For years the climate debate has been about lifestyles, much less about identity. Yet some recent research suggests that an important part of emissions depends on how men and women are educated to consume, move and even eat.
A study conducted by economists Ondine Berland and Marion Leroutier on 15,000 people in France reveals one fact: considering food and transportation, i.e., the sectors that weigh most on personal climate footprint, women emit on average 26 percent less CO2 than men.
Beyond the economic factor
The most immediate explanation would seem economic: men earn more, so they consume more. But the study cleaned the data of these variables. Income, education, age, work and geographic area narrow the gap, but do not eliminate it. There remains a significant share that does not depend on the wallet, but on precise consumption choices, linked to two symbols: red meat and the automobile.
On the food side, the main culprit is cattle consumption. Men consume much more of it than women, even taking into account men’s higher caloric needs (+7% residual emissions for the same number of calories). For transportation, the mechanism is similar: men tend to drive larger, more powerful and more polluting cars, often with only one passenger on board.
Does ecology threaten manhood?
Here the climate issue meets psychology. The study notes that there is no difference between the sexes in air travel. This suggests that women are not “naturally” more eco-friendly: the gap emerges only in consumption that culture associates with traditional masculinity.
In support of this, psychologist Michael Haselhuhn has shown that men most concerned about appearing “manly” tend to downplay climate change. In the common imagination, caring for the environment is associated with “feminine” qualities such as empathy and fragility. For some men, showing up “green” is perceived as an identity threat. This gives rise to the hyper-masculine aesthetic of giant steak or disdain for environmental policies.
Welcome to the (M)Anthropocene
But it is not just a matter of individual choice. A large international study published in Norma: International Journal for Masculinity Studies invites a structural look at the problem, coining the term (M)Anthropocene. This research highlights how humans, especially Western elites, control the levers of the most polluting sectors: extractive industries, chemicals, oil and the military.
The emissions of the individual are thus a mirror of a power system. Humans not only pollute more as consumers, but also manage the production processes that have brought the Planet to the state we know today.
Influence in the couple
Family dynamics complicate the picture. In couples with children, women often reduce job mobility for domestic care, while men increase it. On food, the opposite happens: women are often the ones who adapt to their partners’ habits, increasing their meat consumption. It is a kind of“upward convergence” of emissions dictated by male desires.
According to simulations, if men adopted consumption patterns similar to women’s-without eating less or moving less, but choosing less impactful foods and means-the CO2 reduction would be very significant, amounting to about three times France’s projected annual reductions in the food and transportation sectors. The ecological transition, then, is about the very idea of strength and success. If sustainability continues to be perceived as a “female renunciation” and destructive consumption as a “male achievement,” the climate battle will remain stunted.
Are we ready to redefine what it means to “be a man” in a Planet that can no longer afford the luxury of fossilized machismo?
