Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Markos Giannopoulos

      >> Gender equity in education also matters for the climate. One-hundred-thirty million girls still don’t have the right to attend school. When girls go to school, it changes many things–their health, their financial security, and their agency. But it also means that they’re more likely to marry later and choose to have fewer children. Family size is also obviously impacted by access to contraception; hundreds of millions of women say that they want to decide when to have children, but aren’t using contraception. If women have the right to choose to have smaller families, it could lead to one billion fewer people inhabiting Earth by midcentury, and dramatically reduced demand for food, electricity, and other basic services. That could mean avoiding 120 billion tons of emissions.<<

      Is it just or are there too many logic jumps in this argument?

      Contraception and access to education are great things but there are far more variables in determining carbon emissions.

    • I agree that the arguments advanced in that article are a stretch. Even if the population growth were reduced to zero, it would not change the fact that our current population is going to wreck havoc unless we make radical changes immediately. While I'm not dismissing the point altogether, I'm skeptical of the claim regarding women on farms, at least as far as the size of the impact is concerned. I'd need to see more data. It seems to me that the arguments for gender equality are strong enough that they stand on their own. Environmental impact is at best a seconday consideration and I don't think it advances either feminism or environmentalism to conflate the two.

    You've been invited!