U.S. public sentiment toward policy action targeting emissions from beef production

• U.S. public support for reducing beef cattle enteric emissions varies by strategy. • The U.S. public prefers beef producers use seaweed to reduce production emissions. • Producer subsidies the U.S. public is willing to fund do not cover increased costs. • A voluntary subsidy program for reducing enteric emissions may be more plausible. • U.S. residents are less likely to vote for mandates if increased beef prices result. Many countries have begun introducing policies aiming to reduce emissions from beef production. Several strategies are being researched and developed to reduce such emissions. This study explores U.S. public sentiment toward various beef production emissions-reduction strategies and quantifies support for potential policy measures. Using data from a nationally representative survey, we find that feeding seaweed to cattle is the most preferred strategy followed by letting either the beef industry or the U.S. Department of Agriculture decide how to reduce emissions from beef production. The U.S. public shows greater support for subsidies versus mandates if they recognize that mandates could increase the price of beef. The strategy with the highest estimated subsidy support, as funded by the U.S. public, is seaweed. However, these subsidy levels are less than the projected cost of the product in practice, so producer adoption of seaweed as triggered by a U.S. public-supported subsidy is unlikely. A more plausible solution to subsidizing a subset of beef producers to reduce emissions may be connecting climate-concerned residents who are willing to fund a subsidy to producers who are willing to adopt climate-focused practices.