When discussing climate change and how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the first sector to be mentioned — rightly so — is energy. There are, however, other activities that affect global warming about which citizens should be informed by the media, such as livestock farming (which falls within the broader area of agriculture, forestry and land use). In Italy, this topic has only recently moved beyond the circle of activists and subject-matter experts, earning space in some television programmes. The non-profit organisations Faunalytics, which conducts research and shares knowledge in support of animal advocates, and Sentient Media, which raises awareness of the impact of livestock farming on the planet through independent journalism, have produced a study to understand the extent to which US media communicate to readers the environmental implications of livestock farming.
Livestock farming: the great absentee in media coverage of global warming?
Only relatively recently has media attention begun to shift toward livestock farming as an additional activity to consider among the causes of global warming. Numerous studies state that a percentage ranging between 11.1 and 19.6% of global emissions comes from the production of meat and dairy, and the leading global food and climate agencies also agree with these figures, going so far as to include among their recommendations a reduction in meat consumption in favour of a plant-rich diet (guidance directed in particular at those living in developed countries with advanced economies). Yet newspapers, social media and television do not seem to address the link between livestock farming and global warming in the right proportions. But we cannot rely on gut feelings, and this is where the Faunalytics and Sentient Media analysis begins to provide answers based on data, at least with regard to the United States.
The Faunalytics and Sentient Media research
The role of the media in correctly informing the public on issues such as climate change is fundamental. The project resulting from the collaboration between Faunalytics and Sentient Media analysed recent climate articles appearing in major US media outlets and examined how frequently livestock farming and climate change were linked. Specifically, the 100 most recent publications (from 15 February 2012 to 29 September 2022) that included the keyword climate in the title were examined for each of the 10 largest American outlets, for a total of 1,000 articles. The outlets were The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, New York Post, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, Star Tribune, Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe and CNN.
Overall, livestock farming was mentioned in only 7% of articles on climate change, making it one of the least discussed causes of global warming in the media. Among the sectors most frequently mentioned, on the other hand, are ‘Extraction, manufacturing and energy production’ (68%), ‘Emissions’ (67%) and ‘Fossil fuels’ (53%). This is the frequency, but what about the content? What was observed?
Livestock farming is often described as a victim of climate change rather than also as a cause; there are many missed opportunities to discuss the link between livestock farming and climate change, and the sub-sectors of animal agriculture that have an environmental impact also receive insufficient media attention.
Some advice for those who support environmental and animal rights causes
How can organisations that defend the environment and animals — because, let us not forget, we are here to ensure animal welfare now and, in the future, an end to the exploitation of these living beings — or indeed activists and individuals who care about these issues, help improve media coverage of the relationship between livestock farming and global warming? Faunalytics and Sentient Media offer advice for American citizens that is, however, also applicable to the Italian and European context:
- engage with climate stories that accurately convey the connection between livestock farming and climate change: audience engagement with content is very important for media outlets, as it helps measure interest in particular topics. Sharing on social media, commenting and even contacting the editorial team to express your interest can help increase attention and content on the subject. I would add that this can serve to involve newspapers that work with professionals and editorial teams with excellent fact-checking resources: too often climate and animal issues are left to those who build their coverage on outrage. In short, less clickbait, more solid journalism;
- share your knowledge by writing a letter to editors or an opinion piece: if a news outlet has recently published a climate piece about which you feel strongly — whether in support or disagreement — writing a letter to the editor can be an effective way to convey your feedback. If you write professionally and know the subject, you could submit an article to (politely) correct misconceptions, cite more authoritative sources and call readers to action;
- pitch stories about ongoing discussions concerning the role of livestock farming in climate change: if a significant study on the implications of livestock farming for global warming is generating interest in the scientific community or among animal advocacy organisations, you can tag a news outlet on social media or contact the editorial team by email to explore whether the story is publishable;
- join forces with other advocates or organisations to engage with news on social media: form a group of advocates to like and comment on noteworthy and authoritative stories, or contact news outlets to encourage them to cover the link between livestock farming and climate change. If you are a climate expert, you might consider co-writing a popular science article with other experts in your field;
- use your platform to educate the public about the impact of livestock farming on climate change: according to Faunalytics itself, climate concerns can for many people serve as a gateway to greater awareness of the conditions of animals. Incorporating an environmental perspective can help increase the number of people who eat less meat and can therefore also lend support to issues relating to animal welfare and exploitation.
On this last point, although I personally am firmly convinced that people must be well informed and aware of what is happening in the world and of the goal they are pursuing based on the beliefs they have developed — how many vegans follow a diet free of animal-derived foods for ‘health’ reasons rather than ethical ones? — it is a fact that the pig who will not be slaughtered because someone has decided not to eat it will not wonder whether that person did so for the climate, for their own blood test results, or because they believe it is time to recognise the dignity of animals’ lives.
And what about journalists? How can they act to better cover these topics in their articles? Seek out stories, apply a little empathy and avoid polarisation. These are just some of the ideas explored in the event Making the Climate Connection: How to improve media coverage of the food-climate connection, which can be rewatched on YouTube.