Men tend to have a greater carbon footprint and greater environmental impact through consumption, especially in travel, transportation, tourism and meat eating, according to a new international study that reveals how structural patterns of gender inequality contribute to environmental destruction and climate change.
A new paper by more than 20 scientists from 13 different countries has analysed existing research on climate change, global warming and environmental collapse and how they connect with what men do. Published in Norma: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, the paper is titled 'Men, masculinities and the planet at the end of (M)Anthropocene'. It covers questions as diverse as climate denial in Canadian pipeline politics, environmental impacts of Chinese policies in the Pacific Ocean, pro-meat online influencers in Finland, and positive action by men activists in Africa, Latin America, the UK and globally.
Quantifying the Emissions Gap
Researchers found concrete evidence of unequal environmental impact across gender lines. The article cited a 2025 study—one year ago—involving 15,000 people in France that found men emit 26 per cent more pollution than women from transport and food. The disparity reflects broader patterns in consumption and lifestyle choices that carry significant environmental consequences.
The team also warned that men tend to have "less concern with climate change," are "less ambitious and less active in environmental politics," and are less willing to change everyday practices to tackle the growing issue. A study from one year ago published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology found that men with higher levels of "masculinity stress" express less worry about climate change and are more likely to exhibit pro-environmental behavioural avoidance, such as avoiding eco-friendly products to maintain a traditional masculine image.
Structural Control of High-Impact Industries
Men also tend to be more involved in owning, managing and controlling heavy, chemical, carbon-based, industrialised industries such as agriculture, along with other high environmental impact and extractive industries, and militarism, the paper said. This concentration of economic power in high-emissions sectors represents a structural dimension of environmental inequality that extends beyond individual consumer choices.
Policy Silence on Gender Dimensions
Professor Jeff Hearn, the paper's editor and a professor of Sociology at the University of Huddersfield, said, "There is now plenty of research that shows clear negative impacts of some men's behaviour on the environment and climate," and added, "What is astonishing is how this aspect does not figure in most debates and policy in a more sustainable world."
Inequality Within Gender Categories
The researchers said these "damaging patterns" apply especially to elite, white Eurowestern men opposed to low-income men in the global south, while also acknowledging that some men are working "urgently and energetically" to change these tendencies. The distinction highlights how environmental impact intersects with economic inequality and global power structures, with wealthy men in developed nations bearing disproportionate responsibility for emissions while low-income men in developing countries face the worst consequences of climate breakdown.
Why This Matters:
The gender emissions gap reveals how environmental destruction is intertwined with structural inequality and concentrated economic power. When men emit 26 per cent more pollution than women from transport and food alone, it reflects not just individual choices but societal patterns that privilege certain forms of consumption and control over high-impact industries. The concentration of men in ownership and management of extractive, carbon-intensive, and militarized industries demonstrates how environmental harm flows from economic structures that lack democratic oversight and equitable distribution of power. The fact that masculinity stress drives environmental avoidance suggests that cultural norms around gender actively obstruct climate action. Most critically, Professor Hearn's observation that these patterns remain absent from policy debates indicates a failure of democratic institutions to address root causes of environmental breakdown. Effective climate policy must confront how inequality—across gender, race, and global economic position—shapes who bears responsibility for emissions and who suffers the consequences of inaction.