EN

The VICE Channels

How Climate Change Impacts Women the Most

How Climate Change Impacts Women the Most How Climate Change Impacts Women the Most How Climate Change Impacts Women the Most
Photo by Dennis M. Sabangan/EPA

How Climate Change Impacts Women the Most

VICE News is closely tracking global environmental change. Check out the Tipping Point blog here.
The United Nations will finalize in September its Sustainable Development Goals, which aim to eliminate poverty while reducing humanity's environmental discussion, including lessening the harmful effects of climate change. And some advocates are working to spread the message that climate change impacts men and women differently — and the UN goals need to reflect this sometimes grim reality.
"In the climate change process specifically, we want the normative framework to embed gender equality," said Verona Collantes, a climate change specialist with UN Women, the international agency's gender empowerment organization.
The proposed goals include a mission to achieve broad gender equality, including eliminating sexual violence and childhood marriage, and increasing women's political and economic leadership. 
But some advocates are concerned that the goals' reliance on private sector investments will undermine efforts to improve the lives of women.
"Big business has perpetuated and profited from so many of the environmental and financial crises we're trying to address," Camille Risler, a program associate with women's advocacy group APWLD, told VICE News. "For the Sustainable Development Goals to be effectively achieved, there needs to be a clear commitment by governments to financing the goals."
Particularly in developing countries, social structures that disadvantage women often put them at higher risks of harm and even death from climate change. For example, because women are frequently responsible for caring for children and the elderly, they're often the last to leave when a disaster strikes. A 2007 study from the London School of Economics found that natural disasters — which are expected to become more severe as the world heats up — are more likely to kill women than men, and that this disparity is largest where women's socioeconomic status is lowest.
"Because of these existing gender inequalities that are perpetuated by customs, social practices, and even economic structures, women are more vulnerable," Collantes told VICE News. "So there is a differentiated impact."
Women are also largely responsible for tasks that may become more difficult in a warmer world. In 63 percent of households in rural sub-Saharan Africa, for example, women must collect and carry the family's water, according to a 2010 UN report. In only 11 percent of households does this job fall to men.
Climate change, deforestation, and desertification are leading to declining water supplies, the report found, and that means women, and in some cases young girls, might need to spend more time finding water — time that could otherwise be spent on education or earning an income.
"Climate change directly impacts the ability of women to achieve their own human rights and increases gender inequalities," Eleanor Blomstrom, program director for the Women's Environment and Development Organization, told VICE News.
Despite the greater threat to women, their needs are often neglected in sustainability planning, said Nisha Onta, a gender and climate change expert with the women's rights organization WOCAN. Under UN climate change guidelines, for example, developing countries are expected to submit plans for how they will adapt to a changing climate. But those plans are often made without incorporating plans for addressing gender inequality, like the fact that a lower-class woman in Bangladesh might not be allowed to use a new water pump, which is seen a important tool for managing changing precipitation patterns.
"The needs and reality of women are lacking and the work of women is kind of taken as a given," Onta told VICE News. "[Developers say,] 'We will go in and we will have water, we will make water accessible.' How are you going to do that? Women are going to collect this water. Have they been consulted? Do they have time?"
Involving women in sustainability planning can often serve a dual purpose of improving a communities response to climate change and helping women improve their social status. In Nepal, for example, WOCAN gave women stoves that ran on biogas, which emit lower amounts of carbon dioxide than more commonly used wood-burning stoves. Less time gathering wood and tending the fires meant women had two additional hours each day to devote to other activities.
"If you include women in planning and implementation, the output of your project will be more successful," Onta told VICE News. "They're the ones who are very much involved with agriculture, food security, water, energy. They're the ones who are cutting trees and cooking at home."
In the Mugu district of mountainous northwest Nepal, warmer weather is threatening the food supply, a burden that is largely falling on women. Several feet of snow used to cover the ground during the winter months, making the tough terrain easier for the Mugal community to plow in spring. With much less snow and even winter rains — a new phenomenon — crop production has dropped and traditional underground food storage methods are failing.
To address their agricultural woes, women have had to shift their planting seasons and learn to grow warm-weather foods, like beans and pumpkins, that never could have survived in the cold Mugu district before. Women can sell some of these crops to earn income, and have used their traditional knowledge to gain new status in their communities.
More women are now attending village council meetings to get their needs addressed, said Camille Risler, who works with the Mugal women. Landslides in the melting Himalaya blocked the village's canal and crushed their water mill, used by the women to grind flour. Now, the women are demanding repairs to the canal so they no longer have to walk four hours a day to a neighboring village's mill.
This participation in adapting to climate change has helped improve women's status in the community, Risler said. "[The men] are not very used to seeing women interact and taking care of community issues," Risler told VICE News. "It's not only benefiting the women, it's benefiting the community in general. They see their capacity and they see that the women succeed in doing what they do. So they accept it."
Advocates like Risler are hoping that the UN sustainability goals will help convince world leaders that gender equality needs to be an integral part of fighting climate change. But some are still reluctant to even acknowledge the reality of either issue.
"Some countries are not really willing to take climate change seriously or to have adaptation policies that really take into account the needs of the most vulnerable people, especially to include some gender-specific policies and measures," Risler told VICE News. "I would say there is a lack of awareness of the problem."
On the Line: Robert S. Eshelman Discusses Climate Change:

You need to have the Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

Embed

Copy
.

Share

Copy URL
Follow Laura Dattaro on Twitter: @ldattaro

Recommended

Comments

We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Avatar
Join the discussion…

  • in this conversation
⬇ Drag and drop your images here to upload them.
Log in with
or sign up with Disqus or pick a name
?

Disqus is a discussion network

  • Disqus never moderates or censors. The rules on this community are its own.
  • Your email is safe with us. It's only used for moderation and optional notifications.
  • Don't be a jerk or do anything illegal. Everything is easier that way.
By signing up, you agree to the Disqus Basic Rules, Terms of Service, and Privacy Policy.
By posting, you agree to the Disqus Basic Rules, Terms of Service, and Privacy Policy.
  • DiogenesDespairs • 17 hours ago
    Climate will do what climate will do, as it has for hundreds of millions of year. The crucial question is about human carbon emissions.
    Here are some crucial, verifiable facts - with citations - about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.
    The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here's why:
    Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Centigrade.
    But that's only the beginning. We've had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That's one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming - and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history - it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.
    Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.
    The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.
    The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that
    Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.
    [1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition
    by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK "http://www.physicalgeography.n..." http://www.physicalgeography.n...
    [2] ibid.
    [3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK "http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09..." http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09.... See p. 4.The 0 - 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.
    [4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK "http://webbook.nist.gov/" http://webbook.nist.gov/
    [5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.
    [6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK "http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cl..." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cl.... The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.
    [7] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projec...
    [8] New York Nature - The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.net/I...
    [9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK "https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Ne..." http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona... This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.
    [10] Ibid.
    [11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK "http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Clim..." http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Clim....
    ADDENDUM
    What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks "Climategate" to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW "cause" has taken on a life of its own.
    Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.
    In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.
    I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand "Progressive" ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.
      see more
      • mememine • 14 hours ago
        OMG this garbage is criminal level exaggeration! Who's the fear mongering neocon again here?
        Science only agreed they couldn't say; "PROVEN" for a CO2 Armageddon and now the science's of fracking and clean burning technology are giving us plentiful, cheap and clean energy ending Obomber's oil wars (formerly Bush's oil wars).
        "Life is good." - the three words libs love to hate.
        Spread love not fear.
          see more
            • NATO loving trolls are morons • 17 hours ago
              'How Climate Change Impacts Women the Most'????
              No it doesn't, Laura. It actually impacts our children the most, and they are taken care of by both sexes rather than mainly by women as your commentary implies is the case.
              This effort to try make the destruction of our planet's ecology out to be a gender issue is a false and deplorable attitude to take. It is a human issue PERIOD....though even then it is an issue that effects much of life of all kind on this Mother Earth.
                see more
                • △rcticSku△ > NATO loving trolls are morons • 15 hours ago
                  lol if you don't believe that more women than men are primary caregivers for children round the world. Cool derogatory tone addressing the articles author too.
                  I would highly recomend you read the paper linked in the article which you obviously didn't. If you've got a reply to that paper that doesn't boil down to 'hurf-durf' please post it here.
                  I've copied link for you as you obviously missed it: http://www.lse.ac.uk/geography...
                    see more
                    • NATO loving trolls are morons > △rcticSku△ • 14 hours ago
                      You may be surprised but providing an income to sustain family life does also make one a 'primary caregiver for children', Skewed Feminism Gone Sour. One simply gets fed up with some women who idiotically always try to self elevate themselves by trying to knock men down in asinine manner. Men are children's care givers as well as women are. Too bad you seem to have trouble understanding that. If you were a single mother of impoverished kids, I bet you would be out there looking for that male just as primary as you CAREGIVER for kids.
                      As to gender life expectancy? Well women live in many societies much longer than men these days and that is not considered an oppression of men. However, in those places where men do live longer than women, somehow there is no difficulty at all in everybody seeing and understanding that it is directly because women are oppressed in those societies. Funny that sort of thing....
                        see more

                    In The News

                    Canadian Cops Want to Search Your Mail

                    Canada’s chiefs of police are asking the federal government to expand warrantless access to telecommunications subscriber information, create a real-time information database, and allow them to open your letters.
                    share  
                    More News

                    Features

                    VICE News Capsule - Tuesday, September 1

                    Conflict starves Yemen's children, America's second-largest police force gets body cameras, Egypt clamps down on smuggling tunnels, and China's first domestically produced commercial plane.
                    VICE News Capsule - Tuesday, September 1
                    Watch
                    Runtime: 02:11
                    Subscribe to the VICE News daily newsletter
                    Sign in to subscribe.
                    0%
                     
                    10%
                     
                    20%
                     
                    30%
                     
                    40%
                     
                    50%
                     
                    60%
                     
                    70%
                     
                    80%
                     
                    90%
                     
                    100%