There’s an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is among the most acute problems facing humanity right now, and to tackle big issues you sometimes need to look at creative solutions. A team of scientists from Sweden wanted to test the appetite for out-of-the-box climate initiatives, so they surveyed nearly 9,000 people from five countries – with some surprising results.

The first-of-its-kind study recruited people from Brazil, India, Germany, South Africa, and the USA and asked for their feelings about increased taxation on fuel and some foods or, as an alternative, rationing of those same products.

“Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change,” explained Oskar Lindgren, a doctoral student at Uppsala University who led the study, in a statement. 

The foods highlighted in the survey were those considered to have a high climate impact, most notably meat. When faced with a hypothetical monthly limit on meat purchases, 33 percent of the participants responded favorably. When asked about increased taxation on these foods instead, 44 percent were in favor. 

Similarly, 38 percent of respondents were accepting of the idea of fossil fuel rationing, and 39 percent fossil fuel taxation. 

“Most surprisingly, there is hardly any difference in acceptability between rationing and taxation of fossil fuels,” said co-author Mikael Karlsson, a senior lecturer in Climate Leadership. “We expected rationing to be perceived more negatively because it directly limits people’s consumption. But in Germany, the proportion of people who strongly oppose fossil fuel taxes is actually higher than the proportion who strongly oppose fossil fuel rationing.”

On paper, rationing might sound like too great an imposition on the general public, but Lindgren pointed out that it’s not necessarily perceived that way: “One advantage of rationing is that it can be perceived as fair, if made independent of income. Policies perceived as fair often enjoy higher levels of acceptance.”

Levels of acceptance did vary between different demographic groups, however. Opposition to meat rationing was strongest in Germany and the US – perhaps unsurprising, since the US and western Europe have historically seen some of the highest levels of meat consumption per head in the world. On the other hand, acceptability of rationing for both food and fuel was highest in India and South Africa. 

In general, those who already expressed concern about climate change, as well as younger people and those with a higher level of education, were more likely to be in favor of rationing. 

The effects of climate change are already being seen in our weather, the geography of our planet, and human health; experts warn that tipping points are coming – and they’re unpredictable. While the cooperation of governments, big business, and international bodies will be essential if we’re to slow or reverse the situation, it’s also important to understand what measures people will accept on an individual level.  

“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,” Lindgren noted. “These are encouraging findings.”

And if meat ever were to be rationed, there are always other sources of protein. 

The study is published in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.