Previous scholarship suggests that elite media have tended to pay little attention to the adverse environmental impacts associated with meat consumption and production. Through content analysis of 116 articles from 2019, published on eight popular online news sites consumed by a wide range of demographics in the UK, including lower-income groups (the sector most likely to eat meat), we identify common anti-meat and pro-meat environmental narratives, solutions and recommendations, and the dominant sentiment towards both meat consumption and production. We observed a significantly greater presence of anti-meat consumption and/or production narratives than pro-meat. Over half the articles showed anti-meat consumption sentiment, with only 5% predominately in favour. 10% were against unspecified or industrial production practices, 28% were against industrial-scale farming but supported sustainable methods; and none were entirely in favour of the meat industry. These findings are reflected in the dominant recommendation, present in over 60% of articles, to eat less meat. Our results add substantially to previous media research, particularly showing the increased volume of coverage of the meat-environment nexus, varying levels of contestation around meat eating, and the division of responsibility between consumers and industry.

Animal agriculture is a major producer of greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to 14.5% of global emissions, which is approximately the same size as the transportation sector. Global meat consumption is projected to grow, which will increase animal agriculture's negative impact on the environment. Public awareness of the link between animal food consumption and climate change is low; this may be one of many obstacles to more effective interventions to reduce meat consumption in Western diets, which has been proposed by many research institutions. This study analyzes how much attention the UK and US elite media paid to animal agriculture's role in climate change, and the roles and responsibilities of various parties in addressing the problem, from 2006 to 2018. The results of the quantitative media content analysis show that during that period, volume of coverage remained low, and that when the issue was covered, consumer responsibility was mentioned more than that of governments or largescale livestock farms. In similar fashion, a range of options around personal dietary change was far more prominent in the media discussion of solutions than government policies, reforming agricultural practices or holding major animal food companies accountable for their emissions.

Biochar is a land-based greenhouse gas removal technology with potential to address the climate crisis. This article examines societal debate and discussion around biochar as represented in the UK print news media and reflects on its implications for the democratic governance of novel technologies. Using an "issue frame" analysis approach, the following frames are identified - Innovation, Economics, Security, Governance and Accountability, Risk, Justice, Substitution, Salvation and Tradition - with some more prominent than others. Economics and Innovation frames are particularly pronounced, together with the argument for market-based forms of governance, while Risk and Justice frames are weakly developed. The findings show that some frames and their associated actors dominate debate, while others are absent or side-lined. This might hinder opening up the debate to a wider group of stakeholders and publics and alternative framings, thus constraining effective governance of biochar.