More than a fifth of people find the idea of meat rationing acceptable. That number, along with the prospect of meat rationing itself, might sound absurd. However, if our ruling class gets its way, that number might just go up.
Among a certain subset of climate scholars, there is something of a subfield dedicated to nudging, guilting, and tricking the masses into giving up their meat. One prime example of this comes from a group of Swedish researchers who published the results of a multicountry survey in September in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, a journal that is part of the prestigious Nature Portfolio.
Rationing, the researchers suggest, is a “neglected yet potentially effective policy instrument,” although they question whether this tool would be politically feasible without a populace that views rationing as acceptable.
Hence, the researchers surveyed hoi polloi from Brazil, Germany, India, South Africa, and the United States to gauge the acceptability of rationing meat and fuel. They then compared the acceptability of rationing these near-necessities with simply taxing them instead.
The researchers found that 38% of all respondents considered “monthly limits on fossil fuel purchases” acceptable, while 33% were accepting of similar limitations on purchasing meat, 44% were accepting of placing an excise tax on meat, and 39% were accepting of increased fuel taxes.
When looking at the U.S. alone, however, these numbers tended to be lower. Roughly 29% to 33% of people at least somewhat favored rationing fuel or taxing one of the goods in question. Again, 22% were at least somewhat OK with rationing meat. But 36% were strongly opposed to it.
Unsurprisingly, concern about climate change was associated with more favorable views on rationing, as was youth, while daily car usage and regular meat consumption were associated with negative perceptions of such measures.
Now, with a study like this, it is easy to be dismissive. Liberal academics from the country that gave us the ever-so-delightful Greta Thunberg published a study reporting survey results highlighting the obvious. Dedicated climate alarmists might have a taste for meat rationing. So might college girls with eco-anxiety that not even their emotional support cats can help. Yet, most normal Americans, even the weird ones who respond to surveys, don’t want policies that entail the rationing, or even the extra taxation, of food or fuel.
Yet, it is important to remember studies like this aren’t really about what most normal people want. They are about gauging the atmosphere for the rollout of policies desired by our ruling class.
The United Nations and World Economic Forum have long said we need to reduce our meat consumption. At some point, this will likely be more than just a polite suggestion. Articles such as the one published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications offer some insight into their plans.
Throughout the article, the authors talk about “permissible carbon emissions” as a scarce resource and restrictions on carbon-emitting activities as an inevitability. Public opposition to possibly coercive policies is treated as an unfortunate inconvenience best overcome with more research and better marketing.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Maybe bundling meat rationing into a larger climate bill will help gain support, the researchers suggest. Perhaps enacting meat rationing in a gradual manner will lead to less resistance, giving the carnivorous proles more time to accept their government-issued meat allowance.
Then again, maybe just getting people talking about meat rationing as what “The Science” says we need is enough to normalize the idea, at least among left-leaning science enthusiasts. Whatever the case, it may not be long before some bureaucrat is floating an actual policy that says meat is off the table.
Daniel Nuccio is a Ph.D. student in biology and a regular contributor to the College Fix and the Brownstone Institute.