Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple?

Abstract

This paper addresses the relationship between meat eating and climate change focusing on motivational explanations of environmentally-relevant consumer behavior. Based on a sample of 1083 Dutch consumers, it examines their responses to the idea that they can make a big difference to nature and climate protection by choosing one or more meals without meat every week. This idea can be seen as a new opportunity to help mitigation, but also as a counterproductive message that might trigger negative responses among consumers who are skeptical about climate change. As hypothesized, the meat-free meal idea was received more positively by consumers who valued care for nature and more negatively by those who did not value it. Also as hypothesized, the meat-free meal idea was received more negatively by consumers who were skeptical about the seriousness of climate change. The idea was not received more positively by those who did take it seriously. The results support the notion that the meat-free meal idea may serve as a counterproductive message. From the perspective of motivation, it is preferable not to isolate the meat-climate issue but to develop an approach that combines multiple values regarding food choices, including health and nature-related values.

Introduction

Promoting changes in the Western diet from meat eating toward more plant-based foods is considered an interesting and little explored option for mitigating climate change (Carlsson-Kanyama & González, 2011; Gerber, Key, Portet, & Steinfeld, 2011; Popp, Lotze-Campen, & Bodirsky, 2011; Stehfest et al., 2009; Steinfeld et al., 2006). A recent study estimates that global livestock production is responsible for around 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Westhoek et al., 2011). This is due to a number of factors, mainly emissions from animals and manure, the cultivation and fertilization of feed crops and pasture, land-use changes, such as deforestation and grassland conversion, and emissions caused by the production of inputs (such as fertilizers), transporting and processing. These pressures have been caused by the massive growth of industrialized animal production during the 20th century, which made animals rather than bread the chief source of protein in Western countries (Grigg, 1995, 1999). As many people in developing countries use their growing income to follow this trend, a continued growth of both world population and per capita income may require a doubling of animal production by 2050 (Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Against this background, Stehfest et al. (2009) estimate that a global transition toward low-meat diets may reduce the costs of climate change mitigation by as much as 50% in 2050. This transition is also likely to yield additional benefits, especially for public health, because livestock products are not only a source of some essential nutrients but also provide large amounts of saturated fat, which is a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease (Friel et al., 2009). In Western countries such as the Netherlands, the transition requires a partial replacement of animal proteins by plant proteins, which is, however, expected to encounter resistance from consumers (Friel et al., 2009; MacMillan & Middleton, 2010). Although dairy products are also important (Risku-Norja, Kurppa, & Helenius, 2009), we decided to focus this research on the question of how consumers will respond to the idea of eating less meat for mitigating climate change. The present paper aims to explore this question using a nationwide sample of consumers in the Netherlands, where meat consumption has been stabilizing around 87 kg (meat with bones) per capita per year (Product Boards for Livestock, 2003). Theoretically, our exploration focuses on several key motivational processes that may explain how meat choices might be affected by personal values related to nature and climate change.

Recent work on the relationship between meat eating and values has shown that the value “universalism”, and in particular its subset of nature-related values, is significantly correlated with vegetarianism (Kalof, Dietz, Stern, & Guagnano, 1999) and, among non-vegetarians, with a low level of meat consumption (de Boer & Aiking, 2011; de Boer, Hoogland, & Boersema, 2007). This correlation refers to the universalism values from Schwartz's Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992) and the Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ, see Schwartz et al., 2001), which can be separated into a subset of social justice values and a subset of environmental values (Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004). The latter can be interpreted in terms of care for nature and the welfare of animals (de Boer et al., 2007). To explain how meat choices can be affected by these values, it is important to consider the underlying motivations. As Kasser (2002) notes from the perspective of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a special feature of universalism values is that they are closely related with a person's needs to integrate experience (see also Ryan & Deci, 2000). That is, when an activity becomes important to us, we want to bring its value-related aspects into congruence with our main values and this can be a reason to change the activity. An activity may, for instance, gain importance due to the person's awareness of its environmental consequences, as Stern proposes in the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory (Stern, 2000, 2011).

The reason why the consequences of meat eating have gained importance to many non-vegetarian consumers seems to be dissatisfaction with the industrial way of meat production that is common nowadays. The production process involves a chain of industrial activities, including factory farming, which produce highly standardized meat products, typically sold by supermarkets in a way that avoids reminding customers about the link between the meat dish and the killing of an animal (Vialles, 1994). An experimental study among consumers in the Netherlands demonstrated that reminders of meat's animal origin (made salient via a priming procedure) activated the intentions of those consumers who endorse universalism to purchase their meat from an animal-friendly production system (Hoogland, de Boer, & Boersema, 2005). Similarly, an experiment with on-package labeling showed that those consumers who endorsed universalism values had a higher intention to buy the explicitly animal friendly product (Hoogland, de Boer, & Boersema, 2007). Hence, the endorsement of universalism values implies a move away from associations with industrialized meat production, which supplies the bulk of the market. If these consumers make food choices by evaluating the fit between their personal values and the symbolic meaning of meat, they may decrease their preferences for meat (Allen & Baines, 2002; de Boer, Boersema, & Aiking, 2009; de Boer et al., 2007). Meat reduction may be one of their acceptable options, because it fits well with health-related concerns about food and the growing appreciation of vegetarian meals, also among nutritionists (Sabaté, Duk, & Lee, 1999).

The way in which climate change may contribute to the relationship between meat choices and valuing care for nature depends on the perceived connections between nature and climate. Both psychologically and physically, this is somewhat complicated. The basics are that climate is part of nature and that climate change is a natural process, which occurs over a wide range of space and time scales. Complex societies have always been highly vulnerable to climatic stressors and these were attributed to unspecified forces grander than humans (Huber & Pedersen, 1997; Pfister, 2007). The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the anthropogenic contribution to this process. However, Donner (2007) argues that the traditional beliefs about the climate make it still difficult for people to fully accept the basic notion of human-induced climate change. This may be a breeding ground for the development of skeptical beliefs, as recorded by many public opinion surveys (see, e.g., Bord, Fisher, & O'Connor, 1998; Feinberg & Willer, 2011; Heath & Gifford, 2006; Leiserowitz, 2005; Poortinga, Spence, Whitmarsh, Capstick, & Pidgeon, 2011; Whitmarsh, 2011). Those people who do accept the notion may want to avoid major human caused climate change in order to, among other things, protect nature for future generations (Read, Bostrom, Morgan, Fischhoff, & Smuts, 1994; Reynolds, Bostrom, Read, & Morgan, 2010). Because nature is also severely threatened by non-climate related anthropogenic stressors (Rockström et al., 2009), nature protection and climate protection may be seen as separate activities that can go hand in hand or conflict with each other. For non-experts, however, that becomes much too complicated (Bostrom et al., 2012; Read et al., 1994; Reynolds et al., 2010).

This brief analysis shows that for the purpose of this paper it will be important to consider the motivational differences between valuing care for nature and value-laden perceptions of human-induced climate change. SDT's emphasis on the need for integration (Ryan & Deci, 2000) may explain that people who are concerned about different environmental threats tend to combine various kinds of issues, such as biodiversity loss and climate change, in a holistic package that addresses all aspects of humankind's disturbed relationship with nature (see Kempton, Boster, & Hartley, 1995). Hence, it may be expected that consumers who endorse universalism values will also take the prevention of climate change more seriously. The work of Heath and Gifford (2006) provides support for this notion. Using a subtle motivational approach in a Canadian community sample, Heath and Gifford (2006) show that individuals who value nature for its own sake were more likely to believe that climate change is real and had stronger intentions to undertake mitigation actions.

In contrast, individuals who do not value nature for its own sake were less likely to believe that climate change is real (Heath & Gifford, 2006). Moreover, the study shows that skepticism about the existence, the causes and the seriousness of climate change was strongly related to a lack of interest in environmental issues and the belief that environmental issues have been exaggerated. Importantly, skepticism was not just negatively correlated with caring for the environment but also strongly positively correlated with support for a free market ideology. Hence, although nature and climate change have many things in common, people tend nowadays to become ideologically polarized in their beliefs about climate change (see also Kahan, Jenkins-Smith, & Braman, 2011). In this context, it has been shown that overly dire messages about climate change can backfire with some individuals (Feinberg & Willer, 2011). In terms of SDT (Lavergne, Sharp, Pelletier, & Holtby, 2010), skeptics may feel particularly pressured by the supporters of climate change prevention and this perceived external pressure might explain their high levels of resistance to the notion of prevention. Under these conditions, public appeals designed to help the mitigation process may in fact be counterproductive.

The option of eating less meat for mitigating climate change can be seen as a relatively easy opportunity to help the mitigation process. For people in Western countries, there are many viable alternatives such as meat replacers or vegetarian food items that they can use to prepare their meals (McGee, 2004; Sadler, 2004). This may be especially attractive to individuals who care about nature and take climate change seriously, but who face significant barriers when they want to integrate their activities within their core values (Gifford, 2011; Whitmarsh, 2009; Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010; Wolf & Moser, 2011). Although the option of eating less meat may be seen as a welcome opportunity, several authors expect resistance from consumers (Friel et al., 2009; MacMillan & Middleton, 2010). For instance, a public call to cut meat consumption might backfire with consumers who combine a preference for meat with a skeptical opinion on climate change.

How consumers will respond is not yet clear. Until now the relationship between climate change and agriculture may not have been very salient to the general public. Some indications of public perceptions can be extracted from surveys in several European countries and the USA (Bostrom et al., 2012; European Commission, 2010; Read et al., 1994; Reynolds et al., 2010). The results do not indicate that people feel that agriculture is to blame for climate change (European Commission, 2010, p. 57). In response to a number of opinion statements, a small proportion (29%) agreed with the statement “Agriculture is one of the major causes of climate change”. However, there was a great deal of concern that damage is occurring in the opposite direction: a majority of the respondents (77%) agreed with the statement “In the coming years, agriculture will suffer strongly from the effects of climate change”. This statement may generate less skepticism, because it is generally known that weather is especially important in the agrarian sector (Behringer, 1999). Some surveys in the USA also indicate that many participants expected serious consequences of climate change for agriculture but that they did not perceive agriculture as one of the major causes (Bostrom et al., 2012; Read et al., 1994; Reynolds et al., 2010). In a multinational study among business students “livestock production” was perceived as a much less important cause of climate change than “people driving their cars” (Bostrom et al., 2012).

Because none of the surveys included questions on meat consumption, there is no information on how consumers respond, in this context, to the option of eating less meat. Yet, an interesting result has recently been obtained in a survey of pro-environmental behaviors and concerns about climate change amongst the UK public (Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010). One of the items for measuring behavior referred to the frequency of the action “avoid eating meat” and this item was one of the four that formed an “eco-shopping and eating” component in a principal component analysis. It is noteworthy that the only significant predictors of this component in a multiple regression analysis were pro-environmental identity (e.g., thinking of oneself as an environmentally-friendly consumer) and a high level of education. This agrees with the above mentioned results. Remarkably, the four different measures of concern about climate change in terms of self-assessed knowledge, belief about causes, personal importance, and perceived risk had no significant influence on the “eco-shopping and eating” component. However, because the study did not focus on the relationship between climate change and meat consumption, it is not clear whether consumers saw any connection between these topics.

The aim of the present study is to explore, in a straightforward manner, how consumers respond to the idea of eating less meat for mitigating climate change, taking into account how often they eat meat at their main meal, how much they value nature and how they perceive climate issues. This approach was chosen because it builds on our earlier work about the impacts of meat consumption on food sustainability (e.g., de Boer & Aiking, 2011; de Boer et al., 2007, 2009) and valuing care for nature (de Boer, 2010). We expected to replicate the results reported by Heath and Gifford (2006) that the value of care for nature is negatively correlated with skepticism about the seriousness of climate change. In addition, our first hypothesis aims to replicate the finding of a negative correlation between the frequency of meat consumption and the value of care for nature. As mentioned above, consumers in the Netherlands may clearly associate animal welfare and nature protection with eating less meat.

The central part of the next two hypotheses is the idea that an individual can make a big difference to nature and climate protection by choosing one or more meals without meat every week. Both nature and climate protection were mentioned in the meat-free meal idea, because they are often named together. No reference was made to specific initiatives, such as “Meatless Monday” (e.g., Parker, 2011). The second hypothesis postulates that the meat-free meal idea will be received more positively by consumers who value care for nature and more negatively by those who do not value it. And finally, the third hypothesis is that the meat-free meal idea will be received more negatively by consumers who are skeptical about the seriousness of climate change and more positively by those who do take it seriously, independently of whether they value care for nature. The hypothesis does not predict a backfire effect of the meat-free meal idea, but leaves the issue open.