Car use and meat consumption drive emissions gender gap, research suggests
Cars and meat are major factors driving a gender gap in greenhouse gas emissions, new research suggests.
Men emit 26% more planet-heating pollution than women from transport and food, according to a preprint study of 15,000 people in France. The gap shrinks to 18% after controlling for socioeconomic factors such as income and education.
Eating red meat and driving cars explain almost all of the 6.5-9.5% difference in pollution that remains after also accounting for men eating more calories and travelling longer distances, the researchers said. They found no gender gap from flying.
'Our results suggest that traditional gender norms, particularly those linking masculinity with red meat consumption and car use, play a significant role in shaping individual carbon footprints,' said Ondine Berland, an economist at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a co-author of the study.
Research into gender gaps is often plagued by difficult decisions about which factors to control for, with seemingly independent variables often confounded by gendered differences. Men need to eat more calories than women, for instance, but they also eat disproportionately more than women. They also have higher average incomes, which is itself correlated with higher emissions.
Previous research from Sweden has found men's spending on goods causes 16% more climate-heating emissions than women's, despite the sums of money being very similar.
Marion Leroutier, an environmental economist at Crest-Ensae Paris and a co-author of the study, said: 'I think it's quite striking that the difference in carbon footprint in food and transport use in France between men and women is around the same as the difference we estimate for high-income people compared to lower-income people.'
Eating red meat and driving cars explain almost all of the 6.5-9.5% difference in pollution that remains after also accounting for men eating more calories and travelling longer distances
The most powerful actions a person can take to cut their carbon pollution include getting rid of a petrol car, eating less meat and avoiding flights.
But efforts to challenge car culture and promote plant-based diets have provoked furious backlashes from pundits, who perceive it as an attack on masculinity.
The term 'soy boy' has been used by far-right figures including the US vice-president, JD Vance, and the self-described misogynist influencer Andrew Tate to present progressive men as weak.
Soy is a common protein source in vegan cuisine, but three-quarters of the world's soya beans are fed to animals to produce meat and dairy.
The French researchers suggested the gender differences in emissions could explain why women tend to be more concerned about the climate crisis, arguing the greater personal cost of reducing their emissions could cause men to avoid grappling with the reality of the climate emergency.
But they added that greater climate concern could lead women to do more to cut their emissions.
'More research is needed to understand whether these differences in carbon footprints are also partly due to women's greater concern about climate change and their higher likelihood of adopting climate-friendly behaviours in daily life,' Leroutier said.
- The Guardian
Read More
Regulator asks Tesla how driverless taxis will avoid causing accidents in Texas
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
30-05-2025
- RTÉ News
Can you spot a fake smile from the real thing?
Analysis: What makes a smile feel sincere or fake is due to a surprising blend of facial anatomy, neurology and emotional authenticity By Michelle Spear, University of Bristol You've probably heard the claim that it takes more muscles to frown than to smile. It's usually framed as a feel-good reason to turn your frown upside down – less effort, more joy. But anatomically, the numbers don't quite add up. We've all seen it – the smile that doesn't quite reach the eyes. From awkward family photos to strained workplace pleasantries, our brains often detect that something is off long before we consciously realise why. From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, psychotherapist Padraig O'Morain on why we need to smile more But what is it about a smile that makes it feel sincere — or fake? The answer lies in a surprising blend of facial anatomy, neurology and emotional authenticity. Not all smiles are created equal Anatomically speaking, there are at least two distinct kinds: the Duchenne smile, which reflects genuine happiness, and the non-Duchenne smile, which tends to be more social or strategic. Named after 19th-century French neurologist Guillaume Duchenne de Boulogne, the Duchenne smile activates two key muscle groups. The first group is associated with the corners of the mouth – where, for example, the risorius (from the Latin to smile) draws the corners outward and the zygomaticus major muscle lifts them. The second, and most telling, muscle is the orbicularis oculi, which tightens the muscles around the eyes, producing the familiar "crow's feet" and the gentle narrowing we associate with warmth and delight. Fake or polite smiles, on the other hand, usually involve only the mouth muscles. The eyes remain wide or indifferent, and the smile appears more mechanical than meaningful – a kind of emotional camouflage. From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, Magdalena Rychlowska from the School of Psychology at Queens University Belfast on how villains use smiles Both real and fake smiles depend on cranial nerve VII, also known as the facial nerve, which sends signals from the brain to the muscles of facial expression. However, there's a key neurological difference: Duchenne smiles tend to be generated by the limbic system, the brain's emotional core – particularly the amygdala, an almond-shaped group of neurons that processes emotional salience. Non-Duchenne smiles, by contrast, are often under more conscious cortical control, originating in the motor cortex. This divide means that authentic, emotionally driven smiles are involuntary. You can't easily will your orbicularis oculi to contract convincingly unless you're genuinely feeling the emotion behind the expression. Even professional actors must tap into real memories or method techniques to produce them convincingly. From RTÉ Archives, a 1978 episode of Hall's Pictorial Weekly with regular characters Cha (Michael Twomey) and Miah (Frank Duggan) discussing a notice in a newspaper about smiling for Ireland. Why our brains notice the difference Humans are remarkably good at detecting emotional authenticity. Studies show that even infants as young as ten months can distinguish between real and fake smiles. Evolutionarily, this ability may have helped us assess trustworthiness, recognise true allies and avoid deception. The fusiform gyrus, a part of the brain involved in facial recognition, works closely with the superior temporal sulcus to decode expressions — helping us gauge intention as much as emotion. In modern life, our sensitivity to facial nuance continues to matter. Politicians, customer service workers and public figures frequently rely on the social smile to navigate complex interpersonal expectations. But observers – consciously or not – often pick up on these micro-discrepancies. From TED, Ron Gutman on the hidden power of smiling Fake smiles aren't necessarily malicious. In fact, they serve important social functions: smoothing awkward interactions, signalling politeness, defusing conflict and showing deference. They are a vital part of what sociologists call "emotional labour" – managing one's expressions to meet societal or professional expectations. But this kind of smiling, when sustained for long periods, can be emotionally exhausting. Studies of emotional labour suggest that being required to smile without genuine feeling – especially in service roles – is associated with increased stress, burnout and even cardiovascular strain. As we move further into the age of AI, synthetic faces – from chatbots to virtual assistants – are being programmed to replicate human expressions. Yet the challenge remains: how do you fake authenticity? Engineers can program a smile, but without the micro-contractions around the eyes, many of these expressions still seem disingenuous. Our own anatomy sets the gold standard. So next time you're trying to decode someone's expression, don't just look at the mouth. Watch the eyes. The orbicularis oculi rarely lies.
Irish Examiner
14-05-2025
- Irish Examiner
Car use and meat consumption drive emissions gender gap, research suggests
Cars and meat are major factors driving a gender gap in greenhouse gas emissions, new research suggests. Men emit 26% more planet-heating pollution than women from transport and food, according to a preprint study of 15,000 people in France. The gap shrinks to 18% after controlling for socioeconomic factors such as income and education. Eating red meat and driving cars explain almost all of the 6.5-9.5% difference in pollution that remains after also accounting for men eating more calories and travelling longer distances, the researchers said. They found no gender gap from flying. 'Our results suggest that traditional gender norms, particularly those linking masculinity with red meat consumption and car use, play a significant role in shaping individual carbon footprints,' said Ondine Berland, an economist at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a co-author of the study. Research into gender gaps is often plagued by difficult decisions about which factors to control for, with seemingly independent variables often confounded by gendered differences. Men need to eat more calories than women, for instance, but they also eat disproportionately more than women. They also have higher average incomes, which is itself correlated with higher emissions. Previous research from Sweden has found men's spending on goods causes 16% more climate-heating emissions than women's, despite the sums of money being very similar. Marion Leroutier, an environmental economist at Crest-Ensae Paris and a co-author of the study, said: 'I think it's quite striking that the difference in carbon footprint in food and transport use in France between men and women is around the same as the difference we estimate for high-income people compared to lower-income people.' Eating red meat and driving cars explain almost all of the 6.5-9.5% difference in pollution that remains after also accounting for men eating more calories and travelling longer distances The most powerful actions a person can take to cut their carbon pollution include getting rid of a petrol car, eating less meat and avoiding flights. But efforts to challenge car culture and promote plant-based diets have provoked furious backlashes from pundits, who perceive it as an attack on masculinity. The term 'soy boy' has been used by far-right figures including the US vice-president, JD Vance, and the self-described misogynist influencer Andrew Tate to present progressive men as weak. Soy is a common protein source in vegan cuisine, but three-quarters of the world's soya beans are fed to animals to produce meat and dairy. The French researchers suggested the gender differences in emissions could explain why women tend to be more concerned about the climate crisis, arguing the greater personal cost of reducing their emissions could cause men to avoid grappling with the reality of the climate emergency. But they added that greater climate concern could lead women to do more to cut their emissions. 'More research is needed to understand whether these differences in carbon footprints are also partly due to women's greater concern about climate change and their higher likelihood of adopting climate-friendly behaviours in daily life,' Leroutier said. - The Guardian Read More Regulator asks Tesla how driverless taxis will avoid causing accidents in Texas
Irish Examiner
13-05-2025
- Irish Examiner
Minister seeks to attract the 'best and brightest' US researchers frozen out by Trump
Plans are being drafted for Ireland to host the 'best and brightest' of US researchers as US universities come under threat and face funding shutdowns by the Trump administration. Further and higher education minister James Lawless is to bring proposals to Cabinet on Tuesday aimed at attracting US scientists wishing to relocate. Mr Lawless will seek permission from Cabinet to establish a team of 'talent attachés' who will travel to the US and other countries to recruit academics to come and work in Ireland. Irish 'talent attachés' already at work Two agents have already been signed off on and will work in Boston and San Francisco. One agent travelled over last week and the second to follow shortly. US college campuses, academic institutions and research organisations have been upended since Donald Trump took office, and recent months have seen frozen funding, cut grants, and deported foreign students. Speaking at an Irish Universities Association event, Mr Lawless said the last few months have 'undoubtedly changed' how people view the US when it comes to research and higher education. He said: It has unfortunately become a cold place for free thinkers and talented researchers. Faculties are having funding revoked, and institutes face shutdowns of significant impairments to their work. 'Setting aside any cultural wars, I think investment in innovation and cultivation of the best minds is a key economic strategy.' With both existing attachés working in the US, there will be a strong emphasis on recruitment on that side of the Atlantic but it is not the sole focus of the plans. A global talent initiative is to be set up here at home and will seek to recruit individuals who would previously have sought to work in America but might now be rethinking their options given the current US administration. It is hoped that competitive packages which will include salary and potentially offers of start-up funding for particular will entice talent to move to Ireland. It is intended that the universities will co-fund salary support. Ireland competing with other EU states Mr Lawless will be seeking funding for the initiative but said that there is good support across Government for what he is trying to achieve. Ireland will be competing with other EU countries to entice scientists, with French president Emmanuel Macron last week pledging €100m to help attract foreign scientists. Mr Lawless said there are already 'soft noises being made' with people querying what Ireland has to offer those considering a move. In his keynote speech, Mr Lawless made reference to how America became a global leader in research after the Second World War, as scientists such as Enrico Fermi, Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard, and Edward Teller moved to the US. 'As US research freedoms come under threat, we have in Ireland unique opportunity to emulate that post war success and see the tide of talents now flow in a different direction across the Atlantic,' Mr Lawless said. 'We can offer a stable, open, EU aligned environment where researchers can thrive, contribute and shape the future of science. 'We know that talent is our greatest natural resource. It is also our best defence to any economic turbulence.'
