Women in Congress get higher scores on environmental issues

A new report from Rachel’s Network, a nonprofit that focuses on women and environmental issues, finds that women legislators are far more likely to vote in favor of legislation that protects or preserves the environment. The research, based on an analysis of the League of Conservation Voters scorecards for members of the U.S. House and Senate from 2006–2018, found that the average LCV score for women senators was 71 compared to 46 for their male counterparts. In the House, women on average scored 70 while men scored 43.

The results demonstrate that female legislators vote in favor of legislation that aims to address environmental concerns with greater frequency than their male counterparts. “The take-home message is clear: We need more women in office to solve our environmental challenges,” said Rachel’s Network President Fern Shepard. “Since our organization has a 501(c)4 [an arm of a nonprofit that can endorse and support candidates], Rachel’s Action Network, we’ve been able to apply this information in our own work by endorsing candidates, helping train women to run for office, and running digital ads for women in strategic races.” Shepard noted that this work is especially important in primaries.

Currently women hold 127 seats in Congress, making up roughly 24 percent of the House and Senate. The report, When Women Lead, makes it clear that the lack of gender parity in Congress has severe environmental implications. "Gender parity in all aspects of our society will not only be a good thing for equality but will help to address environmental concerns as well,” said Rachel’s Network Communications Manager Erica Flock.

Craig Auster, League of Conservation Voters senior director of political affairs, agreed: “When Women Lead makes it clear that there are real differences in policy outcomes for the environment, and beyond, because of the persistent underrepresentation of women in elected office. If we want better environmental policies, we need to elect more women.”

The LCV scores are calculated based on each representative’s voting record on key pieces of legislation. “The scorecard represents the consensus from about 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which members of Congress should be scored,” Auster explained. “LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including energy, climate change, public health, public lands and wildlife conservation, and spending for environmental programs.” Elected officials’ position on each of the key votes determined their overall LCV score.

The data in the report is consistent with conclusions made by other groups investigating the relationship between gender and the environment, which overall tend to find that women have a higher level of concern about the environment and are more likely to take personal action to help such as recycling or driving vehicles with high gas mileage. A 2016 survey from Pew Research Center found that 47 percent of male registered voters considered climate change one of their most important voting issue, while 57 percent of female registered voters considered it one of their top issues. The Institute for Women’s Policy research found that women are less likely to support cuts to funding for environmental programs. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication in November 2018 conducted a survey looking at gender differences in views of global climate change and found that women perceive greater risk from global climate warming and express more support for policy change to combat it.

When Women Lead also serves to challenge other environmental groups to overcome gender gaps in their leadership and focus on the intersections of gender and environment when addressing climate concerns. “I hope the report reminds voices in the environmental community to not forget about women in this space,” said Flock. “We should be hiring more women on staff, endorsing them in a primary, putting more resources towards women who are running.” This push for female leadership in environmental organizations is also needed on the global environmental stage. At the 2014 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru, women’s participation was far lower than 50 percent across government delegates, bureau members, and NGO representatives. Of the government delegates, 36 percent were women. Of the bureau members, 27 percent. NGOs were the closest to equitable, with women making up 45 percent of the representatives.

When leadership is more equitable and women are included in decision-making processes that impact them, the environment benefits. Examples of this include local forest management groups in India and Nepal, where the inclusion of women in principal decision-making groups resulted in significantly greater improvements in forest condition; decision-making groups that consisted of only women showed better regeneration than other groups, despite starting with forests that were more highly degraded Another study looking at female CEOs and gender-diverse boards of Fortune 500 companies in the United States found that companies with gender-diverse leadership teams are more successful in pursuing environmentally beneficial initiatives.

When Women Lead aims to change mainstream opinions about the intersection of women and the environment by encouraging more women to run for office and calling on environmental organizations to support female legislative candidates. “We hope that the report will encourage other environmental organizations to show up for women and that legislators and citizens will take action with groups like Represent Women, Vote Run Lead, and IGNITE,” said Shepard. “We list a number of actions people can take at the bottom of the report webpage. Ultimately, we want to see a lot more women in office because we are nowhere close to political parity and we don’t have time to waste. 

The connection between women and the environment goes beyond women serving as legislators. There is evidence that climate change disproportionately harms women. A study investigating the impact of natural disasters on life expectancy found that women’s life expectancy is lowered more than that of men by the occurrence of a natural disaster. A comprehensive report from the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security lays out how an environmental consequence like water scarcity can have far-reaching repercussions for women that spread beyond the immediate scope of impact, eventually impacting maternal health, education, economic independence, and female farmers. In addition, addressing women’s rights often has positive environmental implications: For example, where women have increased access to reproductive health care, they have greater control over the number of children they have and when they have them, likely over time slowing the rate of population growth — a significant contributor to climate change. While this is not the primary reason to provide women with the access to reproductive health care that they deserve, the benefits to the environment do have the potential to aid in attempts to mitigate climate change.

Flock hopes that in addition to getting more women elected to public office, the report will help to center women in discussions of environmental issues and lead to better understanding of the importance of women’s leadership for the environment.