Manufacturing ignorance: think tanks, climate change and the animal-based diet

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample details

Think tanks

European think tanks from the TTCSP 2017 report: Ntt = 238 Think tanks studied (after discards): ntt = 110 Countries of origin of ntt: 27

Texts

Texts including mentions to the two variables (animal-based diet and climate change/global warming): Nt = 1,408 (1984–2019) Nt texts linking the animal-based diet to climate change (FO1 and FO2): nt1 = 254 (2001–2019) nt1 texts negatively linking the animal-based diet to climate change (FR1): nt2 = 230 (2004–2019) nt1 texts including a mention to the vegetarian or vegan diets: nt3 = 29 (1997–2019)

Figure 1. Texts including mentions to climate change and global warming and mentions to the animal-based food (N^t = 1,408) and think tanks (N^tt = 110) per country in %.

Table 2. Focus

FOCUS (Animal-Based Food: AB-F; CC: Climate Change) FO1. AB-F & CC-E focus: Animal-based food IS the main topic related to climate change and the environment FO2. AB-F & CC-E not focus: Animal-based food is NOT the main topic but it is mentioned related to climate change and the environment FO3. AB-F & Others focus: Animal-based food IS the main topic but not related with climate change or the environment (it can be related to anything: ethics, economics, technology, animal welfare, but NOT CC or environment) FO4. AB-F & Others not focus: Animal-based food is NOT the main topic and it is not mentioned in relation to climate change or the environment (it can be related to anything: ethics, economics, technology, animal welfare, but NOT CC or environment) FO5. Animals without Food: Nonhuman animals are either the main focus or only mentioned but not for food reasons but other reasons (hunting, pets, animal ethics, habitat loss, etc.) To discard: all articles mentioning the keywords (animal, dairy, meat) as metaphors, other contexts, jokes, phrases, etc. not making any statement that can be coded in F1 or F5.

Table 3. Frames (for texts with focus FO1 and FO2)

FRAMES (Animal-Based Food: AB-F; CC: Climate Change) FR1. AB-F is a CAUSE of CC/POLLUTION: 1 = The text explicitly or implicitly acknowledges animal-based food has a negative impact on climate change and/or environment 0 = The text doesn’t make this correlation either explicitly or implicitly FR2. AB-F is NOT a CAUSE of CC/POLLUTION: 1 = The text explicitly or implicitly acknowledges animal-based food hasn’t have a negative impact on climate change and/or environment 0 = The text doesn’t make this correlation either explicitly or implicitly FR3. AB-F is actually GOOD for CC/ENVIRONMENT: 1 = The text explicitly or implicitly acknowledges animal-based food has a positive impact on climate change and/or environment 0 = The text doesn’t make this correlation either explicitly or implicitly FR4. AB-F is a cause of HUMAN HEALTH PROBLEMS: 1 = The text explicitly or implicitly acknowledges animal-based food has a negative impact on human health 0 = The text doesn’t make this correlation either explicitly or implicitly FR5. AB-F is a cause of SOCIAL JUSTICE PROBLEMS: 1 = The text explicitly or implicitly acknowledges animal-based food has a negative impact on social justice (including food sovereignty, poverty, hungry, etc.) 0 = The text doesn’t make this correlation either explicitly or implicitly FR6. AB-F is a cause of NONHUMAN ANIMALS SUFFERING: 1 = The text explicitly or implicitly addresses or mentions the suffering of nonhuman animals exploited for humans’ interests 0 = The text doesn’t make this correlation either explicitly or implicitly

Figure 2. Focus and frames of the texts with FO1 or FO2 (Nt = 1,408).

Figure 3. FO1 and FO2 texts by years of publication (%).

Figure 4. Frames in FO1 & FO2 (n^t1 = 254) (%).