Women still do most of the housework. So is sustainability in everyday life and in the home mainly up to women? Gotelind Alber, a climate policy expert specializing in related gender issues, addresses the “eco gender gap” in the following interview.
Gotelind Alber, one aspect we often overlook in our attempts to live more sustainably is the gender gap. Why is it so important to take this aspect seriously when addressing sustainability issues?
It’s actually a question of justice. We’re used to discussing the relationship between the Global North and South in connection with the climate debate. There’s a problem of justice here since the Global North is mainly to blame for a problem that is hitting the Global South harder, on the whole. It’s interesting to note the same injustice across the gender divide: in any country you take, women on average are less to blame for climate change, but tend to suffer more from the consequences. Which means we have a gender equity problem here that needs to be addressed.
Have you observed any differences between the sexes with regard to their commitment to sustainability and sustainable living? Or, to put it polemically, can we say that sustainable behaviour is feminine?
In our society, women actually do tend to behave in more environmentally responsible ways than men. Organic produce is a good example: women tend to shop more mindfully and sustainably. Or take mobility, where women often make more sustainable choices. Sometimes these are conscious decisions, such as to take public transport or drive smaller cars. But circumstances often influence these decisions too. The family be on a tight budget or have only one car, which the man uses to commute to work. Then women resort to alternatives like public transport or cycling. Sustainability is simply a much bigger issue for women than for men.
How come women are more likely to adopt eco-friendly behaviours?
It’s not a matter of genetics, it seems to be linked to social roles. Women in our society tend to be heavily influenced by role models and they’re brought up to take care of others and, by the same logic, to take care of nature and the environment. In contrast to traditional conceptions of masculinity, which, although gradually changing among the younger generation, are still deeply ingrained in our society – like the stereotypical big fat car and eating lots of meat – things that are not exactly sustainable. So gender norms definitely play a part in the way we behave towards our environment.
Women already have lower carbon footprints, and yet they’re expected to shrink their carbon footprints even more.
It’s often the women who take responsibility for the family’s carbon footprint, rather like a project manager. To what extent does the growing need for sustainable lifestyles increase the existing pressure on women, the “mental load” they already have to bear?
Women who do care work and take charge of the household are often more pressed for time than men are because, in practice, there’s no real end to their working day. But sustainable choices often entail extra work, what with the added challenge of reducing the family’s carbon footprint by making eco-responsible consumption and mobility choices. In the feminist environmental debate, we talk about the “feminization of environmental responsibility”. The point being that those generally in charge of care work – and that’s usually women – are burdened with additional tasks. Women already have lower carbon footprints, and yet they’re expected to shrink their carbon footprints even more.
What needs to happen to keep women from having to shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for sustainability?
We need a fairer division of labour and greater appreciation for care work. Unpaid care work is not valued in economic terms so it’s not factored in to the GDP (gross domestic product). When some researchers in Switzerland set about quantifying the economic value of this work, they found that it actually exceeds that of the banking sector.
So care work needs to be more highly valued.
Care work isn’t confined to the family; it can also be about the environment, democracy and coexistence in a community.
Eating together shores up a community.
What would you suggest is a fair way to share the burden of sustainability efforts among all members of society?
Collective meals could be one way to promote sustainability. Barcelona is already running communal kitchens. They could make a real difference not only in terms of sustainability, but also in terms of sociability. Eating together shores up a community and fosters social cohesion. It’s a way for elderly people who live alone to have more social interaction. Furthermore, sharing the responsibility for the preparation of daily meals could ease the burden on women. And last but not least, it saves energy. Solutions along these lines could help to alleviate the pressure on women and promote gender equality.
Do you see advantages and potential benefits to be reaped from addressing social and sustainability issues together?
As I see it, social and ecological issues always belong together. Environmental problems are inextricably bound up with social problems. To put it crassly, saying we need to save the climate but not the world’s people won’t get us very far. We need a real socio-ecological transformation that puts both issues on the table side by side and accords them equal importance. This is why it’s essential to take into account how environmental measures and climate action impact men and women differently, lest the policies enacted bring about even more inequality.
Saying we need to save the climate but not the world’s people won’t get us very far.
August 2023