In 2016, Swedish climate reporting declined in quantity and shifted focus somewhat from climate change as such to the harmful climate impacts of meat consumption. The latter prompted discussions in social media—an increasingly important forum for public debate but infrequently studied in environmental communication research. Despite strong evidence that a meat and dairy-based diet is harmful for the environment, meat consumption is increasing, and this qualitative study aims to—through the lens of social representation theory—contribute knowledge about how livestock production is legitimized in everyday discourse on Facebook. The article identifies representations that legitimize livestock production through polarization between (1) livestock production and other (environmental) issues, (2) environmentally “good” and “bad” countries, and (3) “reliable” and “unreliable” information. It concludes by discussing the influence of national ideology on the legitimization of livestock production and the potential of social media to counter the post-politicization of environmental issues.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ulrika Olausson (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: