How Are Women, the Government and the Environment Connected?

           There is a distinct connection        between women, representation in government and what this means for the environment. We have already stated that ecofeminism is not a “one definition” theory for discussion, but according to Hopgood-Oster “ecofeminism asserts that all forms of oppression are connected” (Hopgood-Oster, page 1). This puts forth the premise that ecofeminism is very much intersectional. She moves forward to say that in order to confront the oppression of women, the oppression of the environment must be confronted as well – “Oppression of the natural world and of women by patriarchal power structures must be examined together or neither can be confronted fully” (Hopgood-Oster, page 1).

Norgaard and York findings show that the nation states that have more gender equality in their governments are more likely to legislate and pass pro-environment legislation. According to their findings in what they call an “unequal society” gender biased legislations the environmental degradation “fall disproportionately on the least powerful”  in which “women have been uniquely and  disproportionately affected by ecological destruction.” (Norgaard and York. page 507).  The least powerful people that Norgaard and York are referring to, are women. We can see the ill effects on women from environmental neglect in both the Global North and Global South. Women in the Global North oftentimes take the resources that they have at their disposal for granted, for example regular access to water. One way that environmental neglect effects women of the Global North, especially in the U.S., is the scarce access to clean and renewable energy – the use of toxic chemicals and fossil fuels can cause vast health issues for women. And the women of the Global South are disproportionately effected by the environmental degradation is by their undue access to water. Accessing water in the global south falls particularly on the shoulders of women and girls which involves strenuous labor and not only makes water access difficult but also can put them harms way of physical assault because lack of water access can, and often, makes the use of toilets and baths nonprivate.

Norgaard and York present that a generation of feminists theorists are arguing that the state is both capitalists and and patriarchal and have described the state as a gendered process (page 507). This is supported by the lack of attention that is paid to the environment with states that are lacking women in their governments. It is only logical that, since it is proven that women tend to be more progressive on policies that are about the environment, governments that begin to include women as “equal members of society” with equal voting rights and representation within policy making  would see a boost in positive state influence regarding the environment (Norgaard and York, page 508). As Norgaard and York stated, the state is both capitalist and patriarchal – and on order to give women more representation in policy making it would require less men in policy making. Which would thus begin to close the gender gap with government and dismantle the patriarchy, and in order to keep the patriarchy alive and thriving, women must be kept second class and disproportionately under represented and therefore the environment becomes extremely under represented. When thinking in this viewpoint it is very easy to draw the conclusion that the under representation of the environment and pro-environment policy making in government is a not only a direct act of violence on the environment but also on women. This is because the lack of effort into clean and renewable energy only enhances the effort into dangerous energy sources that can cause undue health hazards on women. One example of health hazards that are implicated on women and girls due to lack on pro environmental actions, and also the expansion of the patriarchy at the expense of women and girls,  is women and girls working in factories that have dangerous working conditions due to the presumption that they are less likely to rise and organize when toxic materials are exposed to them and also dumped within communities (Norgaard and York, page 510).

One source that examines the connections between health concerns on women’s bodies and the environment is the National Library of Medicine. In which they state that “Climate change exacerbates women’s distinct health needs, particularly during pregnancy where maternal health and nutrition is vital to the developing fetus and infant” and also “women … generally have a domestic role in the household, exposing them to poor air quality through inappropriate gases used during cooking and poor ventilation of the cooking area” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8414962/

In conclusion of their research Norgaard and York show that “clearly nation states with a greater proportion of women in Parliament, controlling other factors, typically are more prone to environmental treaty ratification than other nations.” (Norgaard and York page 519). Given this statement, when not examining treaties specifically, it would only be fair to presume that nations with more women in representation would be more inclined to protect the environment through active legislation and activism. The reasons for this presumption given by Norgaard and York are that women “have more pro-environmental values, are more risk averse, are more likely to participate in social movements, typically suffer disproportionately from environmental degradation,  and sexism and environmental degradation can be mutually reinforcing processes (Norgaard and York, page 519).

One example of an organization that aligns with the viewpoints placed by Norgaard and York is WEDO. WEDO (Women’s Environment and Development Organization) is an organization founded on principle as “A global women’s advocacy organization for a just world that promotes and protects human rights, gender equality, and the integrity of the environment.” (https://wedo.org/) While the whole organization is devoted to women’s involvement in the environment, I want to highlight their program – Women’s Leadership: The Women’s Delegates Fund. (https://wedo.org/what-we-do/our-programs/women-delegates-fund/) Like Norgaard and York they believe the premise that must participate in government and legislation to make environmental change. WEDO operates on the principle that “Women’s equal participation in climate change decision-making is fundamental to just policies that reflect and respond to the needs of the global community. 

Pictured is New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is a leading activist within the U.S. Congress for climate initiatives – she is known for her vast support of the Green New Deal. Which has to goal of transforming our energy system to 100% renewable energy and also create 20 million jobs to solve the climate crisis that we are facing

Another organizations that aligns with Norgaard and York is OneEarth.org. Particularly their article entitled, “Why Women are the key to solving the climate crisis”. (https://www.oneearth.org/why-women-are-key-to-solving-the-climate-crisis/).  Particularly this article states the women make up 51% of the population, but make up 80% of those displaced by the climate crisis. This aligns with Norgaard and York as it concurs that women are disproportionately effected by environmental degradation. It also moves on the say that women are the key leaders in social and environmental movements. One example given of women influences governmental decision in regards to the environment is that of the Dakota Access Pipeline. When “LaDonna Brave Bull Allard ignited a global movement opposing its construction. In July 2020, a federal judge sided with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and ordered a full environmental analysis, and in 2021 the pipeline was officially scrapped”. This action by by LaDonna proves that women are a force in the environmental crisis we are facing and this concurs with Norgaard and York in that women are not only more pro-environment but are also more productive in that arena.

One statistic that would coincide with the provided image is that of our U.S. Congress. In the 118th U.S. Congress women make up just about 28%. Women also make up more of the democratic party at 41% than the republican party at 16%. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/01/03/118th-congress-has-a-record-number-of-women/ This is not at all surprising considering the republican party is the party of the patriarchy. And according to rachelsnetwork.org where voting records going back to 1983 were examined and it was found that women in Congress vote for legislation supporting clean air, clean water, renewable energy, climate action, and public health much more often than their male counterparts (and similarly vote more often against legislation that would roll back these protections). and they also make the premise that “If we want to make progress on protecting the environment and public health, we should help elect more women to public office, and support them during their tenure.”  (https://whenwomenlead.rachelsnetwork.org/) Through this link you will be able to see statistics on the voting records of women versus men when it comes to climate initiatives. One statistic shows that ” In the US House of Representatives, women have had higher average environmental scores in every year that LCV has kept records. Women’s average annual score from 1972-2022 is 69.4 while men’s is 45.6. ” (this source uses the LCV [League of Conservation Voters] Environmental Scorecard Data)