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.

Comments

[Jennifer]

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!

[sixstring]

We add more Methane to the atmosphere as well.

Bean dip, anyone?

[R C Dean]

This sounds like concentrated, weapons-grade bullshit to me.

[The Gaunt Man]

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...]

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?

[Brandybuck]

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.

[Cracker\'s Boy]

I'm guessing that WHITE men are more to blame than men of COLOR. Just guessing, tho'. I could be wrong.

CB

[Ryo]

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!

[Cracker\'s Boy]

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

[gaijin]

...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?!

[Warren]

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]

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]

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.

[joe]

No link?

[J sub D]

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.

[J sub D]

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.

[joe]

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?

[J sub D]

joe, since your too lazy to look it up yourself, Here it is.

[Ron Bailey]

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.

[Cracker\'s Boy]

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]

RB crushes theory that he is in the pocket of Big Men.

[Ron Bailey]

BTW, here's the link to the actual study cited by the New Scientist.

[Guy Montag]

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.

[Bush_43]

Time for another world war?

I'm workin' on it. Heh.

[daniel k]

"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.

[joe]

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]

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?

[joe]

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]

Daily bathing causes unimaginable microbe carnage.

A microbial holocost?

[Horst Graben]

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.

[Mr. Obvious]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Reinmoose]

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.

[Stevo Darkly]

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.

[Stevo Darkly]

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]

I Think that is very unfair to leave out the hermaphrodites...They too share some responsibility.

[Franklin Harris]

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]

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]

I think we can all agree that to fix this gender gap we need to institute a Testosterone tax.

[Gilbert Martin]

"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]

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]

"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.

[wayne]

"...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.

[wayne]

"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.

[Paul]

Ha ha ha, that is a pretty good line. I now consider it my own.

It's an excellent line, but alas, I cannot take credit for it. I believe it's a very old Henny Youngman joke. But I'm too lazy to research. It's one I've carried around for years, though.