Image by Piyapong Saydaung from Pixabay
Norgaard and York, in their paper, Gender Equality and State Environmentalism, found “that nations with higher proportions of women in Parliament are more prone to ratify environmental treaties than are other nations” (506). Recognizing the connection between women’s and nature’s oppression in ecofeminist theory, “nation states with greater gender inequality may be less environmentally responsible due to the hegemony of the logic of domination;” (i.e., all oppressions are interconnected) and “the parallel social and historical constructions of women and nature” maintain their subordination, thus limiting the potential for social change and equality (Norgaard and York 510). The presence of female political leaders increases a country’s respect for the environment. Norgaard and York further found “foreign direct investment reduces state environmentalism, …modernization and development generally lead to greater support for environmental treaties, …and capitalism is ecologically unsustainable” (Norgaard and York 513). Overall, there appears to be a pattern: valuing equality, sustainability, and evolution encourages progress for women’s rights and environmental protection. Citing Bruntland, the direct relationship between women/humanity and the environment finds “people have altered the earth, and the altered earth has changed people’s lives to an unprecedented degree” (Norgaard and York 516). What we do to the earth will come back to us. An example, continued global warming will increase human heat-related deaths. And global warming comes from the emission of greenhouse gases from many human developments (burning fossil fuels, industrialization, etc.). Social inequality has created a system which leaves diverse groups more vulnerable to natural disaster, despite the fact that they are usually the greatest champions of environmentalism. According to Norgaard and York, “women have more pro-environmental values, are more risk averse, and participate more frequently in environmental movements than men do” (514). Thus, when women are in positions of power, it “may serve to further ecological reforms” (Norgaard and York 519). In studying white men, compared to women and people of color, white men were the only ones “perceiving [environmental] risks as smaller and more acceptable” (Norgaard and York 518). This would suggest privilege limits a person’s view of reality’s complexity, a sort of end result of standpoint theory: one’s perspective is shaped by personal experience, and when white men have not experienced harm like people of color or women, they are not as able to connect to environmental damage, as they are unlikely to be those most affected: to recall Hobgood-Oster, early ecofeminist academia suggest “patriarchal cultural structures revolved around layers of symbol systems that justified domination” (4). When men in power, making decisions, are unaware of the relationships between women and nature, there is a greater likelihood of harm, causing environmental and women’s suffering. In order to combat further environmental/social distress, there needs to be greater parliamentary representation for women and environmentalists who can champion the issues of each party.
Two examples of Norgaard and York’s thesis on the connection between women in political power and state environmentalism include 1) Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the United States: she introduced legislation for a Green New Deal in 2019, and again in 2021 (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez); and 2) Deb Haaland: an Indigenous woman and a supporter of the Green New Deal. Haaland served as Vice Chair on the Committee on Natural Resources, and has dedicated her political work to championing Indigenous issues. According to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, “for women to influence key outcomes and be taken seriously, a threshold of 30 percent women in Parliament was required” (Norgaard and York 514). Interestingly, yet disappointingly, this remains true today: according to the Center for American Women in Politics, in 2019, only 23.2 percent of House Representatives were women; in 2021, that increased to 27.6 percent, yet each time Representative Ocasio-Cortez introduced the legislation, she did not meet the UN threshold, and as predicted, the resolution did not pass (CAWP). Beyond the signing of legislation, these two women exemplify the connection between women in political power and state environmentalism through “cultural and economic circumstances” (Norgaard and York 518). According to Norgaard and York, “The finding that gender and race are both relevant in the United States suggests that environmental orientations may be linked to aspects of power and privilege” (518). Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s New Deal aimed at “reducing air and water pollution, and fighting the intertwined economic, social, racial and climate crises crippling the country” (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). Further, she fought to include “an expanded Child Tax Credit” in the American Rescue Plan, providing aid for families (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). Norgaard and York cite Bruntland, “a sense of responsibility for the future of our own children and grandchildren has always been an inherent part of human nature” (516). Supporting families through the Child Tax Credit when the country had been devastated by COVID-19, Representative Ocasio-Cortez exemplified “strong women’s leadership on environmental issues where human health is at stake” when she reintroduced her Green New Deal the following month (Norgaard and York 516). Her dedication to environmental action, and focus on how climate change impacts the most vulnerable communities emphasize care reflective of gender equality and state environmentalism: not only by her presence in congress, championing environmental issues, but through her understanding of the complex issues women face, and supporting both parties (Earth and women) simultaneously.
Deb Haaland, serving on the Committee of Natural Resources, and incorporating “Native participation in land management” in “President Biden’s designation of national monuments,” blended her focus on Indigenous women’s rights and environmental preservation, as the House committee has jurisdiction over “the care and allotment of Native American lands” (Wikipedia). This includes conservation, restoration, and mineral resources of public lands (to name a few). When she was Secretary of the Interior, she “ordered a task force to determine new names” for places on federally owned lands which used a derogatory term for Indigenous women (Wikipedia). The combination of these actions strove to move beyond America’s racist, sexist, and environmentally harmful history. Norgaard and York write, “gender and the environment may be linked across a variety of cultural and economic circumstances” (518). Haaland’s diverse background and political position allow her to champion environmental preservation and respect for women and Indigenous people.
The UN Commission on the Status of Women states, “for women to influence key outcomes and be taken seriously, a threshold of 30 percent women in Parliament was required” (Norgaard and York 514). One statistic illustrating Norgaard and York’s central thesis, “that nations with higher proportions of women in Parliament” encourages greater environmental responsibility, relates to Denmark in 2020. At this time, women made up 39.7 percent of Parliament, and in that same year, the country passed “the 2020 Climate Act into law,’ determined ‘to reduce Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions by 70 [percent] in 2030 compared to 1990 levels’ (UN Women; Climate and Clean Air Coalition). Further, in February 2024, “45.3 [percent] of seats in parliament were held by women,” and data from UN Women shows, more than 95 percent of the country’s population primarily relied “on clean fuels and technology.” As the country’s representation of women in government increased, their action on environmental issues improved. Recognizing much work is still needed to achieve gender equality, with greater inclusivity in law-making, environmental and gender issues have received more attention: “Denmark’s emissions account for just 0.1 percent of total global emissions,” and “100 [percent] of legal frameworks that promote, enforce, and monitor gender equality…are in place” (Ames; UN Women). Championing women’s rights and environmental protections is essential to global well-being; and it can be done if governments around the world prioritize the representation and integration of women and nature in government positions and policy.
Work Cited
McNamara, Ames. “Going Green in Copenhagen: Denmark’s Climate Diplomacy.” Harvard International Review (HIR), 29 January 2025. hir.harvard.edu/going-green-in-copenhagen-denmarks-climate-diplomacy/. Accessed 19 March 2025.
Norgaard, Kari and Richard York. “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism.” Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 4, August 2005, pp. 506-522; University of California-Davis; University of Oregon; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 18 March 2025.
Strumskyte, Sigita, et. al. “Women’s Leadership in Environmental Action – Abstract.” Grassroots Justice Network, 2022, 30 October 2024. grassrootsjusticenetwork.org/resources/womens-leadership-in-environmental-action/. Accessed 18 March 2025.
n.a.1 “About.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, n.d. ocasio-cortez.house.gov/about. Accessed 18 March 2025.
n.a.2 “Women in the U.S. House of Representatives 2019.” Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), n.d., 2025. cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/congress/women-us-house-representatives-2019. Accessed 18 March 2025.
n.a.3 “Women in the U.S. House of Representatives 2021.” Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), n.d., 2025. cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-house-representatives-2021. Accessed 18 March 2025.
n.a.4 “Denmark.” Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), n.d. ccacoalition.org/partners/denmark. Accessed 19 March 2025.
n.a.5 “Denmark.” UN Women, n.d. data.unwomen.org/country/denmark. Accessed 19 March 2025.
n.a.6 “Women in Politics 2020.” UN Women, 1 January 2020. unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/Women-in-politics-map-2020-en.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2025.
n.a.7 “Deb Haaland.” Wikipedia, 18 March 2025. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_Haaland. Accessed 19 March 2025.
Hi
Overall, your blog was very detailed and clear, you used evidence to guide your way through your analysis. I do believe you should have explained the value of the quotes in your own words a bit more so an outsider can have a better understanding. As many may know gender inequality / discrimination has been a recurring issue for many years but many do not know what Norgaard and York research did to help those being affected. The quote you included says “women have more pro-environmental values, are more risk averse, and participate more frequently in environmental movements than men do,”(514) This quote highlights a big difference in environment and engagement between genders. This is important because the differences can shape environmental policies, community engagement efforts, and sustainability practices in our society. I also want to touch on the first article you believed to be connected to Norgaard and Yorks research because the video in the article is a prime example on why women should be part of political / office doings. The video shows us the main themes about gender, power, and public discussion. This shows us a larger societal issue regarding how women in politics are treated, connecting to Norgaard and York research that explores the connection between social norms, environmental issues, and gender dynamics in public conversations. This article/video is very helpful and guides us to clearly describe its connection while also reflecting on the need for a more equal society. Recognizing and valuing women’s contributions in the political field is important for creating a balanced and effective governance system. Women’s perspectives and experiences are unique and inform their ideas in ways that may differ significantly from those of men.
Hi Piper,
I think your inclusion of Indigenous leadership is extremely important especially in the broader context of ecofeminism. Often times Indigenous communities have tended to the land for much longer than colonizing forces which typically do not prioritize the development and sustainability of nature as we’ve discussed in previous readings. Your example of Deb Haaland’s work reminded me of the concept of Indigenous stewardship, something I think it vital to include as we also work towards the inclusion of non men in leadership positions.
Hi Piper! Representative Ocasio-Cortez is an excellent example of what Norgaard & York were discussing in their article, well done. I also mentioned the United Nations statistic regarding 30% of women in Parliamentary proceedings in my blog this week. I found it quite interesting. I live in Massachusetts, where about 33% of our state politicians are women, and there is a strong push for climate and energy protection policy. So it appears we’re right in line with the UN’s theory that 30%+ is required to prioritize environmental protections. I haven’t explored what this looks like in other states, especially ones with little to no environmental policy beyond what is federally mandated. I wonder how they compare?
Dear Piper,
I loved reading your article about women exercising political power to protect the environment. You made a great point about the connection between women and nature, and how feminist theory recognizes the suppression of both.
I’ve seen this connection firsthand while living in rural Ghana, where I work for a big company. Unfortunately, I’ve experienced inequality in the workplace, where I do more work than some men but get paid less. Women are more vulnerable to natural disasters and environmental degradation, despite being champions of environmentalism.
As you mentioned, the relationship between women and the environment is crucial. Women are disproportionately affected by global warming, which is caused by human activities that release greenhouse gases. It’s shocking that despite this, women are not given equal representation in politics to make decisions about environmental policies.
I agree that having at least 30% women in parliament is necessary for environmental policies to be taken seriously.
Hi Piper, Your blog post provides an insightful analysis of the findings from Norgaard and York’s paper and their thesis on the link between women in political power and state environmentalism. You have done an excellent job of summarizing their core ideas, particularly their argument that countries with higher proportions of women in Parliament are more likely to ratify environmental treaties and be more environmentally responsible. Your connection of these ideas to real-world examples of female political leaders, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Deb Haaland, is compelling. Both women’s work highlights the impact women in power can have on environmental issues, from Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal and advocacy for climate justice to Haaland’s leadership in Indigenous rights and environmental preservation. The way you tied their actions to Norgaard and York’s argument about the importance of women’s leadership in shaping more sustainable and inclusive environmental policies is strong.