Promoting Civic Health in a Polarized Era: Finding Common Ground about the Climate Impact of Meat

Abstract

Political polarization in the United States has intensified in recent decades, with affective polarization often exceeding ideological disagreement. Despite growing public discourse and debate about food systems and climate change, there is limited peer‑reviewed research exploring these dynamics at the “meat-climate” nexus. Through a national survey of 2,518 U.S. adults conducted in January 2026, this thesis addresses that gap by assessing Americans’ values, concerns, and solution preferences related to meat and climate, comparing responses across political affiliations, identifying sociodemographic correlates, and quantifying cross-partisan perception gaps. Findings indicate that across political affiliations, most Americans perceive meat eating as a personal choice, and do not want to follow expert advice or a government recommendation to decrease meat consumption for the benefit of others or the planet. Americans across parties also display support for improving the sustainability of meat production practices. These results highlight areas of common ground that may inform communication strategies aimed at reducing affective polarization.