Energy


Chapter 2 GLOBAL GENDER AND ENVIRONMENT OUTLOOK Biomass health impacts


2008). In fact, no clear gender pattern in energy use has emerged from field studies. The findings of a study systematically analyzing energy consumption in single- person households in Sweden showed that single men with no children used 20% more energy than women in a similar family situation, and that men used substantially more energy for transport than women. In all income groups the energy intensity of men’s expenditures was higher than that of women. For men 40% of total energy use was attributable to transport, while the corresponding figure for women was 25% (Carlsson-Kanyama et al. 2010). In contrast, according to a study in the United States there was 80% higher energy consumption in female-headed households in Texas than in male-headed ones. This is ascribed to the likelihood that female-headed households were in older and less energy-efficient houses; to a widely reported preference by women for higher ambient temperatures in their houses; and to more frequent cooking and clothes and dish washing by women. The study concludes that targeting women in their intrinsic role within the household could be a promising step towards raising awareness of energy efficiency (Elnakat and Gomez 2015).


Concerning energy use in the transport sector, gender differences seem fairly consistent across countries. Since transport is a great and growing source of pollution (producing 23% of overall CO2 emissions globally with a high growth rate), it is useful to look at these differences (Kahn et al. 2007). A recent study in Spain reflects almost universal findings that women make greater use of more sustainable (walking and public) transport than men in both urban and rural areas: in urban municipalities in the Spanish study 48% of women’s trips were made by walking and by public transport, compared to 34% and 19%, respectively, of men’s trips; in rural areas fewer women used private transport than men (62% and 75%, respectively). The study concluded that the modal asymmetry between women and men is structural and related to masculinity expressed in relation to private transport and the “performance” of gender in everyday life (Miralles- Guasch et al. 2015).


Energy and health 90


Energy production and use have a number of health dimensions. Gender differences in health outcomes are shaped by how women and men use energy, and how they are exposed to the related emissions.


Cooking and heating with solid fuels (wood, charcoal, crop waste, dung and coal) produces high levels of indoor air pollution, especially particles, that can lead to a wide range of child and adult diseases, including acute and chronic respiratory conditions such as pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (WHO 2015). A 2012 WHO assessment reported that people in low- and middle-income countries had the highest mortality rate associated with household air pollution (HAP) from solid fuel use for cooking.


Exposure to household air pollution from biomass burning kills nearly 4 million people per year (Figure 2.3.7). Millions more suffer from cancer, pneumonia, heart and lung disease, blindness and burns, while smoke from cooking fires is associated with cataracts, the leading cause of blindness in the world (GACC 2013). The premature deaths of more than 2 million women and children annually due to household air pollution are directly related to use of solid fuels for cooking and heating (Prüss-Ustün et al. 2016; WHO 2014b; GACC 2013). Women spend more time cooking than men, and in the case of unsafe fuels and stoves they are more exposed to smoke from cooking with solid fuels. In the premature deaths of almost 2 million men associated with HAP other factors such as smoking also play an important role (WHO 2014c). The first step towards cleaner and safer use of fuels is to move away from the use of open fires to better cooking technologies, including improved cookstoves.


In addition to biomass, waste including plastics is often burned, emitting additional hazardous fumes and increasing negative health impacts (WECF n.d.).


The extent to which the use of such fuels is dangerous depends on how they are used (Sacks et al. 2011). For example, if animal dung is burnt directly it produces hazardous emissions, but if it is used to produce biogas in a digester it becomes a modern and safe cooking gas. In the past kerosene was considered a cleaner fuel than biomass, but this is now known to be untrue. Kerosene burning emits health-damaging particulate matter, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde. In some countries, including Eritrea, Indonesia, Maldives and Nigeria, 20-40% of households cook with kerosene (SE4All2015).


The physical burden of collecting, transporting and processing solid fuels also creates significant health


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