who write headlines have an important role to play here — as do podcasters and influencers. Framing vegan versus carnivore diets as a “war” may provide clicks and engagement, but it doesn’t help the majority of people who want stronger climate action.

As Gregson points out, “It’s not that most people are eating a carnivore diet, and it’s not that most people are eating vegan diets. It’s more that they’re open to reducing their meat consumption.” By framing diet as a cultural battlefield, rather than a potential climate solution, sensationalist narratives distract from the attainable actions that most people are actually open to.

“We deserve better,” says Foley. “An informed, fact-based public discussion about diets, food production, health, and the environment would serve us all well — especially now.”

This story is part of The 89 Percent Project, an initiative of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.