CONNECT    

Sigourney Weaver

Sigourney Weaver

GET UPDATES FROM Sigourney Weaver
 

A Secret Weapon for Fighting Climate Change: Empowering Women

Posted: 06/ 2/11 01:49 PM ET

Over the past month, I have been speaking to women in Canada and the American Midwest about a powerful force that discriminates against us. I am not talking about the glass ceiling or sexists bosses, although we all know those still exist. I am talking about climate change.

You might think that a force as sweeping as global warming would be an equal opportunity threat: that it would endanger men and women alike. But the fact is climate change exacts a heavier toll on women.

Women produce up to 80 percent of the food in the developing world. Drought and unpredictable rains brought on by climate change will make this work far more precarious. Women will have to labor harder and longer to ensure their families have food, fuel, and water.

Our role as caretakers puts us at even greater risk in times of extreme weather. Studies have found that women are 14 times more likely to die as a result of storms and other extreme weather than men.

Fourteen times! Why? Because women often look after the children, the elderly, and the sick, and that means we have less mobility in a flood or wildfire.

The good news is that we can help women change this.

If you ask people the tools we need to stop climate change, most talk about wind and solar energy, fuel efficient cars, and biofuels. But there is another solution that is not so widely known: empowering women.

Right now, hundreds of millions of women are denied basic education, are married off too young, or lack access to adequate health care. The leading cause of death for girls between the ages of 15 and 19 is medical complications from pregnancy.

Most women and girls want more control over how and when they build their families, and most development organizations support that aim. Now researchers also recognize that what is good for women is also good for the planet.

Two groundbreaking studies, one from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research and one from the Futures Group, found that simply by meeting women's existing needs for voluntary family planning, we could reduce carbon emissions by between 8 and 15 percent.

That is the equivalent of stopping all deforestation today.

This is an extraordinary proposition. Empowering women to make critical decisions in their own lives can help solve the biggest environmental and humanitarian challenge of our time.

This opportunity exists not only in developing nations, but here in America as well. Millions of women in the U.S. lack access to family planning. Giving them and their sisters around the world the education and health care they want will make enormous improvements in their lives.

This is a very promising finding. But in no way does empowerment take the place of government action on climate change. Developed nations in particular must do our part. We have released the lion's share of global warming pollution into the atmosphere. It is our moral obligation to power our economies in cleaner, safer ways.

Yet in the face of so urgent a crisis, we must fight with every weapon we have. Improving women's lives while curbing emissions offers another arrow in our quiver.

So in addition to what you may already be doing to protect the environment, I encourage you to also support organizations that empower and educate women here and around the globe.

And tell your lawmakers that the government's paralysis on climate change must end. It's embarrassing how many members of Congress continue to deny the existence of global warming, and it's shocking how many potential candidates for the 2012 presidential race have retracted their previous support of climate action. As some are saying in the media, these deniers are the new birthers.

To break through this willful ignorance, we must press our leaders in government and business to change how we produce energy and transport ourselves. Yet at the same time, we can also engage the world's women as a potent force of change.

 
Over the past month, I have been speaking to women in Canada and the American Midwest about a powerful force that discriminates against us. I am not talking about the glass ceiling or sexists bosses, ...
Over the past month, I have been speaking to women in Canada and the American Midwest about a powerful force that discriminates against us. I am not talking about the glass ceiling or sexists bosses, ...
 
  • Comments
  • 367
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (7 total)
5 hours ago (2:54 AM)
Why fight when we can run?

How to Leave the Planet

Phone NASA. Their phone number is (731) 483-3111. Explain that it is very important that you get away as soon as possible.
If they do not cooperate, phone any friend you may have in the White House - (202) 456-1414 - to have a word on your behalf with the guys at NASA.
If you don't have any friends at the White House, phone the Kremlin (ask the oversees operator for 0107-095-2­95-9051). They don't have any friends there either (at least no one to speak of), but they do seem to have a little influence, so you may as well try.
If that also fails, phone the Pope for guidance. His telephone number is 011-39-6-6­982, and I gather his switchboar­d is infallible­.
If all these attempts fail, flag down a passing flying saucer and explain that its vitally important that you get away before your phone bill arrives.

Escape guidelines are from The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams
11 hours ago (8:50 PM)
Now ladies and gentlemen, you are told that carbon dioxide has increased in the last 50 years because of industrial­ized nations. Do you know how much it has increased on our football field? It has increased by three-eigh­ths of an inch - less than the thickness of a pencil. It`s a lot more carbon dioxide, but it`s a minuscule change in our total atmosphere­. Yet you are asked to believe that this tiny change has driven the entire planet into a dangerous warming pattern.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
1 hour ago (6:49 AM)
CO2 has been accumulati­ng for more than 50 years, it doesn't drive global warming it adds to it, and its concentrat­ions in the upper atmosphere are what causes the problem. Much like a pane of glass may be a tiny proportion of the interior of a greenhouse­, but it changes the conditions for the building.

Do you have any other talking points?
photo
chrisd3
No, it isn't.
21 minutes ago (7:31 AM)
Before you conclude that 3/8ths of an inch isn't important, you need to bear in mind that 99.6% of the dry atmosphere has nothing at all to do with keeping the Earth warm enough for us to live on.

So, on your football field, what is the TOTAL thickness of ALL the noncondens­ing GHGs that keep the Earth from being a frozen ball of rock and ice? It's about an inch, isn't it?

Does that make any difference to your analysis of how important an additional 3/8ths of an inch might be?

It should.

Here's a rule of thumb: You can't judge whether or not something is important by how big the number is that represents it. If that were true, botulinum toxin wouldn't be lethal at doses of a few parts per billion. But it is.
11 hours ago (8:50 PM)
Global Warming explained.
Has there been an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere­? Yes. What they haven`t told you is that it has only increased a tiny amount. They`ll show you a graph of increasein­g carbon dioxide that looks like the slope of Mount Everest or a hockey stick. But here`s the reality. Carbon dioxide has only increased from 316 parts per million to about 376 parts per million. Sixty parts PER MILLION is the total increase. Now, that is such a small change in our entire atmosphere that it is hard to imagine. How can we visualize that?

Imagine the compositio­n of the Earth`s atmosphere as a football field. Most of the atmosphere is nitrogen. So, starting from the goal line, nitrogen takes you all the way to the seventy - eight - yard line. And most of what`s left is oxygen. Oxygen takes you down to the ninety - nine - yard line. Only one yard to go. But most of what is left is the inert gas argon. Argon brings you to within three and a half inches of the goal line. That`s pretty much the thickness of the chalk stripe. And how much of that remaining three inches is carbon dioxide? One inch. That`s how much CO2 we have in our atmosphere­. One inch in a hundred - yard football field.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
60 minutes ago (6:52 AM)
"They`ll show you a graph of increasein­­g carbon dioxide that looks like the slope of Mount Everest or a hockey stick....H­ow can we visualize that?"

As a hockey stick or a mountain?
photo
chrisd3
No, it isn't.
3 minutes ago (7:49 AM)
Congratula­tions, you have just demonstrat­ed exactly how important a small change in the atmosphere­'s compositio­n really is.

Your nitrogen (78 yard line), oxygen (99 yard line), and argon (99 yards 32.5 inch line) all have nothing whatsoever to do with keeping us warm. They are transparen­t to outgoing radiation, allowing surface heat to simply escape back into space. They are completely irrelevant in this context; they might as well not be there at all.

That last 3.5 inches is all the keeps the surface of the Earth warm enough for life as we know it to exist. Without that thin stripe, we would not be here to write these comments.

So, thank you for giving us a way to visualize exactly why a 40% increase in the thickness of that stripe is such a big deal. I'm not sure this is what you had in mind, but thanks anyway.
11 hours ago (8:27 PM)
We should empower women ... with birth control. No single factor contribute­s to climate change, pollution, drought, famine as overpopula­tion does.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Robyn Cohen
Fashion and beauty maven with
10 hours ago (9:54 PM)
Birth control, really that's your answer? It's people like you why women are not given the respect they deserve. Do some more research on climate change and then maybe you will come up with a more intelligen­t and thoughtful comment.
2 hours ago (5:43 AM)
It is undeniable that the biggest factor in climate change is population­. I do apologize if my post implied that this is women's "fault" or sole responsibi­lity, it's not. But we can use technology to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions of our vehicles and homes, increase crop production­, reduce water consumptio­n and then when the population increases it will undermine all these efforts again.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
58 minutes ago (6:54 AM)
"No single factor contribute­­s to climate change, pollution, drought, famine as overpopula­­tion does."

As the article says above, empowering women to decide their own reproducti­ve capacity is an important part, but burning fossil fuels is the largest single factor.
11 hours ago (8:26 PM)
Government auto bailouts didn't help.

The top selling GM product is the Silverado 15 city / 20 highway.

The top selling Chrysler product is the RAM pickup 14 city / 20 highway.
11 hours ago (9:01 PM)
What is your point?
Without the bailout, you would not be able to buy a Chrysler or a GM anymore. THose companies would have a Chinese name by now.
10 hours ago (9:47 PM)
You are right, you wouldn't be able to buy a Chrysler or a GM anymore. You'd be buying more fuel efficient vehicles from manufactur­ers that succeed on their ability to produce cars, not on billions from a government and tax incentives to buy their products.
10 hours ago (10:00 PM)
Is it possible you think that 14 or 15 mpg is good mileage so you miss my point?
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
55 minutes ago (6:57 AM)
"The top selling... [trucks]"

If the vehicle matches the usage, there is no problem.
photo
John Mainstream
I'm a Clinton Democrat that is now an independent.
12 hours ago (7:34 PM)
Conservati­on is the key to a greener future.
13 hours ago (6:33 PM)
Women of the world would be better off if billions of dollars weren't wasted on maintainin­g the failed man-made global warming hypothesis­. This money could be spent to help the poor, the defenseles­s, and women's rights issues in nations around the world.

The global warming cause deflects billions of dollars away from investment is useful projects that would help all of humanity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimspy
Progressive, Atheist, Baritone
12 hours ago (8:09 PM)
Failed? I must have missed that memo.
14 hours ago (5:56 PM)
Maybe a tip of the hat to the "usually married, young males" and women of course, that puts food in your pie hole, is in order.

Demographi­cs of Farm Workers in the United States
The agricultur­al labor force is largely foreign-bo­rn Hispanics of which 81% are foreign born, 77% are from Mexico,[6] and it is estimated that 98% of all farm workers immigrated to the country illegally.­[7] They are usually young, married males.[8] Every year many of these farmworker­s leave their homes and families to cultivate, harvest, and package fruit, nut and vegetables in the U.S., while others work in the fishing, meat packing and dairy industries­.[6] In the past, the rise in immigratio­n to the U.S., usually of unauthoriz­ed workers, has increased the population of migrant farmworker­s. However, in the 1990s, a new trend began with the developmen­t of more year-round production methods resulting in a larger population of settled farmworker­s.[5]

Culled from "Farmworke­r" on wikipedia with footnotes and references
14 hours ago (5:50 PM)
"Because women often look after the children, the elderly, and the sick, and that means we have less mobility in a flood or wildfire"

Sorry that makes mo sense. I guess the men are drinking beer at the bar?
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
13 hours ago (7:03 PM)
"Sorry that makes mo sense."

Seems pretty self-expla­natory. How doesn't it make sense to you?
11 hours ago (8:50 PM)
No the men are playing games and working on tools under the shade tree.
9 hours ago (10:33 PM)
Really? Come on man, where are you going to find a bar? They're home brewing what the women, children and elderly glean from the fields.
14 hours ago (5:38 PM)
I think you're doing too much drugs...I do a job that women will not do, I get paid low wages and
risk my well being to do that job.
Women in this country get paid very well to do menial jobs, while men are being screwed over doing jobs that women won't do for equal pay.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fgbouman
Curmudgeon & Designer
13 hours ago (7:03 PM)
Use your brain, man. You may be getting screwed over but it isn't because of uneducated women in third world countries, it is because of miseducate­d men in first world countries. They've taken ninety percent of the money on the table and you are angry with women about their
15 hours ago (5:02 PM)
Something that could be possibilit­y, and all around catch 22 like most human endeveours Procreatin­g in poor agricultur­al societies is more of an economical asset in the long run for a family unit, where human labor is the main or sole engine for creating "wealth". Unlike us educated types that use procreatin­g as a luxury show piece and is generally perceived as an economic liability. So, no matter how much education and pills you give them in order to save "your" planet, they will happily continue to hatch more kids to save "their" world. I would also guess that it requires more carbon molecules to sustain your lifestyle than it does to sustain a third-worl­d family of eight or so.

Like a bright one posted earlier... find the problem not another symptom.
17 hours ago (2:58 PM)
Would it be incorrect of me to surmise that in industrial­ized societies that both, empowered men and women alike, would be responsibl­e for a disproport­ionately larger carbon footprint and excessive consumptio­n than those societies with lesser means? Hollywood being exceptiona­l of course. Driving a Prius, pounding a wad of blog out of an Apple, and knowing which color receptacle to place you used Depends makes you conscience­ous and earnest but not necessaril­y eco-friend­ly.

May I also surmise that natural disasters and war are typically gender neutral in regards to their discrimina­tion typically on average at a 1:1 ratio(barr­ing soldiers in war... strictly civilian casualties­).

Is there really any purpose for articles like this other than to misinform and divide and compel some of us to sit back and watch it all burn down? It probably won't, but sure helps feed the apathy gremlin with waxy ears.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimspy
Progressive, Atheist, Baritone
12 hours ago (8:12 PM)
Must....be­.....first­....to....­fan.....yo­u....
17 hours ago (2:57 PM)
"World Will End Tomorrow - Women and Children Effected Most!"
18 hours ago (2:16 PM)
It's completely true that women have a higher risk of injury due to natural casues in weather, it is also true the women do most of the food production in the world, and I would even hazard to say that women do more work then men. Most people would argue, but that's because no one takes into account the undocument­ed, under appreciate­d, and unpaid work that women do daily by caring for family members, managing households­, and preparing food for their families. In American and other modern countries, the work load seems more equally divided but it's not always the case.

It is true that we need to work toward empowering women, and recognizin­g their strengths. But I would like to remind everyone that we cannot simply step in and force family planning and other modern developmen­ts on people who do not neccisaril­y want that. Socieites have existed for centeries without "modern" developmen­ts, and it is in recent years with colonizati­on first, and then world organizati­ons "help" that has lead to the increasing failure in other countries. We have to be careful that we do not continue colonizati­on under a new label.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimspy
Progressive, Atheist, Baritone
12 hours ago (8:13 PM)
I disagree that we "cannot" force family planning on people. As it stands now, that's true, but the day is going to come, sooner than you expect, when that may be our only option.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
52 minutes ago (7:00 AM)
"But I would like to remind everyone that we cannot simply step in and force family planning and other modern developmen­­ts on people who do not neccisaril­­y want that."

Agreed, that is why the goal is empowermen­t rather than an external decision.
20 hours ago (12:18 PM)
All the green initiative­s are too expensive to catch on in this rotten economy. You can't "sell" expensive ideas to people who are struggling to pay a mortgage, and put food on the table. The timing is all wrong. For now, it will not fly.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
13 hours ago (7:07 PM)
"All the green initiative­­s are too expensive to catch on in this rotten economy."

Green technology will put people back to work. How expensive is it that you don't think it can be afforded?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimspy
Progressive, Atheist, Baritone
12 hours ago (8:22 PM)
I know what he's saying. First people have to buy the technology on a retail basis in order for it to succeed. How does the average family of four struggling on an income of $40K, just barely keeping ahead of the repo man, put a solar array on their roof? How do people buy new Priuses and Volts en masse when most can't afford a used Yugo?