Environmentalists Don't Take Meat Reduction Seriously. Here's How To Change That.

Despite the terrible environmental harms of high meat production, most climate groups don't consider it a key issue. I think it's a matter of strategy and motives. Let's get into it.

The climate and animal protection movements have overlapping goals — systemic meat reduction would benefit animal welfare and climate change alike, not to mention other nasty problems like land use change and water pollution. You’d think we’d get along like peas in a pod, right? However, surprisingly, tree-huggers and animal lovers haven’t been working together very much in the nonprofit sector: COP summits often serve plenty of meat, most climate action plans don’t address animal agriculture, and no mainstream environmental politician would dare to mention meat reduction as a policy proposal. What gives?

After years of trying to get climate groups to tackle this low-hanging fruit, I often sense that many animal activists see collaboration with climate folks as futile. I’ve heard variations of “We’ve already tried that” or “We need to focus on people within our camp” when discussing forging new partnerships with environmental folks. I disagree. I think we’ve failed to make inroads because we’ve been pushing the wrong tactics.

Before we jump into the strategy, we first need to examine the research on why climate groups haven’t been taking meat reduction seriously.

Environmentalists’ Opposition to Meat Reduction, Explained

As Hannah Ritchie points out, many climate activists tend to think in terms of systems (“Big Oil is destroying the planet”) or individuals (“we need to reduce our carbon footprints”). Of course, both of these things are true at once. Over the past few years, mainstream climate activism has shifted its focus from individual outreach to systems thinking. This is backed up by research — a 2022 global meta-analysis shows that climate groups utilize systemic solutions, like regulation, divestment, and energy transitions, the most. Connecting this idea to meat consumption, one study in Spain found that climate activists are aware of the harms of meat consumption but continue to do so because they focus on other avenues of change, like political or technological strategies. Vegan diets fall squarely into the camp of individual change (at least, in the minds of many), so environmentalists aren’t thinking of it as a prime opportunity for change.

On the flipside, climate advocates are concerned about telling people what to do. Kenny Torrella has a great piece in Vox that shows how environmentalists are extremely worried about the backlash of “snatching burgers, nuggets, and ribs away” from the public. Qualitative research bears this out: environmentalists don’t just want to order people around, and many don’t see a way to reduce meat consumption without individual diet change outreach. There’s also the problem of differing opinions. Another 2024 study finds that environmentalists are most hesitant to collaborate with animal advocates due to differing views, particularly on strategies and messaging. They’re concerned about inviting backlash to an already uphill battle.

Still, climate groups aren’t perfect — they can fall for misinformation and harmful lobbying as well. Environmental organizations like the WWF, TNC, and EDF accept money from big meat companies and often promote farming practices, such as regenerative agriculture and feed additives, that are essentially just greenwashing. This apparent confusion is no accident — for years, Big Meat has equipped an army of paid scientists to make bogus reports and obfuscate the benefits of meat reduction. Interestingly, they have focused most on attacking individual diet change, while Big Oil has centered carbon footprints as a way to distract from their production problems.

Of course, we also need to mention funding: climate groups are far better-resourced than animal groups. By one estimate, animal protection groups spent around $250 million in 2024 — a fraction of a percent of the $1.55 trillion invested in climate finance during the same year. A lack of funding makes it challenging to incorporate meat reduction into these conversations, but it also represents an advantage. If we can better align these causes, an exorbitant amount of resources could be unlocked.

Taken together, it’s no wonder climate groups aren’t working on diets.

Let’s Fix This

I propose some criteria that can identify promising interventions that sidestep these barriers:

• Reduce animal suffering

• Reduce greenhouse gases (and/or involve other potential environmental benefits)

• Are systems-focused (i.e., don’t involve individual responsibility à la carbon footprints or personal diets)

• Won’t face significant backlash from climate funders, politicians, farmers’ lobbies, or the general public

• Are credible, effective, scalable, and well-researched

This list reflects Pax Fauna’s “civic framing” over “consumer framing” — people are more likely to support animal welfare and meat reduction if they approach it through the lens of voting patterns and collective action, instead of an individual diet change. In short, we want interventions that aim at changing groups, not individuals.

Looking at this list, we can start crossing out a few familiar tactics. Direct vegan outreach, including all pro-animal messaging to individuals, is out — too individualized. Unpopular but effective proposals like meat taxes need to go — the potential for backlash is too high.

Still, I believe we have a few promising contenders.

What Might Work Instead

• Plant-based defaults

  • If you’ve followed my work for the past few years, you’ll know I’m quite bullish on defaults, which are a system in which consumers are presented with plant-based food as the default and must opt into eating meat. Read my overview of the behavioral science if you want a refresher.

• Plant-based action plans (like Denmark’s)

• Transfarmation and similar farmer transition programs

  • For maximum potential collaboration with climate groups, initiatives to transform cow farms may be most strategic, but Transfarmation has focused on chicken farms thus far.

• Legal battles against animal agriculture

  • Many possibilities here: removal of subsidies to animal agriculture, farms’ exceptions to environmental laws, or even labor unions for small farmers who are themselves victimized by Big Meat

• Investment/promotion of alternative proteins

• Bans on meat advertisements

  • Check out these Dutch cities’ policies

• Food waste reduction initiatives, especially in factory farms

• Improved media coverage of meat’s impact on the environment, an issue that is systemically underreported

• Challenge-based vegan outreach (Veganuary, Challenge 22, etc.)

Now, a few caveats. Many of these initiatives will be more feasible in certain countries than others, due to a mix of political contexts (e.g., ban on meat ads), existing organizational infrastructure (e.g., Transfarmation-esque orgs don’t exist in most countries), and potential cultural backlash (e.g., Big Meat’s frequent attacks on plant-based meat). Also, for some interventions, we may need to prioritize specific aspects over others. Veganuary, for example, may be more effective if we focus on the institutional aspects of their work rather than the challenge itself (read my analysis of their impact if you’re curious).

Okay, we got the policies, but what does this actually look like? First, we should fund and send leaders working in these overlapping interventions to go to local climate conferences. This can include Executive Directors, researchers, thought leaders, project leaders — anyone who’d be a good ambassador and bridge-builder. By networking, spreading ideas, and building bridges, we might be able to drum up more support. Second, campaigners can start working with their governments to implement popular government initiatives, including plant-based action plans, alternative protein investment, meat ad bans, and more. Don’t count out local action here! Cities and towns can also be hubs for progress. Third, in countries with high meat production and low meat consumption (especially those in the Global South), animal advocates should coordinate with environmental groups to tackle meat production rather than consumption. This sidesteps potential backlash while ensuring that meaningful work continues to get done. Fourth, animal advocates need to fund the above list of meat reduction initiatives and stop trying to push individual diet change on environmentalists. Phrases like “real environmentalists don’t eat meat” just aren’t helpful, regardless of your feelings on the validity of the argument. Remember, we need to invite people into our circle, not push them out.

I don’t think we should give up on building bridges with other movements, despite past failures — rather, we need to be more critical and thoughtful about our approach. It’s going to take time, funding, and investment, but I’m hopeful we can build inroads.

Thank you

Thank you for reading! I always make these resources available for free, but consider becoming a paid subscriber if you find my work valuable. I am a freelance non-profit researcher, and the more financial support I have, the more time I can spend on making these resources as impactful as possible. Plus, I donate 10% of subscription fees to highly impactful meat reduction initiatives and animal sanctuaries.