It is official: men and women do not have the same impact on the climate. An in -depth study conducted in France on over 15,000 people discovered that the carbon imprint linked to food consumption and transport is on average of the 26% higher in men Compared to women. And the difference is not only quantitative, but qualitative: they are two very precise habits – the use of the car and the consumption of red meat – To weigh more in the male ecological balance.
Food and transport: half of the total imprint
The research put two strategic sectors under the lens: food and transport, which together represent about 50% of the emissions related to individual consumption. Men emit 5.3 tons of Co₂ on average equivalent to the year in these two areas, against 3.9 of women. An important difference, which is equivalent to the gap between low and high income individuals.
The crucial point? Even after taking into account socio -economic, biological and distance factors traveled, almost 40% of the gap remains unexplained by “objective” elements. To make the difference are the choices: red meat and car, in fact, They are high -intensity carbon goods and strongly characterized by gender rules.
Masculinity, meat and motor
According to researchers, the consumption of red meat and the use of the car are culturally associated with a certain idea of masculinity. This directly influences the male ecological imprint. Red meat alone, while representing only 13% of the average food imprint, explains 70% of the difference between men and women in food emissions. Similarly, cars represent 84% of the impact of transport and explain practically all the difference between the genres in this area.
Interestingly, there are no significant differences in the use of the plane, another polluting means but culturally less characterized from the gender point of view.
When you live together, the impact levels
The gap attenues itself in couples, especially as regards nutrition. Sharing meals and decisions on food choices seems to reduce the distances between gender habits. This is not the case for transport: in families with children, for example, man tends to travel more kilometers by car, often with less efficient vehicles, while women work closer to the house.
In singles, however, the food difference is more marked: single women consume less meat than those in pairs, while single men do not substantially change their consumption. This suggests that coexistence leads to a convergence, but often in the direction of male preferences.
Who conducted the study
The study, published as Working Paper (therefore not yet subjected to an equal review), was made by Ondine Berland of Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment of the London School of Economics (LSE) and from Marion Leroutier of Center for Research in Economics and Statistics (Crest) in France.
Climate and politics: a matter of fairness
The study highlights how environmental policies can no longer afford to ignore the genre factor. Tassing meat and fuel, for example, could have different impacts on men and women. But it is also an opportunity: to promote more sustainable lifestyles can pass through a reflection on the cultural rules that associate “virility” to the possession of the car or the choice of a steak to the blood.
Finally, the researchers underline a paradox: men, despite being more responsible for pollution, tend to worry less about climate change. This could also depend on the perceived personal cost of a possible change in habits.
