Radical as it might sound, governments may be forced to introduce rationing of certain foods. Global population growth and the impact of climate change on food security is placing resources under increasing pressure.
“Over the course of the next 20 years, based on what’s already baked in, we know there will be more people in the world – quite likely another 800m people as the world’s population rises to just shy of nine billion,” says James Pomeroy, global economist for HSBC. “And with that, food demand will intensify.”
This very real prospect is leading governments to consider all options to protect food security. And one of those options is rationing. But while this was something Europeans experienced during World War Two, it could become a permanent reality for future generations. Or at least, for certain food types, namely those deemed to be damaging to the environment.
Consumers, however, are not against the idea. A study from the Climate Change Leadership Group at Uppsala University in Sweden has found that that 40% of the public may support rationing goods with high climate impacts, reaching acceptance levels similar to that of taxation.
“Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change.”
“Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change,” explains Oskar Lindgren, a doctoral student in natural resources and sustainable development at the Department of Earth Sciences at Uppsala University, who led the study. “This may explain why support is rather high.”
Another theory for the high level of support for the proposal is the fact that there is significant food inequality across the globe, with the United Nations stating that current global food production is enough to feed everyone on the planet, and yet hunger continues to increase in some parts of the world. In short, some people are eating more than their fair share and others are quite literally starving. Rationing would neutralise this issue.
“One advantage of rationing is that it can be perceived as fair, if made independent of income,” says Lindgren. “Policies perceived as fair often enjoy higher levels of acceptance.”
Prior to beginning the study, the team examined existing policies aimed at reducing consumption of food with a high climate impact, including meat. They found that public acceptance of a particular policies strongly depends on whether it is perceived as fair or not. So far, research in this area has mainly examined economic instruments, such as carbon taxes, so the concept of rationing is still relatively new… at least to this generation.
The study, including 8,654 people, across Brazil, India, Germany, South Africa, and the United States, compared consumer acceptability of rationing so-called emission-intensive foods such as meat, with acceptability of taxes on the same products. Interestingly, there seemed to be little difference in the results.
“There is hardly any difference in acceptability between rationing and taxation.”
“Most surprisingly, there is hardly any difference in acceptability between rationing and taxation,” says Mikael Karlsson, senior lecturer in climate leadership at Uppsala University and one of the researchers behind the study. “We expected rationing to be perceived more negatively because it directly limits people’s consumption.”
The study does however show acceptability to differ between countries. Because while opinion on rationing is high in India (46%) and South Africa (49%), it’s much lower in Germany (29%) and the United States (29%). Brazil is somewhere in the middle at 40%. Perhaps unsurprisingly, all countries showed positive results amongst individuals who express concern about climate change, in addition to younger and more educated individuals.
It’s important to note that although 8,654 is a large number, it’s a tiny portion of the populations of the five study countries, so results may not be truly representative of the wider population. But further research is required.
“More research is now needed on attitudes towards rationing and the design of such policy instruments,” says Lindgren. “Water rationing is taking place in many parts of the world, and many people seem willing to limit their consumption for climate mitigation purposes, as long as others do the same. These are encouraging findings,” says Lindgren.
Is rationing enforceable on a global scale?
As with all studies looking to gauge public opinion, it’s currently just hypothetical. Whether consumers would be quite so enthusiastic were this to become a reality remains to be seen.
And the fact is, for rationing to have a significant effect, both on the health of the planet and global food equality, it would require the compliance of all major economies. The fact that two of the most powerful economies in the world, Germany and the United States, had low acceptance levels of the proposed rationing, even at a hypothetical stage, does not bode well for future adoption. Though the time may come where people simply don’t have a choice, and resources have to be limited.
“A growing population means more mouths to feed. The expanding global population is getting wealthier, and richer people tend to eat more and demand food that is resource intensive to produce, particularly meat and dairy,” said a spokesperson for UK government programme, Global Food Security.
Source: Public acceptability of climate-motivated rationing
Published online: 26 September 2024
DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03823-7
Authors: Oskar Lindgren, Erik Elwing, Mikael Karlsson, Sverker C Jagers