Men's consumer spending in Sweden caused 16 percent more carbon emissions than women's, even though men spent only 2 percent more money on goods, according to research published this week in the Journal for Industrial Ecology. The study, led by Annika Carlsson-Kanyama of the sustainability research group Ecoloop, compared the buying habits of Swedish men and women and assessed the climate impact of their choices.
The difference was driven largely by two categories: transportation and diet. Men spent more on cars and gasoline, while women were more likely to travel by train. Men also ate more emissions-heavy meat, a gendered dietary pattern that previous research suggests persists globally. Carlsson-Kanyama told CNN that men "could really learn from women's expenditure habits, which produce significantly less carbon emissions despite the similar amount of spending."
Asmae Ourkiya, a researcher in ecofeminism and environmental justice at the University of Limerick who was not involved in the study, told CNN that men's "masculine identities became heavily associated with fossil fuel extraction and consumption… and resistance to sustainable diets." The study's authors note that while individual lifestyle changes alone cannot stop climate change, every reduction contributes.
Policy Implications and Uncomfortable Conversations
Carlsson-Kanyama acknowledged that discussing these gender differences can cause personal discomfort, as people may not want to hear their lifestyle contributes to the problem. However, she argued that failing to communicate the climate impacts of men's choices would be a missed opportunity for policymakers. "Policies — for example, in transportation — should be targeted to men to discourage them from spending so much on fuel, from using cars so much," she told CNN. "It's essential for governments, in their messaging, to explain to men how high the emissions are that their expenditure is causing."
The research adds to a growing body of work on how consumption patterns differ by gender, but it remains unclear how effectively targeted policies could shift behavior. The study's global implications are suggested by the researchers, though the primary data focused on Sweden.
Editorial Notes