Women face tougher impact from climate change
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- Politics (10220)
- Environment (2426)
- Health (1511)
- Global Warming (937)
- Climate Change (851)
- Economy (561)
- Education (504)
- Women (488)
- Human Rights (456)
- Current News UK (341)
- Poverty (309)
- anthropogenic climate change (15)
- Sustainable Development (8)
- environmental justice (6)
Watch this story
As it was featured on Current_News on Current TV
Climate change is harder on women in poor countries, where mothers stay in areas hit by drought, deforestation or crop failure as men move to literally greener pastures, a Nobel Peace laureate said on Tuesday.
"Many destructive activities against the environment disproportionately affect women, because most women in the world, and especially in the developing world, are very dependent on primary natural resources: land, forests, waters," said Wangari Maathai of Kenya.
"Women are very immediately affected, and usually women and children can't run away," said Maathai, who won the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize for her work on sustainable development.
"Men can trek and go looking for greener pastures in other areas in other countries ... but for women, they're usually left on site to face the consequences," she said. "So when there is deforestation, when there is drought, when there is crop failure, it is the women and children who are the most adversely affected."
Maathai was in Washington with 1997 Nobel Peace laureate Jody Williams, who got the award for her work in creating an international treaty to ban landmines, and both spoke to reporters at a briefing.
Williams said she saw climate change as a threat to security, and said desertification of former agricultural land fueled the conflict in Darfur.
Credit: Reuters AlertNet.
"Many destructive activities against the environment disproportionately affect women, because most women in the world, and especially in the developing world, are very dependent on primary natural resources: land, forests, waters," said Wangari Maathai of Kenya.
"Women are very immediately affected, and usually women and children can't run away," said Maathai, who won the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize for her work on sustainable development.
"Men can trek and go looking for greener pastures in other areas in other countries ... but for women, they're usually left on site to face the consequences," she said. "So when there is deforestation, when there is drought, when there is crop failure, it is the women and children who are the most adversely affected."
Maathai was in Washington with 1997 Nobel Peace laureate Jody Williams, who got the award for her work in creating an international treaty to ban landmines, and both spoke to reporters at a briefing.
Williams said she saw climate change as a threat to security, and said desertification of former agricultural land fueled the conflict in Darfur.
Credit: Reuters AlertNet.
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 9 days ago
-
all i can say to that is pick your skirt up and move with the men, you have legs too
-
not sure the tags fit as sufficient descriptors.
politics?
education?
seems a bit of inflected opining Ms Jan.-
-
-
-
- chet_arthur
- 9 days ago
-
-
From the article:
"In that case, she said, women forced to move for political and environmental reasons were more at risk than men."
This goes much deeper than the simplicity of your comment. As a result of the environmental devastation in Darfur for example as was also used in this article (assuming you read it) women moved because of the environmental devastation that has led to genocide there are now in camps in places where leaving those camps to fetch water puts them in grave danger of rape and even murder.
There is also more to the climate crisis and its effects that affects women in regards to also providing for their children (and the education of boys since girls in many of these countries are excluded) as in many underdeveloped countries the patriarchal societies set up do not treat women equally.
They are the ones who must forage, collect water (if there is any,) and provide for the children. That is much harder in a harsh environment. And it is not always that easy for women in these poor countries to just "pick up their skirts" and move.Theirs is a different world from the comfortable one we know.recommended by Vierotchka-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 9 days ago
-
-
That's Mrs. to you.
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 9 days ago
-
-
apologies. Mrs Jan. I try to never assume.
-
-
-
-
- chet_arthur
- 9 days ago
-
-
No problem, just correcting you because I am proud of it ;-). This is a reality that is already effecting real women in our world and it is a human rights issue. In many areas of this world when devastation strikes men have the mobility to leave and they leave the women behind with the children without the mobility to move at all. They are left without healthcare, security, provisions, and in the harsh elements. This is the stark reality of being a woman in many parts of the world where they have no voice, are beaten, mutilated, abused, sold into slavery, and denied education, opportunity, and a chance to lead.
Therefore they do not have the advantage in environments that are harsh due to droughts, deforestation, etc. This isn't like packing up the family SUV and going to greener pastures.This truly is a daily life and death struggle they live with.
And as for my descriptors, politics indeed plays a role in this as well as education... educaiton of women, and education about climate change ... for without that people in these areas in years to come surely will not be able to survive.recommended by Vierotchka-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 9 days ago
-
-
clayjj05, and what about the children, the babies? Leave them behind?
-
-
-
-
- Vierotchka
- 9 days ago
-
-
Pick up the skirts, eh? And here I thought we were living in the more empathetic 21st century...
Tell you what. She'll pick up her skirts, you pick up the cooking gear, the hot coal from the last fire to start the next fire, the clothing, the farm animals, the other tools and valuables, and the children. Then you run along ahead to find a safe area for all of you to camp that night (not too far each day, since you have children with you.) And we'll see just how far you make it. -
clay, your ignorance shines so brightly... my eyes hurt...
-
This is a sad story. Thanks for posting Jan. I know I am going to sound heartless here but I think that in addition to the changing climate one of the perils we face is the burdensome overpopulation of the planet. While I always choose to have faith in the ingenuity and compassion of my Earth-mates there is a real possibility that our natural resources are not equipped to handle the weight of all of our needs. The world's population is on pace to reach nine billion by 2050 with 98% of this growth occurring in the developing world. Nova produced an interesting documentary about this issue entitled "World In The Balance." It's time to get creative and start educating people. Otherwise, nature has a way of bringing things back into balance that can look pretty ugly. And gentlemen, show some love and respect for your families and neighbors.
http://current.com/items/88938687_world_in_the_balance_...
-
hawkmang: I fully agree. The human race is on a crash coarse. Perpetual growth vs lack of resources.
That's why I'm going to adopt instead of having a child.
It's the same as rescuing a dog, (which I already did) just a different animal...
They are both in need, so why not help instead of hurt.
I could give a crap about the "family name". haha
-
Hawkmang: You're a good man ;-) And I agree with you about overpopulation. And that is one of the reasons why birth control is so important to these countries as well. Women don't get this information either, and many cultures prohibit it because they are still not in the 21st century and cannot connect the dots. And also, many of these countries (especially in Africa) are not even contributing to the overall global emissions on this planet but are feeling the effects more. How that affects the children born due to the pollution spewed by this country, China, India, etc should be a concern of this government. What they go through, we helped bring on. So absolutely, education is the key to all of this. Once people have that including women, they are enpowered to seek answers and to know how their actions affect the future, and therefore they can change that future for the betterment of themselves and all.
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 9 days ago
-
-
I think there is another side to this concept of overpopulation that perhaps all of you have not considered.
Back after the second world war, when all the "enlisted" men came back to their homes and farms, the world was scarcely 2 Billion at that point; what with the loss of literally millions of people during that war. At that time more that half of those 2 Billion were literally starving and there were food shortages in many parts of the world and yet the United States government instituted laws created that literally paid farmers not to produce food. America had plenty to eat, but why would our own government pay farmers to not produce food when half the world was starving?
It is simple really, it was because of fears of overpopulation.
People have been talking about overpopulation since before the turn of the 19th & 20th centuries. World leaders (aka the money elite and future WTO) held conferences and had statisticians prepare data to project the population of the world would be by the year 2000. Estimates ranged anywhere from 5 to 8 Billion people and economists studied what the impact of that would be. Predictions were dire and economic collapse was seen as an inevitability if the world was allowed to reach such proportions.
Many policies were established and disseminated to governments everywhere through think tanks and universities. People were gradually being prepared for radical moves on dealing with overpopulation. Birth control was floated as a possible remedy to promote to the masses, but this strategy was met with fierce opposition from Religious organizations. So more subtle population control methods were brainstormed and established.
War is always one of the ways to keep people dying. Starvation of course will always be the leader because of the policy to pay farmers not to farm only megagricorporations have taken over the food supply to 90% of the population.
None of this makes any sense unless you were trying to keep the population down.
Then comes AIDS conveniently enough that guarantees to wipe out at least 1/10th of the world's population every year in an ongoing basis. What a great disease to accomplish goals that led some countries to institute policies of genocide; lest we never forget the Holocaust or the atrocities committed by the Japanese against the Koreans and the Chinese.
It's just my opinion but population control seems to be a slippery slope.
-
Sorry for going off on a tangent, but I agree that women are impacted in the ways the article described.
-
I think Clay had a negative response to this article because of how the issue was presented.
"Men can trek and go looking for greener pastures in other areas in other countries ... but for women, they're usually left on site to face the consequences,"
The problem with that statement is simple. It presents a disturbing problem but at the same time it is worded so the reader is left with a particular sense of imagery.
“Women face tougher impact from climate change.” Ok I got it. That sucks.
“Men can trek and go look for greener pastures.” Ok here is where it all goes wrong.
Women do not face a tougher impact from climate control because of men in general. Women face a tougher impact from climate control because of assholes that abandon their family or leave them to the hands of a rapist. As an added insult the author uses the phrase, “greener pastures” which would imply, or at least lead one to imagine a Sudanese man abandoning his family to go run off to the his equivalent of the “great valley.” (I did a wikipedia search to look up the name of the valley from “The land before Time” and they said it was the “Great valley.” I always thought it was the “green valley?”)
This story brought up fond memories of my grandfather. He’s a retired columnist and editor who now spend his free time writing weekly southern grammar editorials. I vividly remember how every time I would visit we would end up watching the news and he would sit there correcting grammatical errors with a scowl on his face. Oh I wish some of that knowledge made its way down to me! He told me one time that its not that Americans don’t cover the important topics, its that when they do the true issues are hidden by a shoddy report. He actually phrased it a lot better than I just did but unfortunately I can't remember what he said word for word.
Anyway, I’m sure women do face a tougher time dealing with climate change, but I also think a faithful husband wouldn’t simply abandon his family for a “greener pasture.” I’m also sure that a faithful, loving man is not simply going to allow his wife or daughter to be raped just so he can sit by a fire at night. I think it is important that we make this distinction so the next time some easily offended individual reads such an article he’ll turn to his wife and say. “Hey baby I wouldn’t leave you for the greenest pasture on gods green earth,” instead of responding with, “pick your skirt up and move with the men, you have legs too.”
That’s what you call good imagery. You take a bad situation, present it professionally and as a result you instill within that person a need to do good, or at the very least say something good. -
I honestly think that actions like this are second nature to men, and that it takes re-evaluating one's first instincts to correct this. Men just aren't as connected to their offspring as women are because of obvious reasons. Men will never be able to come to grips with the connection that is formed with a child within ones body, and thus sometimes don't fully understand the consequences of abandoning their family.
I can't point the blame at a specific man, or group of men here, I just think it's one of the unfortunate side-effects of our life-cycle that leaves women to raise a family on their own sometimes.-
-
-
-
- BenDorries
- 9 days ago
-
-
Ricky84, it is not so much a question of unfaithful husbands abandoning their families as a question of fathers of desperately poor families emigrating (usually illegally) to western countries in the hope of finding a job so as to send money home to the families. A huge number of these men die on their way to the US or Europe as they cross deserts by foot or drown because of overloaded and unseaworthy boats that sink, etc., leaving their families in ignorance of what happened to their fathers and husbands.
-
-
-
-
- Vierotchka
- 9 days ago
-
-
And the point of this also I believe is that the U.S. needs to lead the way in a global treaty that will effectively work to start NOW to lower the emissions causing the droughts and such that are making the conditions in these areas harsher thus precipitating women having to be left with children while the men go looking elsewhere. And of course also, the governments of these countries that are also very corrupt need to be put on notice that their actions are not in the best interests of humanity or this planet. I still cannot believe Bashir has not been taken to the World Court for his crimes against humanity in Darfur.
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 9 days ago
-
-
Vierotchka I considered that point while I was tying my response but I didn’t comment about it because I wanted to keep my post short. If men are dying in large numbers because they are forced into a dangerous situation how appropriate is it to say,” they left for greener pastures?”
If this article is supposed to do us any good how can it split hairs about the climate change crisis? Where is the relevance in comparing the suffering of a people in terms of gender? In a world where women are objectified all the time how effective can this article be? If you judge this situation on an unfortunate consequence of a man and woman’s relationship you bring up a completely different topic which can only distract people from the original problem. -
Ricky84, I do agree somewhat. The article poses the problem as a gender issue and the title is distracting. The real issue is the forced migration of people away from the damaged areas and the troubles that entails.
-
I agree. Seems like an odd thing to make into a gender issue (that's not said in defense of any of the comments). Especially if what Vierotchka says is true about huge numbers of the men dying on their way to find "greener pastures". And I have no reason to doubt her. Seems to me that 'climate justice' should be an important to everyone, no matter their gender.
The quote that stood out to me was:
"As long as the United States of America doesn't take its leadership position, the rest of the world hides behind her and wants to say, 'she is the greatest polluter, she isn't doing anything, why should I do something?"
We should lead by example. Thanks for posting Jan.
this space intentionally left blank
