Men's love for meat, cars makes them pollute more than women
PARIS : A recent French study highlights the gender gap in carbon footprints, revealing that women emit 26% less carbon dioxide than men – mainly due to lower car use and lower consumption of red meat.
This preliminary study was carried out by Ondine Berland at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Marion Leroutier at Crest-Ensae Paris, based on survey data on the mobility and eating habits of over 15,000 people.
It reveals that men's annual carbon footprint for food and transportation is the equivalent of 5.3 tonnes of CO2, compared with 3.9 tonnes for women. The gap remains significant even when standard of living, distances travelled, and volume of food consumed are taken into account.
'The data show that red-meat consumption and car use – which are both high-emission goods often associated with male identity – account for most of the residual difference in carbon footprints once variations in food quantity, distances travelled, and employment status are considered,' explains an overview of this working paper.
The survey also reveals that the gender gap in carbon footprints is as wide as that between low- and high-income individuals. This underlines the importance of cultural and social – and not just economic – factors in CO2 emissions.
The researchers believe that these results highlight how men and women could be affected differently by the implementation of climate policies. It could be less challenging for women than men to adopt consumption patterns compatible with net-zero objectives, they noted.
'Our results suggest that traditional gender norms, particularly those linking masculinity with red-meat consumption and car use, play a significant role in shaping individual carbon footprints.
'This points to the potential for information policies that challenge such norms – for example, by reframing plant-based alternatives as compatible with strength and performance,' Berland said.
The researchers point out, however, that further studies are needed to shed more light on their findings and hypotheses.
This is not the first time that the subject of gender differences in individual carbon footprints has been studied. A UK study published in the journal Plos One at the end of 2021 estimated that men pollute 41% more than their female counterparts, primarily due to their consumption of meat.
Another study published the same year, this time in Sweden, showed that men produce around 16% more greenhouse-gas emissions than women – again, mainly due to their appetite for meat and greater consumption of fuel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
2 days ago
- Malay Mail
Floating babies, cosmic radiation and zero-gravity birth: What space pregnancy might actually involve
LONDON, July 24 — As plans for missions to Mars accelerate, so do questions about how the human body might cope. A return trip to the red planet would give more than enough time for someone to become pregnant and even give birth. But could a pregnancy be conceived and carried safely in space? And what would happen to a baby born far from Earth? Most of us rarely consider the risks we survived before birth. For instance, about two thirds of human embryos do not live long enough to be born, with most losses happening in the first few weeks after fertilisation; often before a person even knows they're pregnant. These early, unnoticed losses usually happen when an embryo either fails to develop properly or to implant successfully in the wall of the womb. Pregnancy can be understood as a chain of biological milestones. Each one must happen in the right order and each has a certain chance of success. On Earth, these odds can be estimated using clinical research and biological models. My latest research explores how these same stages might be affected by the extreme conditions of interplanetary space. Microgravity, the near-weightlessness experienced during spaceflight, would make conception more physically awkward but probably wouldn't interfere much with staying pregnant once the embryo has implanted. However, giving birth, and looking after a newborn, would be far more difficult in zero gravity. After all, in space, nothing stays still. Fluids float. So do people. That makes delivering a baby and caring for one a much messier and more complicated process than on Earth, where gravity helps with everything from positioning to feeding. At the same time, the developing foetus already grows in something like microgravity. It floats in neutrally buoyant amniotic fluid inside the womb, cushioned and suspended. In fact, astronauts train for spacewalks in water tanks designed to mimic weightlessness. In that sense, the womb is already a microgravity simulator. But gravity is only part of the picture. Radiation Outside Earth's protective layers, there's a more dangerous threat: cosmic rays. These are high-energy particles — 'stripped-down' or 'bare' atomic nuclei — that race through space at nearly the speed of light. They're atoms that have lost all their electrons, leaving just the dense core of protons and neutrons. When these bare nuclei collide with the human body, they can cause serious cellular damage. Here on Earth, we're protected from most cosmic radiation by the planet's thick atmosphere and, depending on the time of day, tens of thousands to millions of miles of coverage from the Earth's magnetic field. In space, that shielding disappears. When a cosmic ray passes through the human body, it may strike an atom, strip its electrons, and smash into its nucleus, knocking out protons and neutrons and leaving behind a different element or isotope. This can cause extremely localised damage — meaning that individual cells, or parts of cells, are destroyed while the rest of the body might remain unaffected. Sometimes the ray passes right through without hitting anything. But if it hits DNA, it can cause mutations that increase the risk of cancer. Even when cells survive, radiation can trigger inflammatory responses. That means the immune system overreacts, releasing chemicals that can damage healthy tissue and disrupt organ function. In the first few weeks of pregnancy, embryonic cells are rapidly dividing, moving, and forming early tissues and structures. For development to continue, the embryo must stay viable throughout this delicate process. The first month after fertilisation is the most vulnerable time. A single hit from a high-energy cosmic ray at this stage could be lethal to the embryo. However, the embryo is very small — and cosmic rays, while dangerous, are relatively rare. So a direct hit is unlikely. If it did happen, it would probably result in an unnoticed miscarriage. Pregnancy risks As pregnancy progresses, the risks shift. Once the placental circulation — the blood flow system that connects mother and foetus — is fully formed by the end of the first trimester, the foetus and uterus grow rapidly. That growth presents a larger target. A cosmic ray is now more likely to hit the uterine muscle, which could trigger contractions and potentially cause premature labour. And although neonatal intensive care has improved dramatically, the earlier a baby is born, the higher the risk of complications, particularly in space. On Earth, pregnancy and childbirth already carry risks. In space, those risks are magnified — but not necessarily prohibitive. But development doesn't stop at birth. A baby born in space would continue growing in microgravity, which could interfere with postural reflexes and coordination. These are the instincts that help a baby learn to lift its head, sit up, crawl, and eventually walk: all movements that rely on gravity. Without that sense of 'up' and 'down,' these abilities might develop in very different ways. And the radiation risk doesn't go away. A baby's brain continues to grow after birth, and prolonged exposure to cosmic rays could cause permanent damage — potentially affecting cognition, memory, behaviour and long-term health. So, could a baby be born in space? In theory, yes. But until we can protect embryos from radiation, prevent premature birth, and ensure babies can grow safely in microgravity, space pregnancy remains a high-risk experiment – one we're not yet ready to try. — Reuters
Malay Mail
4 days ago
- Malay Mail
Astronomers spot hidden companion star orbiting blazing Betelgeuse
PARIS, July 22 — Since at least the time of the ancient Egyptians, people across the world have gazed up in awe at Betelgeuse, one of the brightest stars blazing in the night sky. Now astronomers have discovered that this red supergiant, known to many as the hunter's shoulder in the Orion constellation, is being orbited by a much smaller companion star, a study said on Monday. It is not the first time Betelgeuse has surprised stargazers. Seemingly out of nowhere, the giant star dramatically dimmed for five months between 2019 and 2020, leading some scientists to suggest it could soon die in an epic supernova explosion. Further observations revealed that this event — known as the 'Great Dimming' — was actually caused by material ejected from the surface that cooled part of the star, creating a dust cloud that blocked its light. But scientists could still not explain why Betelgeuse's brightness changes regularly, both on a 400-day cycle and another that lasts nearly six years. In a paper titled 'A Buddy for Betelgeuse' published in December, some researchers theorised that the longer variation could be caused by a hidden small star orbiting the behemoth. Astronomers using the Gemini North telescope in Hawaii have now discovered this elusive companion, according to a new study in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. Little buddy This companion has a mass around 1.5 times greater than our Sun, the research estimated. That means it is dwarfed by Betelgeuse, which is 1,000 times bigger than the Sun. The companion star is around four times the distance from Betelgeuse as the Earth is from the Sun, which is quite close for a stellar companion. The discovery is the first time such a close companion star has been detected orbiting a supergiant, according to a statement from the US research centre NOIRLab, which operates the Gemini Observatory. Betelgeuse is more than 10,000 times brighter than the Sun, its blinding light making spotting anything nearby difficult. Steve Howell, a Nasa scientist who led the research team, said previous 'papers that predicted Betelgeuse's companion believed that no one would likely ever be able to image it'. However the Gemini North telescope was able to spot the much smaller, dimmer star using a technique called speckle imaging. This involves assembling many images taken with short exposure times to overcome the distortions that Earth's atmosphere causes ground-bound telescopes. According to Greek myth, the giant hunter Orion claimed he would kill all the world's beasts, so Earth goddess Gaia sent a scorpion to kill him. God king Zeus then turned both Orion and the scorpion — Scorpius — into constellations. Earlier, ancient Egyptians included Betelgeuse in the constellation Osiris, their god of the dead. Even earlier, research has suggested that Indigenous Australians included Betelgeuse in their own constellations — and had noticed the star's varying brightness. — AFP
Malay Mail
17-07-2025
- Malay Mail
UK births first ‘three-parent babies' in world trial to stop inherited genetic diseases
PARIS, July 17 — Eight healthy babies have been born in the UK using a new IVF technique that successfully reduced their risk of inheriting genetic diseases from their mothers, the results of a world-first trial said Wednesday. The findings were hailed as a breakthrough which raises hopes that women with mutations in their mitochondrial DNA could one day have children without passing debilitating or deadly diseases on to the children. One out of every 5,000 births is affected by mitochondrial diseases, which cannot be treated, and include symptoms such as impaired vision, diabetes and muscle wasting. In 2015, Britain became the first country to approve an in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) technique that uses a small amount of healthy mitochondrial DNA from the egg of a donor – along with the mother's egg and father's sperm. Some have called the result of this process 'three-parent babies', though researchers have pushed back at this term because only roughly 0.1 percent of the newborn's DNA comes from the donor. The results of the much-awaited UK trial were published in several papers in the New England Journal of Medicine. 'Important reproductive option' Out of 22 women to undergo the treatment at the Newcastle Fertility Centre in northeast England, eight babies were born. The four boys and four girls now range from under six months to over two years old. The amount of mutated mitochondrial DNA – which causes disease – was reduced by 95-100 percent in six of the babies, according to the research. For the other two newborns, the amount fell by 77-88 percent, which is below the range that causes disease. This indicates the technique was 'effective in reducing transmission' of diseases between mother and child, one of the studies said. The eight children are currently healthy, though one had a disturbance of their heart's rhythm which was successfully treated, the researchers said. Their health will be followed up over the coming years to see if problems arise. Nils-Goran Larsson, a Swedish reproductive expert not involved in the research, hailed the 'breakthrough'. The new technique offers a 'very important reproductive option' for families affected by 'devastating' mitochondrial diseases, he added. Ethical review Mitochondrial donation remains controversial and has not been approved in many countries, including the United States and France. Religious leaders have opposed the procedure because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Other opponents have expressed fears it could pave the way for genetically engineered 'designer babies'. An ethical review carried out by the UK's independent Nuffield Council on Bioethics was 'instrumental' in conducting the new research, the council's director Danielle Hamm said Wednesday. Peter Thompson, head of the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which approved the procedure, said only people with a 'very high risk' of passing on a mitochondrial disease would be eligible for the treatment. Ethical concerns have also been raised over the use of mitochondrial donation for infertility in Greece and Ukraine. French mitochondrial disease specialist Julie Stefann told AFP that 'it is a question of the risk-benefit ratio: for a mitochondrial disease, the benefit is obvious'. 'In the context of infertility, it has not been proven,' she added. Oxford University reproductive genetics expert Dagan Wells observed that 'some scientists will be a little disappointed that so much time and effort has, so far, only led to the birth of eight children'. Among the children being closely monitored are three that showed some signs of what is known as 'reversal', which is still little understood. It is 'a phenomenon where the therapy initially succeeds in producing an embryo with very few defective mitochondria, but by the time the child is born the proportion of abnormal mitochondria in its cells has significantly increased,' he explained. — AFP
