Men are more damaging to the planet than women, according to a controversial new academic study that has drawn sharp attention for its sweeping claims about gender and environmental impact.
The paper, titled Men, Masculinities, and the Planet at the End of (M)Anthropocene, was produced by 22 researchers from 13 countries and published in the International Journal for Masculinity Studies. It argues that men consistently generate larger carbon footprints than women, are less concerned about climate change, and are less willing to alter their behaviour to address it.
According to the researchers, the gap is driven largely by male patterns of travel, transportation and tourism, as well as significantly higher rates of meat consumption. “Meat consumption remains part of hegemonic masculinity across many contexts,” the paper states, adding that men “consume more meat than women and are leaders of the animal-industrial complex.” Typically male-dominated pursuits such as fishing and hunting are also identified as environmentally damaging activities.
The study goes further, arguing that men are less ambitious and less active in environmental politics, and less likely to support political parties focused on environmental justice. It singles out far-right political elites in particular, claiming that “climate denialism often combines with misogyny” among “vocal and influential masculinities.” Elite men in the global North are identified as bearing the greatest responsibility, with the paper asserting that “privileged eurowestern countries, particularly elite white men” are the primary drivers of destructive ecological processes — through their dominance of extractive industries, industrial agriculture, the automobile sector and, increasingly, artificial intelligence.
Professor Jeff Hearn, professor of sociology at the University of Huddersfield’s Department of Social and Psychological Sciences, said the findings addressed a glaring gap in public debate. “There is now plenty of research that shows clear negative impacts of some men’s behaviour on the environment and climate,” he said. “What is astonishing is how this aspect does not figure in most debate and policy in a more sustainable world.”
The researchers were careful to note that the conclusions do not apply universally. “Some men are working urgently and energetically to change these tendencies,” the paper acknowledges — a caveat unlikely to soften the controversy the study is already generating.
