Energy


Chapter 2 GLOBAL GENDER AND ENVIRONMENT OUTLOOK


Women may have more difficulty than men in recovering from dislocation. If compensation by governments or companies for large-scale project displacement includes consideration for lost employment, women who work in the informal sector and do not have an official employment record will have no basis for a formal claim. Construction of large energy installations often provides employment to local people. Although there has been little research on this topic, given patterns in other labour sectors – in industrialized countries 65- 90% of all part-time workers are women (ILO and EU 2011; ILO 1995) – if women are hired they are likely to make up a greater share of the informal and part-time workers such projects require. To the extent that jobs are not covered by labour regulations and inspections, these women are more likely to be exploited.


Women’s entrepreneurship in small-scale energy service delivery


In both developed and developing countries, women’s best chance of becoming involved in sustainable energy provision is at the community level. Many women-led sustainable energy initiatives in the community energy sector have been successful. Business models for small- scale energy production range from consignment arrangements, to linking of entrepreneurs to micro- financing institutions (possibly through the use of loan guarantee funds, which lowers the risk for financing institutions), to women individually or in groups manufacturing or assembling devices (sometimes as part of family businesses), to women’s networks raising awareness of, for example, policy, options, pricing and safety. The primary objective of many of these initiatives is to empower women entrepreneurs. A continuing challenge is that not as many women as men have obtained lasting employment in the renewable energy sector, partly because of persisting ideas about gender roles (Hanson and Peek 2014).


Gendered perceptions of energy technology choices


A wide range of research reveals that women are less positive than men about emerging and possibly risky energy technologies (Clarke et al. 2013).


Nuclear energy: The views of women and men on the use of nuclear energy differ considerably, as shown in several studies (Box 2.3.3).


Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”): Similar results have been found in attitudes to hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) to extract natural gas trapped in shale formations. Studies, mainly in the United States where a large share of global fracking takes place, show considerable demographic differences in support for fracking, chief among them a sizeable gender gap: in 2014, 46% of men were in favor of increased fracking, compared with only 33% of women (Figure 2.3.6) (Pew Research Center 2015; Boudet et al. 2014; Brasier et al. 2013).


Some evidence suggests that women also show more support than men for the transition to renewable energy. In Australia wind power was preferred by more women (76%) than men (60%); according to the same survey, women were slightly more likely to favour solar power (Hasham 2015). Even when asked to take higher energy prices into account, women in Germany were more in favour of the transition to renewable energy (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband 2013).


Gender equality in the development and choice of technologies


Technologies to enable a transition to better household energy solutions have often proved unsatisfactory when the specific needs of women (as the main users, in their traditional roles) were not taken into


Box 2.3.3: Gender differences in views on nuclear power 88


In a European Union survey more women than men said nuclear energy should provide a lower share of overall energy production (EC 2007). In the United Kingdom the level of support for building new nuclear power stations showed a 40% discrepancy, with considerably more men wanting to see new power plants built (Populus 2011). In Canada the gender preference gap on this topic was 17 percentage points in 2003; an assertive campaign by the nuclear industry led to a higher level of acceptance by both women and men in 2005, but the gender difference remained constant (Brissette 2006). In the United States in 2015, 54% of men and 36% of women favoured building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity. In Australia in the same year, 19% of men favoured nuclear power as one of three energy preferences compared with 8% of women (Hasham 2015).


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220  |  Page 221  |  Page 222  |  Page 223  |  Page 224  |  Page 225  |  Page 226  |  Page 227  |  Page 228  |  Page 229  |  Page 230  |  Page 231  |  Page 232  |  Page 233  |  Page 234  |  Page 235  |  Page 236  |  Page 237  |  Page 238  |  Page 239  |  Page 240  |  Page 241  |  Page 242