Carbon footprint has a gender. And it’s not female

A new study by a British-French team of scientists suggests that a fondness for cars and red meat significantly undermines the ecological status of men. Their carbon footprint is up to 36% higher than that of women. This is somewhat paradoxical, given that women tend to feel the effects of climate change more acutely.

Carbon footprint depends on gender

Researchers from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and the Paris-based Center for Research in Economics and Statistics (CREST) decided to calculate the annual carbon footprint of 14.6 thousand French people. They only considered eating habits and the means of transportation used, which together account for about 50% of the emissions generated by households. In both areas, each person has a wide range of options and can consciously shape their ecological burden.

What did they find? The annual carbon footprint associated with diet and transportation for the average French man was 5.3 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). For women, however, it was 26% lower, amounting to 3.9 tCO2e. Delving into the specifics of daily choices of both genders, researchers concluded that this difference largely results from the amount of red meat consumed and the frequency and choice of means of transportation. According to the authors, the study clearly points to the persistence of certain social archetypes associated with the image of a “real man,” which are much older than the issue of climate change.

High-emission dinners for two

As part of a more detailed analysis of the carbon footprint of both genders, the researchers adjusted for differences in the amount of food consumed and kilometres travelled, which are typically higher for men – due to physiology and traditional social roles. It turned out that the average French man is more likely to choose products associated with high emissions than the average French woman. Interestingly, when a woman eats alone, her carbon footprint is significantly lower compared to when she dines with someone else.

When it comes to transportation, the factor most strongly influencing CO2 production is having a family. Couples with children use cars much more frequently than childless individuals.

Women are more environmentally sensitive

The study’s authors suggest that the core of the problem may lie in entrenched cultural patterns that associate masculinity and strength with a bloody steak, trivializing a diet based on plant-based protein sources. According to Ondine Berland from LSE, this fact poses a challenge for information strategies related to climate action. Marion Leroutier from CREST adds that broader research is needed to assess whether differences in carbon footprint are partly due to women’s greater interest in climate change.

It is true that there is a range of studies indicating higher environmental sensitivity among women in politics and business. An analysis by the European Investment Bank from 2021, for example, shows that companies led by women are more likely to prioritize climate concerns in their operations. A study conducted two years earlier by Australian scientists also points to a clear link between the level of women’s representation in parliament and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, at the COP29 climate summit, only 8 out of 78 representatives of various countries were women.

This evident disparity is quite paradoxical. The World Economic Forum and the United Nations emphasize that climate change has a greater impact on the lives of women and girls, who are more vulnerable to poverty, violence, and forced migration.