Is GreenTech Too Girly?

Plug-in hybrids, windmills, and clothes lines? Dude, that stuff is for chicks, right?

All glibness aside, a new survey of what Americans believe about the climate crisis -- and why -- reveals that a majority of those surveyed consider the issue to be more soft and feminine than strong and burly.

"It's culturally "macho" to dismiss global warming as a problem and solving problems (including global warming) is perceived as feminine," the authors note. "To the extent men are concerned, climate is about the cost and other tradeoffs involved in solving the problem."

The American Climate Values Survey, released earlier this month by marketing and research nonprofit ecoAmerica, examines current environmental values and motivations. SRI Consulting Business Intelligence conducted the study with sponsorship from Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, the California Department of Conservation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and The Nature Conservancy.

While women have a more positive view of being environmentally friendly, the researchers conclude, "men are less concerned about global warming and more likely to think that addressing it will entail negative personal and economic consequences."

"In every respect, women in general are much more aligned with environmental and climate values than men," the authors conclude. "They are more aware, more concerned, more motivated and more likely to see global warming solutions as opportunities."

Meanwhile, in the current energy debate, drilling for oil and gas, and mining for coal -- the planet-heating "business as usual" strategies championed by John McCain and Sarah Palin -- are viewed as far more manly and macho. "They resonate well with people who have a masculine cultural perspective," the report says.

The research is intended to help green-leaning non-government organizations craft more effective climate messages and behavior-change campaigns. It suggests that social marketers might consider injecting a little horsepower into the climate-solutions conversation.

Global warming solutions such as 'green tech' don't have a tough edge. They are seen as soft - more feminine. Being 'tender' can be an obstacle. Given that 'finding solutions' is perceived as culturally feminine, finding and framing arguments with macho appeal is key to communicating with a broader swath of Americans. This is an important marketing challenge - 'real men' need to fight global warming too."

Prediction: Watch for the next "We Can Solve It" spot to feature the all-electric 248 horsepower Tesla Roadster, blazing down a lonely highway. All they'd need to do is dub in a little old-fashioned engine rumble.

James Glave is the author of Almost Green: How I Saved 1/6th of a Billionth of the Planet (Skyhorse Publishing, $25). He blogs at glave.com.

Follow James Glave on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesglave

Comments

[Lesscancer]

Its all in asking the question..
Men are interested in green practices when they hear of the link between pollutants and abnormal sexual development sterility and erectile dysfunction-
Endocrine disruptor's for one example are the hormone acting pollutant that scientist are finding are altering the genitals of fish ..
In interest of being a manly its a good idea to be interested in the environment---

Bill Couzens Founder Less Cancer

[rjmiller]

Simple solution: discuss the technology more. Technology is culturally seen as a masculine pursuit ("boys and their toys").

[CanisLatrans]

"Finding solutions" may be culturally feminine, but "Fixing problems" is more masculine. Isn't that an ongoing problem in the communications between the sexes? Women mention something that bugs them, and men instinctively try to fix the problem even though all the women wanted was to air her concerns? Maybe if women can couch the problem in a way that will make men want to "fix it" so he can "provide" we'd be better off.

I embraced green tech early on, ironically, because I see it as something with great "masculine" promise-- being in the military, I see electric, hybrid, and other fuel-easy vehicles as ideal for a variety of tactical and strategic reasons. They are quieter (stealthy), they have increased range due to fuel-sipping qualities (tactical flexibility), they require fewer vulnerable fuel tankers in the supply chain (strategic enhancement) and the less we use foreign oil, the more we enhance our own security.

Men who don't get on board the potential "tough potential" of green power are dinosaurs.

[lelandpalmer]

It's all about billions of tons of carbon -

Can We Bury Global Warming? http://www.climate-change.ir/en/CO2%20Capture%20and%20Storage.pdf

Carbon capture and storage technology, if applied to carbonized biomass (charcoal), can actually start scrubbing the air of CO2. Quoting from the above link: ".....But biomass power can do better: if carbon capture equipment were added to these facilities and the harvested biomass vegetation were replanted, the net result would be to scrub the air of CO2...."

There is enough agricultural and forest waste available in the U.S. to replace much of the coal we now burn: http://www.ahc.caf.wvu.edu/lit/billion_ton_vision.pdf

Carbon dioxide, instead of being compressed and deep injected, can also be sequestered as a carbonate, which mimics the current natural process the earth uses to sequester CO2: http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/carbonates.pdf

If we just stop producing CO2, by switching massively to solar and wind power, I don't think myself that this will be sufficient to stop runaway global warming: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1

At this point, to stop runaway global warming, we have to sequester billions of tons per year of carbon, either by deep injection or by mineral carbonation, I think. Green tech is good, but only seizing the coal fired power plants and converting them to biomass fuel plus carbon sequestration will stop this runaway warming, I think.

[FreeEnergy]

This past year the exorbitant cost of fuel has seriously damaged our economy.Af­ter filling up the family vehicles and paying more for every consumer product whose cost of production and shipping was passed on to us there was little left over to save, invest or spend. So, we tighten our belts , cut out some extras, buy only the bare min. That sadly in turn results in more job losses. OPEC has us over a barrel literally.­WE reduce our use they in turn just cut production by 1.5 million barrels a day and vow to cut more if they don't get the price results they want.Our country needs to invest in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The 168 Billion they paid out in the last stimulus pkg that did nothing at all for our economy would have gone a long way toward getting us started on the road to energy impendence. I highly recommend Jeff Wilson's new book The Manhattan Project of 2009. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in seeing America become more energy independent.

[mouselion]

So it's too feminine to plow a field, prune trees in the dead of winter, wire up an inverter for solar-power, use your back to do conservation work to your or public land?

I guess it's more macho to be driving your SUV to McDonald's for fake food before you sit down in your easy-chair to watch highly-paid athletes that you live vicariously through because you have no motivation to get out and do something real.

Wonder which type the women cited in the survey would prefer -- the beer-bellied macho-types, or the girlie green-types with naturally conditioned abs from actually working (not to mention their superior intellect for actually thinking, using their brains)?