Why Men Have a Bigger Carbon Footprint Than Women  

In this month’s edition of The Evidence newsletter, Josephine Lethbridge explores the gender gap in carbon emissions.  

A new study of 15,000 adults in France reveals that men’s food and transport footprint is 26 percent higher than women’s, with red meat consumption and car use driving the gender gap. 

The researchers argue that similar results would likely be found in other high-income countries. As co-author Ondine Berland argues, “marketing strategies seem quite similar elsewhere, with adverts targeting men for cars and meat in various countries.” 

In Spain, a male-dominated households have an 11 percent higher carbon footprint than female-led ones. In Sweden, men’s consumer choices result in 16 percent more emissions than women’s. 

Why are men less supportive of climate-friendly policies? 

Berland notes that because men tend to buy more carbon-intensive goods, they are more likely to feel personally affected by policies that tax those goods. Women, who generally consume less, are more likely to support environmental initiatives. 

Interestingly, a global study covering 60 countries found no gender gap in climate concern in poorer nations. The divide emerges when national wealth and consumption rise. 

In fact, the single strongest predictor of a person’s climate impact is not gender, but income. The ultra-wealthy, who are overwhelmingly male, are responsible for the largest share of emissions. The richest 1 percent now emit more than the poorest two-thirds of humanity combined.  

Culture wars and climate responsibility 

“If you remove the highest earners, the gender gap reduces massively,” says Mathilde Rainard of the University of Leeds Sustainability Research Institute. “Rather than individualizing the issue and the solutions, we should be looking at this as a collective.” 

Yet oil companies and online commentators often shift the focus back to individuals. BP popularised the concept of the carbon footprint, while internet personalities in the manosphere have linked climate-friendly change to a “war on men.” 

For Rainard, making positive change involves focusing on the benefits of climate policies and holding the biggest polluters accountable.  

“What this really means,” she says, “is taxing the very rich. Who do happen to mostly be men. A tiny proportion of people hold a vast majority of the resources and are the source of most emissions. In that context, it’s not fair to put all the responsibility for change on the middle classes. We’re taxing the wrong thing.” 

Read this month’s full newsletter to learn more about the steps we can take to inspire positive change in our communities, in policy, and in our workplaces. An archive of past issues can be accessed through Social Science Space.