内容摘要：Trump barely mentioned either conflict on his trip – and when he did, it was generally in the context of his assertion that they wouldn’t have occurred had he won reelection in 2020.

Trump barely mentioned either conflict on his trip – and when he did, it was generally in the context of his assertion that they wouldn’t have occurred had he won reelection in 2020.

Changing human behavior, especially regarding something as important and intimate as the food we eat, is challenging, no matter a person’s age.Eating meat is an ingrained, habitual part of daily life in most parts of the world, said Julia Wolfson, who studies nutrition at Johns Hopkins University. Meat consumption is “orders of magnitude higher” in the U.S. than in low-income countries, and meals are often centered around it. She recalled a well-known advertisement from the mid-1990s that resonated across the country: “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner.”

Besides its central role in U.S. and other cultures, there are firm perceptions that meat is necessary, especially for “young boys to grow up healthy and strong,” she said.At the same time, research shows most people are reluctant to even learn about the negative impacts of eating meat and they’re stymied by the so-called “meat paradox.” That’s the term scientists use to describe the psychological conflict that occurs in people who like to eat meat but don’t like to contemplate the animals that died providing it.The AP-NORC poll illustrates that conundrum.

About 8 in 10 U.S. adults said taste was an extremely or very important factor when buying food, with its cost and nutritional value following close behind. Americans are much less likely to prioritize the food’s effect on the environment (34%) or its effect on animal welfare (30%).Despite those hurdles, certain interventions can cut meat consumption, research shows.

Stressing the connection between meat and animals seems to work. For instance, experiments that displayed photos of meat dishes on restaurant menus alongside pictures of the animals that they came from have consistently proven to reduce meat consumption,

at Stanford University.But progress has been slow. More than half of $25 million awarded by the Interior Department — most of it planned for building the first homes -- has been held up for a lengthy process of submitting planning and design documents.

“I guess when being awarded the funds, you’re thinking: ‘Let’s get this going. We have the money, we’re ready to do this. Let’s move,” said Alyssa Johnston, project developer for the relocation. “But after a few months of being in this position, you just kind of learn that there’s a lot more to it, to acquiring the funding.”They’ve gotten $12 million through Washington state’s Climate Commitment Act, but most will go toward relocating another Quinault village, Queets, which also has flooding issues. A small amount has been earmarked to study salmon declines due to glacier melt and rising river temperatures. The tribe relies on the fish for everything from food to jobs to cultural traditions.

In 2020, Quinault took an $8 million loan for the Generations building and has continued to search for additional funding. But last year the tribe was turned down for two key federal grants.Tribal leaders say no one will be forced to move, and some residents don’t want to.