Return to site

Simon Says

Gender differences in concern about climate change are highly correlated with economic development. Projections of the future for 30-50-100-500 years AND expediting factors

· climate change,future,gender inequalities

Cambridge paper set the stage. Stretched it, looked ahead. It's how I see the bones of the future. But missing pieces: AI, rising seas, East vs. West, tyrants.

Men in power drag feet on climate. Women care but lack reins. Voting? A gender fight. Wealth grabs resources. Poor suffer.

Women fight for Earth, lead in science. Men back off. Teaching splits: boys learn one Earth, girls another.

AI by 2030 changes game. Jobs vanish. Focus shifts. Climate's still dying, but now we're distracted. Seas rise, farmland sinks. Hunger starts. East and West push and shove for what's left. Tyrants tighten grip.

50 years, climate's worse, faster. Systems break. 100 years, wars for scraps. 500 years, genders part ways. Same end, but comes like a bullet, not a slow burn. No time to fix it. We crash, not fade.

It's a bleak road if we don't change.

I cite the article Abstract here:


Gender differences in concern about climate change are highly correlated with economic development: when countries are wealthier, a gap emerges whereby women are more likely than men to express concern about our changing climate. These differences stem from cross-national variation in men’s attitudes. Men, more
than women, tend to be less concerned about climate change when countries are wealthier. This article develops a new theory about the perceived costs and benefits of climate mitigation policy to explain this pattern. At the country level, the perceived benefits of mitigation tend to decrease with economic development, whereas the perceived costs increase. At the individual level, the perceived costs of mitigation tend to increase with economic development for men more than for women. Evidence from existing surveys from every world region, an original 10-country survey in the Americas and Europe, and focus groups in Peru and the United States support the theory.


Got the article source. Full of numbers, charts. If you like stats, it's a feast. Hours of
digging, if that's your thing.


The abstract describes a pattern in which gender differences in concern for climate change become more pronounced as countries become wealthier, with women generally more concerned than men. This disparity is hypothesized to arise from men perceiving higher costs and fewer benefits to climate change mitigation as countries become wealthier.

If this observation holds true over the next 30 years, there could be a variety of consequences, which might include:

Policy Impact:

  1. Slower Mitigation: If men continue to be less concerned and they hold a majority of positions of power, policies on climate change mitigation might be slower to develop or less comprehensive.
  2. Polarized Voting: Elections and referendums on climate issues might become more gender-polarized, with women voting for more aggressive climate measures and men voting against.
  3. Unequal Distribution of Resources: In wealthier countries, resources for mitigation could be unequally distributed, affecting communities that are less able to advocate for themselves, including minority and lower-income communities.

Social Impact:

  1. Activism Gap: The gender gap in concern could result in a similarly gendered gap in activism, with more women involved in climate-related causes than men.
  2. Educational Disparities: Climate education might become more divisive along gender lines, as each gender is motivated by different perceived costs and benefits.
  3. Family Dynamics: Disagreements within households about the importance of sustainable practices could become more frequent, affecting family dynamics and even lifestyle choices.

Economic Impact:

  1. Consumer Behavior: Women might become the primary consumers of eco-friendly products, potentially skewing market offerings and advertising campaigns.
  2. Career Choices: Gender-based concern about climate change might influence career choices, perhaps leading to more women in environmental sciences and policy roles than men.
  3. Investment Trends: There could be gender-based disparities in investment choices, with men potentially less likely to invest in sustainable funds and technologies compared to women.

Global Impact:

  1. North-South Divide: As wealthier nations have a larger gender divide in climate concern, the climate change discourse could become even more fractured along economic and gender lines globally.
  2. International Negotiations: In international settings, countries with greater gender imbalances in political power might be less willing to commit to climate agreements.
  3. Global Activism: The gender gap could have a ripple effect on international movements, potentially marginalizing male voices in environmental activism or leading to female-centric global initiatives.

Long-Term Implications:

  1. Cultural Shifts: If the gender gap in concern persists, it could lead to long-term cultural shifts in how each gender educates and prepares the next generation about environmental responsibility.
  2. Science and Innovation: A gendered division in concern and interest might impact the kinds of scientific research and technological innovation that are pursued and funded.
  3. Social Cohesion: Over the long term, persistent gender-based differences in concern about such a critical issue could contribute to social fragmentation.

Understanding these potential consequences could be critical for stakeholders—from policymakers to activists—in shaping more effective, equitable, and inclusive climate strategies.

50-Year Projection:

Policy Impact:

  • Slower Mitigation: The lack of significant policy measures could exacerbate climate change to catastrophic levels, resulting in widespread climate disasters.
  • Polarized Voting: Entire political parties may form around gender lines regarding climate change, leading to a rigid, ineffective bipartisan system solely based on climate beliefs.
  • Unequal Distribution of Resources: As resources like clean water and arable land become scarce, wealthier communities hoard these necessities, while impoverished communities face severe shortages.

Social Impact:

  • Activism Gap: Women-led climate movements could become the primary force in environmental activism, possibly leading to extreme eco-feminist movements.
  • Educational Disparities: Education systems might introduce gender-specific climate curricula, further entrenching the divide.
  • Family Dynamics: Gender disagreements over climate change could become a significant source of family conflicts, potentially leading to increased divorce rates.

Economic Impact:

  • Consumer Behavior: Entire industries might cater exclusively to eco-conscious women, widening the gender gap in economic power.
  • Career Choices: Virtually all roles in environmental policy, science, and activism might be held by women, creating an expertise gap.
  • Investment Trends: Gender-based investment disparities could lead to a financial system highly unstable and reactive to climate disasters.

Global Impact:

  • North-South Divide: A new form of "climate colonialism" could arise, where richer nations exploit poorer nations to offset their own emissions.
  • International Negotiations: Climate agreements could become nearly impossible to reach, leading to isolated, nation-centric efforts with limited effectiveness.
  • Global Activism: Women-led environmental organizations could become the new global superpowers, wielding influence over international policies.

Long-Term Implications:

  • Cultural Shifts: Entire cultures could form around gender-specific views on climate change.
  • Science and Innovation: R&D could become so gender-divided that men and women effectively work in parallel worlds of science and innovation.
  • Social Cohesion: Gender-based schisms on climate issues could contribute to societal fractures, leading to separate living communities or even countries.

100-Year Projection:

  • Severe Climate Catastrophes: Due to slowed mitigation efforts, irreversible climate changes make parts of the Earth uninhabitable.
  • Political Systems Collapse: Gender-polarized voting leads to the collapse of current political systems, replaced by climate-focused matriarchies or patriarchies.
  • Global Resource Wars: Massive wars could break out over dwindling resources, with armies also divided along gender lines.

500-Year Projection:

  • Planet of Two Worlds: Society could segregate to the point where men and women live in entirely separate regions, with differing approaches to climate adaptation and technology.
  • Post-Humanism: The extreme gender disparity in scientific research might lead to diverging paths in human evolution, possibly through bioengineering or AI, creating gender-specific subspecies.
  • Social Fragmentation: The societal schisms based on gender could be so deep that they alter the fundamental aspects of culture, language, and human interaction, making reconciliation impossible.

Now, all this being said...

The projection is a roadmap to a bleak future. But it misses turns that speed things up. Key detour: AI singularity by 2030. Suddenly, 80% of jobs gone. Machines do the thinking, humans are left asking, "What now?"

Economy teeters. Men in power, already less worried about climate, focus on tech crisis. Women push for green, but chaos drowns their voices. Voting gets messy—job loss and climate clash on ballots. Resources? Even scarcer. The wealthy hoard AI benefits, the poor get poorer and the climate suffers.

Add rising seas swallowing farmlands. Food crisis. Starvation isn't gendered; it hits everyone. East and West, old foes in a new age, square off for dwindling resources. Tyrants use crisis to grip tighter. Democracy falters, maybe falls.

Clock's ticking faster. AI didn't just take jobs; it skewed priorities, pulled focus from a dying Earth. We face not just a climate disaster but a compound catastrophe: joblessness, hunger, global tension, governance breakdown.

Same bleak end, but it comes like a storm, not a slow fade. Less time to fix things, more to lose. If we don't steer hard, and soon, we don't just drift into darkness. We plunge.