Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Men Are to Blame for Global Warming
The New Scientist is reporting new Swedish research entitled, "A study on gender equality as a prerequisite for sustainable development." According to the New Scientist, the researcher behind the report, Gerd Johnsson-Latham of the Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development, concludes:
"The fact that women travel less than men, measured in person-kilometres per car, plane, boat and motorcycle - means that women cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide emissions than men, and thus considerably less climate change." She notes that 60 per cent of car emissions are created by the 10 per cent of drivers who use roads the most, and that men account for three-quarters of car driving in Sweden.
Women do not escape censure, however. The report notes that in Sweden, women spend four times as much as men on consumer goods and - in a further dig at men, albeit unintended - 20 times as much on hygiene products.
Jennifer|11.8.07 @ 12:31PM|#
And women are smaller than men, which means we consume less precious food and exhale less carbon dioxide. BASK IN OUR SUPERIORITY, O MY GREEN SISTERS!
|11.8.07 @ 12:36PM|#
What exactly is a "person-kilometres per car, plane, boat and motorcycle"? Does this account for car pooling? Or is it based on the classic bullshit of "men do all the driving, so it's their fault"?
Tacos mmm...|11.8.07 @ 12:40PM|#
Well, that's because women are at home, barefoot and pregnant in
the kitchen.
Seriously, all this says is that men commute more than women. Is
this Obvious Day? Did I miss the memo, or was is obvious?
|11.8.07 @ 12:40PM|#
WTF? Women drive less because there is not gender equality! If careers and career locations were equal then the driving habits of genders would be essentially the same. If men did the shopping for the family in an equal ration to women, then their shopping habits would be roughly the same as well.
|11.8.07 @ 12:41PM|#
I'm guessing that WHITE men are more to blame than men of COLOR.
Just guessing, tho'. I could be wrong.
CB
Ryo|11.8.07 @ 12:44PM|#
Anyone read this post on the freakonomics blog? It turns out, in terms of CO2 emissions, underground coal fires in China put out just as much as all cars and light trucks in the US. I'm guessing men started those fires too!
|11.8.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Or another way to look at this is...
If we could improve the woman-to-man ratio, things would be better.
We need more women!
Time for another world war?
CB
|11.8.07 @ 12:47PM|#
...means that women cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide
emissions than men, and thus considerably less climate
change.
Oh yeah? Well where do all the men come from?!
|11.8.07 @ 12:51PM|#
If men did the shopping for the family in an equal ration to
women, then their shopping habits would be roughly the same as
well.
That's bullshit. At least I hope it's bullshit. The last few women
I've dated had over thirty bottles of "product" in their bathrooms
at all times. Spending more on hygiene doesn't necessarily mean one
is more hygienic. Hair care is some sort of weird OCD. I realize
women's styled hair take much more time and attention, but I don't
see why anyone would need more than a dozen bottles of stuff for
their hair. It shouldn't count as hygiene, as they treat it more
like shoes and accessories.
Episiarch|11.8.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Is this Obvious Day? Did I miss the memo, or was is
obvious?
Gee-willikers. It must be Obvious Day at Camp Stupid.
Guy Montag|11.8.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Seems that driving for the express purpose of shoe shopping was
dropped for some reason. What is that statistician word for "that
doesen't count"?
In a more serious note, my contribution to male induced climate
change is lacking. As soon as I get my hands on my world-famous
hybrid Charger I am going with the six-pack setup on the eight
chamber organic hydrocarbon energy converter.
Ron,
Have you seen that post by John Coleman about the
global warming scam? It looked familiar to me, like he had said
the same thing a number of years ago (maybe in the 1990s on
USENET?) and it did not get much press then either.
CB,
If we could improve the woman-to-man ratio, things would be
better. We need more women!
I suggest a 10-1 ratio, in underground bunkers.
|11.8.07 @ 12:57PM|#
More evidence that just because you're a "scientist", doesn't
mean you actually do any useful science.
Don't get me wrong, I respect science and it's practitioners, but
there's hacks in every profession. Many hack educators, scientists,
economists, sociologists, et al, end up employed in government
ministries.
|11.8.07 @ 1:01PM|#
If we could improve the woman-to-man ratio, things would be better. We need more women!
I suggest a 10-1 ratio, in underground bunkers.
With lingerie, of course.
|11.8.07 @ 1:04PM|#
Interesting how confident people are drawing conclusions about a
study they haven't read.
As described by Ron Bailey.
How'z about a link? No? Why not?
|11.8.07 @ 1:12PM|#
joe: No conspiracy--just got a call from an editor just as I was posting and in my haste forgot the link. It's in now.
|11.8.07 @ 1:14PM|#
So... if the genders WERE more equal (if that's a desirable
goal) then wouldn't the carbon output of the two be more
equal?
There's no reason to assume that women achieving parity with men
would reduce women's carbon footprint. Wouldn't it, in fact,
enlarge it? Or would men become more like women? I'm betting that
the two would meet in the middle (have sex) and that the effect on
global warming would be a wash.
CB
Guy Montag|11.8.07 @ 1:16PM|#
So... if the genders WERE more equal (if that's a desirable
goal) then wouldn't the carbon output of the two be more
equal?
Of course and the output of women would increase as a result of
"equality through taking up the worst habits of men". Personally, I
have no problem with women who put out more.
|11.8.07 @ 1:18PM|#
"in a further dig at men, albeit unintended - 20 times as much
on hygiene products."
Us microbiologists understand that our bodies are ecosystems to
billions upon billions (if not trillions) of little microbe
families. Daily bathing causes unimaginable microbe carnage. Also,
forgoing daily bathing keeps annoying office mates at a
distance.
|11.8.07 @ 1:19PM|#
Since men and women live in societies together, demonstrating
that women in an un-equal society have smaller ecological
footprints than men doesn't seem to be enough to show that greater
equality will reduce the overall ecological footprint of those
societies, just distribute it more evenly between genders.
A better tack to take would be to compare more- and
less-gender-equal societies and look at the overall ecological
footprint.
Jennifer|11.8.07 @ 1:27PM|#
demonstrating that women in an un-equal society have smaller
ecological footprints than men doesn't seem to be enough to show
that greater equality will reduce the overall ecological footprint
of those societies
Since when is modern Sweden a society plagued by gender
inequity?
|11.8.07 @ 1:37PM|#
There's that, too, Jennifer.
If the difference in environmental footprints is a consequence of
socially-imposed gender inequality, then greater equality won't
change the overall footprint.
If it isn't, and is the consequence of women being more inclined
towards environmentally-friendly lifestyles, then addressing
socially-constructed gender inequality isn't going to change that,
either.
Guy Montag|11.8.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Daily bathing causes unimaginable microbe
carnage.
A microbial holocost?
|11.8.07 @ 1:39PM|#
The study is obviously correct, but the conclusion is wrong. Men have large carbon feet because women demand and command housing, heat, transport, tampons, hair care products, Manolo shoes, babies, designer purses, luxury vacations and organic food. If left to ourselves, men would still be in caves, drinking fermented grain beverages and jacking off to wall art porn.
|11.8.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Wouldn't this mean that men in prisons have a smaller eco
footprint than Swedish women?
And the smallest footprint of all would be from the inhabitants of
a cemetary?
Miss O\'Gynist|11.8.07 @ 1:41PM|#
But men maintain their cars better. Nine times out of ten, the
car in front of you burning oil or running on underinflated tires
is being driven by a woman.
Plus I work so my wife doesn;t have to. I've asked her to swap
roles, but she declines.
Guy Montag|11.8.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Plus I work so my wife doesn;t have to. I've asked her to
swap roles, but she declines.
Man, you think you got problems! I fell for that m-joke once and am
not exclusive with anybody right now, but EVERY freaking chick I go
out with is just like your wife!
Mrs. Obama|11.8.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Plus I work so my wife doesn;t have to. I've asked her to
swap roles, but she declines.
Maybe you should swap wives?
|11.8.07 @ 2:54PM|#
But men maintain their cars better. Nine times out of ten,
the car in front of you burning oil or running on underinflated
tires is being driven by a woman.
It's so sad. Oh so very sad.
|11.8.07 @ 3:10PM|#
The study is obviously correct, but the conclusion is wrong.
Men have large carbon feet because ...
... of carbon sexual dimorphism! On average, we also tend to be
carbon taller, too. And have greater carbon upper body
strength.
|11.8.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Wait a minute. Did the study account for the fact that women tend to carbon live longer than men? Over a lifetime, how does the TOTAL carbon output of the typical woman compare to that of a man, vs. a per-day basis?
Alice Bowie|11.8.07 @ 3:13PM|#
I Think that is very unfair to leave out the hermaphrodites...They too share some responsibility.
Franklin Harris|11.8.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Since when is modern Sweden a society plagued by gender inequity?
You mean they're not still conscripting buxom, blond women for the
Swedish Bikini
Team?
JasonL|11.8.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Who brings home the bacon travels more, or something. All you do with gender equality in employment is increase the footprint of women. I can't fathom this thing making past peer review.
Ty|11.8.07 @ 3:26PM|#
I think we can all agree that to fix this gender gap we need to institute a Testosterone tax.
Gilbert Martin|11.8.07 @ 3:33PM|#
"The fact that women travel less than men, measured in
person-kilometres per car, plane, boat and motorcycle - means that
women cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide emissions than men,
and thus considerably less climate change"
Well since no one has actually proven that either men or women are
causing any climate change at all, I'm not too worried about
it.
Geotpf|11.8.07 @ 6:05PM|#
If we could improve the woman-to-man ratio, things would be
better. We need more women!
I suggest a 10-1 ratio, in underground bunkers.
With lingerie, of course.
Well, global warming would encourage women's fashions to shrink in
the amount and thickness of fabrics used.
Paul|11.9.07 @ 1:16AM|#
"The fact that women travel less than men, measured in
person-kilometres per car, plane, boat and motorcycle - means that
women cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide emissions than men,
and thus considerably less climate change."
Bull, I say, BULL! Ever gone shopping with a woman? She can buy
more consumable goods and save you more money buying stuff than you
could ever imagine.
My credit cards were stolen, but I didn't report it, because the
guy who stole them spends less money than my wife does.
And sheesh, all that talking? That's got to produce more
carbon.
|11.9.07 @ 8:31AM|#
"...And women are smaller than men..."
Jennifer, I am sure you are dainty and light, but the heifers
waddling down the sidewalk around here are raising the air
temperature just from the friction of their lumpy thighs.
|11.9.07 @ 8:32AM|#
"My credit cards were stolen, but I didn't report it, because
the guy who stole them spends less money than my wife does."
Ha ha ha, that is a pretty good line. I now consider it my own.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245