Much of the literature about the gender difference in the green approach points to the fact that men want to work from the top down and women think from the bottom up. Why do you think this is the case, and will the bottom up mentality ever really make a meaningful impact?
You are right that women tend to focus more on the daily environmental issues in home and community. We’ve also found at Practically Green that they focus, at least initially, a lot more on the environmental health actions. My personal opinion is that’s driven by our core role as caretaker with responsibility for family health and safety. The minute you realize that something you are putting on your kids has a concerning chemical in it, you want to switch. Fast. Look at how quickly BPA came into broad awareness—and I’m starting to feel the same thing is happening with flame retardants and some skincare ingredients like triclosan and phthalates. Even my friends who aren’t really that green are thinking differently about sunscreen.
Will it have an impact? Women make about 80% of the purchase decisions in the household, and if all that purchasing—food, personal care, cleaning products, furniture and soft goods, cars, travel, etc.—were to “go green,” it would have an enormous impact on the economy, manufacturers, and the market. It would also drop the price of green products, and we know that is one of the perceived, and at times real, barriers to switching habits.
For us big-picture guys, what do you think are the most important things we can focus on to make a difference for the environment?
In terms of personal actions? Eat less meat and when you do eat it, choose meat that was raised sustainably instead of in a factory farm. If you want to know why that matters, watch Food Inc. or read Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma. If you need a new car, choose one with gas mileage over 40 mpg. Switch over to green power with your utility (it’s a pain to figure out how to do it, but it doesn’t cost a lot more), and get an energy audit of your home. Or if you are into being an early adopter, consider solar, geo-thermal, micro-cogen, or another renewable energy option.
But more macro? Find an eco-issue you care about, educate yourself, and get involved. It’s impossible to keep track of every topic in great detail. Water is increasingly becoming a huge topic of concern—and that one alone will make your head swim. Toxic chemical reform is an entirely different set of issues. I know preservation of open space, forests, and trees is something that appeals to a lot of people because they can grasp what it means to clear cut a forest, whether in Washington State or the Amazon. But the point is to educate yourself. One of the best places to start, in my opinion, is Thomas Friedman’s Hot, Flat, and Crowded.
One thing that I have noticed is that while men seem to be slower to embrace micro-green behavior, they do tend to be naturalists. In other words, guys love to go out in nature, whether our natural parks, or hunting or fishing. Is there an angle there to engage men?
Totally. I also have a son and have read a lot about the positive effect on children, particularly boys, of spending time in nature. Nature is also on the frontline of resource scarcity. Outdoor enthusiasts see and feel that something is fundamentally changing—and that, in general, it’s not good. Just ask a fisherman in his 50’s what the differences in fish stocks are between now and when he was a kid. I think one of the most impressive eco-organizations is the Sierra Club, which believes that enjoying and exploring nature leads to a natural inclination to protect it. Their local chapters have some really fun activities and events.
One of the little things we’ve done that has engaged everyone in the family well, both male and female, is joining a local CSA (farm) and planting a garden. Just those steps have been huge for getting my kids to realize that carrots don’t come cut up in plastic bags, that bees are critical for food (and that they are dying in disturbing numbers), why composting matters and what you use it for, what fertilizer does and why we choose organic, and it has reduced our “food impact” significantly.
What do you say to men who say that this is just another Ice Age, a natural ebb and flow that will be a good thing in the end?
I don’t think any of the data about rising temperatures and climate change, irrespective of cause, suggests it will be a good thing for humans and our current population. We are on the cusp, and some would say we are already deep into, some serious, serious breakdowns in the natural systems that we rely on for food, clean water, energy, and our current quality of life. Humans have not existed on this planet with carbon levels in the atmosphere at the level they are at—and if you want a quick synopsis of what scientists believe will happen as temperatures rise, I would encourage your readers to skim this page. What I like to emphasize to people is that this isn’t about saving the planet. This is about saving our own ability to live and thrive here.
Do you buy the argument that men are still primarily in charge of the big companies that are driving the destruction of the world, and, therefore, men are to blame for global warming?
As tempting as it would be to turn this into a gender issue, there are powerful women running companies that contribute to issues like global warming, obesity, toxins in our homes, and who fight against forces of change. There are amazing men, like Bill McKibben, Stephen McDonnell and Jeffrey Hollender, who are leading forces for change. I think the issue is one of powerfully entrenched interests who know that transitioning to a cleaner, greener, less toxic economy will hurt their profits, their power and their influence. I see it more as a power struggle between entrenched interests who fear change and those who know that change is essential to the quality of life as we know it.
As a woman do you think that there are national policies around personal and corporate pollution and green policies that are perhaps even more important than whether or not you or I drive an electric car?
I often wish I had a magic wand. What would I pick? I would give organic food and farming the similar playing field as big agribusiness. Pass toxic chemical reform so our products and services don’t have some really nasty things in them. Fund more, and better, research on the human and animal health impact of genetic modifications to food. Tax oil and natural gas, similar to how Europe does, to capture the real cost of pollution and the fact it’s a finite resource. Upgrade our public transportation systems. I also believe we need a strong federal climate policy that addresses the issue of carbon emissions.
With massive economic dislocation in our country because of structural unemployment and income inequality, how do you prioritize the need to save the planet with the need to save our people in the short term?
Thomas Friedman’s argument in Hot, Flat, and Crowded is that a green revolution would be the key to renewing America: our jobs, our health, and our leadership at a global level. I think it’s important to remember that the planet was here well before the humans and will likely be here well after the humans. So, the green movement IS about saving people, our health, and our quality of life.
If there is one thing that most guys don’t understand about the green movement that we really should, what would it be?
When I first started learning more, I thought this was an issue for my kid’s generation or their kid’s generation. I saw that our lifestyle changes might help them avoid some cancers or reproductive issues, but would more likely benefit future generations. I had no idea how fast resources were running out, how fast the ice is melting, and the sheer urgency of the situation. Things are happening even faster than the climate models expected, and the results are even more extreme than predicted. I heard the other day that without major changes, downtown Boston could be underwater by 2030. This is OUR generation’s issue to take seriously, whether we want to or not.
Here’s an infographic that shows what men on PG are planning to do and what women on PG are planning to do in 2011.
[ 1 | 2 ]
—Photo timtak/Flickr
Just for grins, check out “climategate I” and “climategate II”. The whole AGW thing’s been busted. The University of East Anglia, one of the two go-to places for climate data has recently said–given their previous issues, an admission against interest–that global warming stopped in 1997. However, if you want big federal subsidies–see Solyndra–you have to keep pretending. Recycling can be economically or environmentally beneficial. It is always beneficial to those who think themselves superior types. One town–see Mark Steyn–has recycle bins but dumps them in the landfill. It serves the larger purpose, making people feel good about themselves. Does recycling… Read more »
Most consuming of useless junk is being done by women, but anyway. Why does the GMP insult me by talking the position that if they attach recycling to being “macho” or some variation of that, if I don’t already recycle, I will suddenly start because someone has told me its what “real men” do?
Where do you get the idea that your target audience are this stupid.
There is no credible evidence that most consuming of useless junk is being done by women.
This website says it wants men to be good, but it tolerates lots of misogyny.
JT Yes there is credible evidence that women women consume the most, ask any advertiser, compare the average woman bathroom and wardrobe to the average males. Look at how 80% of the advertising and shopping space in malls is devoted to women. Women control over 80% of discretionary spending. (google it) Also, I see you definition of misogyny is a man saying something that you don’t like, even if its the truth. Grow up. Women make 80 percent of health care decisions and 68 percent of new car purchase decisions In 31 percent of the marriages where women work, women… Read more »
Facts about the “Purse Power” of women: Women are the dominant spending force in almost every retail/business category and are the most affluent and influential consumers of today. Of all consumer purchases, women are responsible for 83% Homes: Directly purchase or influence the purchase of 91% of all new homes Home fix-up purchases: More than 55% Retail: Account for 88% of customers in the US & Canada Auto: Make more than 50% of all auto purchases and influence 85%. Home furnishings: 94% Vacation choices: 92% House purchases: 91% Consumer electronics purchases: 51% (women are involved in 89% of all consumer… Read more »
As reported by Ms. Magazine, Dec. 2010 Women, according to the JEC report, control 73 percent of spending within their households, which is equivalent to approximately $4 trillion in yearly discretionary spending. Furthermore, women are more likely than men to control daily expenditures in more than half of middle and upper-class household In a 2008 study by the Pew Research Center: Of 1,260 couples, married or living together, surveyed this summer, women wield more decision-making power at home. In a 2007 study reported in the Journal of Counseling Psychology. Researchers found that wives, on average, displayed more power than their… Read more »
KT says:
There is no credible evidence that most consuming of useless junk is being done by women.
This website says it wants men to be good, but it tolerates lots of misogyny.
You are a liar, telling the truth is not misogyny.
G’day Tom Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: yes, absolutely. I also like – and we live by – ‘Think Global, Act Local’, which I interpret to mean do what you can at a local & micro level (as a citizen consumer), and two very important results may be achieved. 1. My children copy my behaviour, and in their own small way, start to care for the environment too, and grow into adults believing in a sustainable future. 2. If most people ‘Think Globally, and Act Locally’, together, as a community and a society we will make a difference. We’re all in this… Read more »
Not much useful information in this article, but a hell of a lot of unsubstantiated stereotypes. Being the technical guy that I am with a background in environmental science, I prefer straight up facts rather than politicized moral panic.
You completely forgot to mention the consumers! Oh no, it’s those bad corporations selling us all that useless crap. Oh yeah, isn’t it women that have the greater control of household spending? Yes, they do.
Tom, thanks for pulling this material together. And thanks for the focus on this issue at The Good Men Project. I think that conservative use of our natural resources goes hand-in-hand with the personal and political challenges to be more careful about what we spend. In my view, whether the scarcity is money or natural resources, our culture is riding that giant pendulum swing back to more careful use of resources. At least, that is my hope. The pendulum is swinging that way, whether we choose to swing with it or not. And the choice to swing with it, will… Read more »
I disagree to with not just the phrase “girly men”(popularized by uber macho Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California to desrcribe his Democratic critics)but the smug implication we can leave “green causes” to the women. The planet is far TOO important to have its safety conveniently consigned to the concerns of one sex, just as war is too important to be left to the generals-it will need BOTH sexes working together to save it!
Eating greener (including less meat) is not only good for the environment, it’s better for your own health. I try to each mainly organic and/or locally grown fruit and vegetables, with the exception of fruits that have thick skin which have thick skin – there is little to no benefit to buying those organic, as the skin protects the fruit. I also absolutely refuse to eat any soy product, anything with high fructose corn syrup, or anything else that I can trace back to the devil (Monsanto). If you don’t know what I mean, watch Food, Inc. Lastly, please stop… Read more »
I have to take issue with your use of the term ‘girly men’ Tom.
Firstly I don’t really know what a ‘girly man’ is. Secondly, why can’t ‘girly men’ also be ‘good men’?
You seem to be equating environmental consideration with some kind of ‘real man’ image. Which to me just seems silly. Especially when you comment that women are often quite environmentally aware anyway. And they aren’t men at all. They are *actual* girls.
I also take issue with Tom’s term, girly men, because it denigrates women.
Tom’s articles often have lots of sexist language, which makes they very difficult to read.
Tom seems to view the male as the norm of humanity and the female as some sort of deficient “other”.
Tom seems to think that macho is a good term and probably believes that it’s just a Spanish word for masculinity. But all of my Hispanic friends tell me that macho/machismo is not just about masculinity. It’s about male dominance and contempt for women.