That's amazing and well-deserved, well done Christine and IFS team!!

📄 And much more in the full working paper, available here:
www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminst... (12/12)

🎯 Policy takeaways? Climate policy could:
- Acknowledge gender gaps as they may drive climate policy costs and support
- Target norms (masculinity ≠ meat/car) (11/12)

📉 If men adopted carbon intensity of women, keeping quantities constant, 🇫🇷 would cut 13 MtCO₂= 3x what’s required annually in food & transport to meet 2030 targets (10/12)

👨‍👩‍👧 Household structure matters.

- Food: women in couples eat more like men ➡️ convergence
- Transport: men in couples (esp. with kids) emit way more ➡️ specialization (9/12)

✈️ Planes? No gender gap. Suggests gendered preferences, not climate concern, drive red meat and car emissions
➡️ 🧠 Gendered norms could play a role here. Our findings align with studies linking masculinity to:
- red meat consumption
- car usage (8/12)

For 🥩, women simply eat less of it as a % of their diet.

For 🚙, it’s not so much that women use it less, but:

- Their car trips have a higher occupancy rate
- Based on singles, they own less carbon-intensive cars
..which decreases their emissions relative to men (7/12)

🔍 Digging further…We additionally adjusting for calories eaten and km traveled, partly reflecting biological differences and on the labor market.

🥩 Red meat and 🚙 car usage account for 70%–100% of the remaining gender gap. (6/12)

The gap decreases to 18% once we adjust for socio-economic differences between men and women (age, education, household income, employment status) (5/12)