- JoNova - https://www.joannenova.com.au -

Men worse for climate change than women (so if enough transition, will that stop the floods?)

Men cause all the bad things (except for this study which mostly written by women):

Men Are Worse for Climate Change Than Women Because They Love Meat and Cars

By Anya Zoledziowski, Vice

Men emit 16 percent more greenhouse gases than women because they tend to spend more money on fuel and eat more meat, among other things, a new study has found.

Men Are Worse for Climate Change Than Women Because They Love Meat and Cars

It’s just another man-hating, high-fashion opinion article with a peer reviewed badge and some meaningless data.

With similar reasoning I might as well write: “Women are bad for climate change because they live longer and love hair dryers.” We all know women like to turn up the heater too. And they have babies, that’s got to be bad.

But men, clearly, were the target du jour, and the “experiment” such as it wasn’t, was to compare spending of single men and single women, as if we could get finer control of atmospheric systems by getting boys to drive less, eat more indoor lettuce (that’s a thing) and get their furnishings secondhand off Gumtree.

I’m sure men eat more meat than women but they also have bigger bodies, more lean mass and need more protein, and it seems a tad unfair to expect them to adopt a female-body-composition in the quest to cool the world. (But it’s probably a transphobic sin to ask the question.)  A search of the paper turned up zero instances of the term “lean mass” or “body composition”. Nutrition was not something that had occurred to researchers. If men would just eat more soy, they argued, we’d be that much closer to controlling global temperatures.

There was also no mention of lifespan, but there were three mentions of “soy”.

It all came back to spending habits – This was the kind of study you’d expect if an accountant was cross-bred with a social scientist and given a grant to solve climate change:

“These expenditures are as you would expect in a gender stereotype: Women spend more money on health care, furnishings, buy more food, clothes. Men spend more money on eating out, alcohol and tobacco, and more money on cars and fuels,” said the study’s lead author, Annika Carlsson Kanyama, with the research company Ecoloop in Sweden.
“If men spent money the same way as women, their emissions would be similar but they are not,” Carlsson Kanyama said.

Essentially, the preordained lesson in weather control was that men need to eat less meat, more plant protein and stay at home and grow lettuce in the backyard:

Meat and dairy have “much higher emissions than all their replacements,” including tofu, soy and oat milk, and vegetables, the study says, while travel by train or “staycations” offer alternatives to air and car travel. Pork, for example, is five times more polluting than tofu, while lamb is a whopping 25 times more polluting than tofu.

Holidays were the biggest source of emissions, so the researcher-activists were advocating staycations to stop the storms:

As can be seen, the lowest emissions come from staycations and a package tour by train in Sweden. The staycation category includes activities such as concerts and massage, and the package tour by train in Sweden includes train and hotel accommodation. In Sweden, trains run on electricity and the state-owned rail company (SJ) buys only electricity generated from renewable sources for their trains (SJ, 2017, p. 11). The package tour abroad by train is assumed to go to Italy and include six nights.

Men use cars more than women: (They needed a study to show that?)

“Gender is one of many factors to take into account when talking about how we can reduce emissions,” Carlsson Kanyama said. “Lowering car use, for example. Men use cars more than women, so maybe policies should target men.”

But what if single men are driving cars to pick up single women?  There goes that accounting. There goes that policy…

The only thing this study shows is how human knowledge would be advanced if governments stopped funding science. The entire cause-and-effect chain from single-men-buying-petrol being a forcing on storm-surges-in-the-baltic-sea needs industrial size grants to keep it from collapsing on its own absurdity.

It takes a lot of money to create this much stupid.

h/t Climate Depot

Anya Zoledziowski (the author of the news article, not the study) can be reached on twitter: @anyazoledz She refers to herself as a social justice reporter and ‘hipster f*ck’.

REFERENCE (really)
Kanyama et al (2021) Shifting expenditure on food, holidays, and furnishings could lower greenhouse gas emissions by almost 40%, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Wiley, DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13176


9.6 out of 10 based on 75 ratings