Feminism can’t solve climate change (but neither can anything else) – any thoughts on that?

What happens when ideology hijacks science? You will get articles like Scientific American's A recent gem, “How Feminism Can Guide Action on Climate Change.” Spoiler alert: This is another attempt to inject a political narrative into a field already overrun by bad policy, shaky science, and unworkable solutions. Feminism is the latest entrant into the climate drama, but the real show here is not how feminism saves the planet, but that the planet doesn’t need saving at all.

Premise: Climate meets gender ideology

The article argues that feminism has the tools to guide action on climate change because—wait for it—the current economic system

…rooted in the extraction of natural resources and the exploitation of cheap or unpaid labour, often by women and marginalized communities.

This strange fusion of gender politics and environmentalism is not just ridiculous; This is irrelevant. Whether an economic system “exploits labor” has nothing to do with global temperature changes. But don't expect scientific american Let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.

Here’s the reality: The models and measurements that underpin climate alarmism are rife with uncertainty. Predicting global temperatures in the coming decades requires making assumptions about everything from solar cycles to cloud dynamics to technological advances. Yet the article hits the nail on the head by arguing for the abolition of capitalism based on flawed predictions and untested theories. Feminism is just the latest garnish on this overcooked dish.

Feminist “Solutions” to Non-Existent Problems

This article lays out feminist-style solutions to the so-called climate crisis:

1. Reallocate resources: In other words: penalize industries that create value and jobs and invest those resources in vaguely defined “regeneration” projects. How this lowers global temperatures remains a mystery.
2. Representation of female voices: The authors claim that diverse representation will lead to better environmental decision-making. But here’s the thing: Climate policy based on bad science is still bad policy, no matter who proposes it.
3. Compensation and Corporation Tax: They argue that rich countries and corporations should pay reparations for the South's alleged climate sins. This ignores the fact that industrialized economies have lifted billions of people out of poverty, including those countries. Punishing success does nothing to stabilize the climate—it only hinders innovation.

None of these proposals address the glaring uncertainties in climate science. Instead, they argue that we can accurately predict the future and that draconian, economically damaging measures are the only option. Newsflash: They're not.

Selected Misery

The authors claim that climate change is disproportionately harming women, citing references such as

…Globally, climate change could push up to 158 million women and girls into poverty and 236 million women and girls into food insecurity by 2050…

Let’s put aside the implausibility of these predictions (seriously, who’s calculating poverty rates thirty years from now?). What they fail to mention is that poverty, drought and disaster affect everyone. Men, women and children suffer when economic opportunity is stifled by misguided climate policies – such as forcing developing countries to abandon cheap, reliable energy in favor of expensive renewable energy sources.

The authors also link climate change to child marriage and girls dropping out of school. It’s a masterclass in misdirection. Climate change is not the cause of these social problems—poverty and cultural norms are. Poverty increases when developing countries are told they cannot use their natural resources to fuel economic development. The feminist angle here is not just misleading; This is counterproductive.

Romanticize the unrealistic

The article flatters concepts such as “Buen Vivir” (good life), a philosophy from Bolivia and Ecuador that emphasizes harmony with nature. That sounds great, but you have to remember that Bolivia’s economy relies heavily on lithium mining—one of the most environmentally damaging industries on the planet. Lithium, by the way, is crucial for solar panels and batteries for electric cars that are favored by climate activists. The hypocrisy is almost too abundant.

Ignoring reality: The problem with climate policy

Let’s be honest: the problem is not that feminism is being used to shape climate policy. The problem is climate policy itself. The science behind catastrophic climate predictions is fraught with uncertainty. Models struggle to account for natural variability, feedback cycles and the complexity of Earth's climate system. Yet we expect to spend trillions of dollars on policies that will, at most, reduce global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree by the end of the century.

The author calls for the abolition of capitalism, the redistribution of resources, and the taxation of corporations—all under the guise of “feminist climate justice.” But even if you believe the alarmist climate narrative (which you shouldn’t), these proposals do little more than undermine the tank economy and exacerbate poverty. Ironically, the very people feminism claims to champion—women and marginalized groups—will suffer the most.

The bigger picture: Climate uncertainty

Essentially, this article once again distracts from an inconvenient truth: climate policy is meaningless because the underlying science is far from settled. We don't know what the climate will be like in 10 years, let alone 100 years from now. Betting the global economy on unreliable models and untested policies is not only reckless, it is wrong. This is not necessary.

Instead of embracing uncertainty and focusing on resilience, climate activists are doubling down on their dogma. Now they drag feminism into the debate, hoping that a veneer of social justice will hide the flaws in their arguments. Spoiler alert: This is not the case.

Conclusion: Feminism won’t save the climate, and neither should we

The real point of this article is not that feminism can guide climate change action, but that climate change action needs no guidance at all. Uncertainties in climate science make comprehensive policies pointless at best and destructive at worst. Feminism may have been a worthy cause in its own right in its early days, but there was no reason for it to be shoehorned into this debate. Frankly, neither does any other ideology.

Rather than wasting time on “feminist climate justice” frames, perhaps it’s time to accept a simpler truth: The climate will continue to change, as it has always done. Our focus should be on adapting to these changes rather than indulging in ideological fantasies. Anything else is just talk.

Relevant