Connect with us

Published

on

von Lena Westphal (Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement)

Immer häufiger stellt sich heraus, dass in vielen Bereichen im Leben keine Gleichberechtigung zwischen Frau und Mann besteht. Dies hat oft auch den Grund, dass die Forschung zu bestimmten Themen, die für Frauen relevant sind, rückschrittig ist bzw. sich gerade erst aufbaut. So ist bekannt, dass die Klimakrise mehr negative Auswirkungen auf Frauen als auf Männer hat. Der vierte Gleichstellungsbericht des Bundes greift dieses Thema als Fokusthema mit der Bezeichnung „Gleichstellung in der sozial-ökologischen Transformation“ auf.

Disclaimer: In diesem Blogartikel wird von dem Familienmodell Frau, Mann, evtl. Kind(er) gesprochen und sich auf ein binäres Geschlecht bezogen. Ich bin mir bewusst, dass es natürlich und zum Glück (!) viele verschiedene Familienmodelle und Geschlechter gibt und möchte darauf hinweisen, dass beispielsweise alleinstehende, alleinerziehende, Frauen mit einer Behinderung, Trans*frauen oder Frauen in einer gleichgeschlechtlichen Beziehung noch härter von den Auswirkungen der Klimakrise betroffen sind als heterosexuelle Cis-Frauen.

So nimmt die Marginalisierung von LGBTIQ+Personen beispielsweise im Katastrophenfall zu. Sie erfahren beim Zugang zu Wasser, Lebensmitteln, Gesundheitsversorgung und Notunterkünften häufig Diskriminierung.

*** English version below ***

Frauen sind gesundheitlich stärker von den Auswirkungen des Klimawandels betroffen als Männer, da sie häufiger mit Hitzesymptomen wie Kopfschmerzen, Leistungsabfall und Schlafstörungen zu kämpfen haben. Auch in der Schwangerschaft kann es durch Hitzewellen, die von der Erderwärmung ausgelöst werden, zu Komplikationen und sogar Frühgeburten kommen. Auch die Ressourcenverknappung, etwa bei Lebensmitteln, hat mehr Auswirkungen auf die Frau, da ihre Überlebenswahrscheinlichkeit geringer ist als bei Männern. So waren 2023 im Hitzesommer 75 Prozent aller Verstorbenen weiblich.

Es gibt auch gesellschaftliche und politische Gründe, warum Frauen stärker von der Erderwärmung betroffen sind. Das klassische Rollenbild einer Frau, das immer noch Teil unserer Gesellschaft ist, sieht vor, dass sich Frauen zunächst erstmal um andere kümmern und erst zum Schluss um sich selbst. Frauen leisten weltweit mehr Care-Arbeit (= Sorgearbeit oder Pflegearbeit) als Männer.

Abbildung 1: Symbolbild für Care-Arbeit (Quelle: Spiegel.de)

Die Ungleichverteilung von Sorge- und Haushaltsaufgaben erschwert es Frauen, sich an die Auswirkungen des Klimawandels anzupassen. So haben sie meistens einen schlecht bezahlten Job in der Familie und sind somit abhängig von ihrem Partner. Ihnen bleibt insgesamt auch weniger Zeit, sich ausreichend über den Klimawandel und dessen Folgen zu informieren.

Insgesamt sei betont, dass es sich hierbei nicht nur um Probleme der Frauen im globalen Süden handelt, sondern es ein weltweites Problem ist. Nach dem Wirbelsturm Katrina in den USA 2005 haben beispielsweise mehr Frauen als Männer aufgrund von Care-Arbeit ihren Job aufgegeben, damit sie sich besser um ihre Familien kümmern konnten.

Frauen arbeiten auch häufiger in Pflegeberufen und sind hier einem direkten Infektionsrisiko ausgesetzt, was die Corona-Pandemie bereits bestens gezeigt hat. Die Klimakrise wird langfristig für weitere und häufiger auftretende Pandemien sorgen und hier werden dann auch wieder Frauen einem erhöhten Infektionsrisiko ausgesetzt sein, da sie vermehrt an vorderster Front in systemrelevanten Berufen arbeiten. Pandemien sorgen zusätzlich dafür, dass die Gleichstellung von Frau und Mann wieder gefährdet wird, da sich Frauen auch eher um das Homeschooling der Kinder kümmern als Männer.

Mehr als zwei Drittel der Studien (68 Prozent) zeigen, dass Frauen durch den Klimawandel größeren Gesundheitsrisiken ausgesetzt sind. Das Kreisdiagramm zeigt die Ergebnisse von 130 Studien über Klimawandel und Gesundheit: 89 Studien kamen zu dem Ergebnis, dass Frauen stärker betroffen sind als Männer, 30 Studien kamen zu dem Ergebnis, dass Männer stärker betroffen sind als Frauen, und 11 Studien kamen zu dem Ergebnis, dass es keinen Unterschied in der Betroffenheit von Männern und Frauen gibt. Weltweit sind Frauen häufiger als Männer von klimabedingter Ernährungsunsicherheit betroffen und leiden nach extremen Wetterereignissen auch häufiger unter psychischen Erkrankungen oder Gewalt in der Partnerschaft.

Abbildung 2: Quelle: Carbonbrief.org

Weltweit sind Frauen insgesamt stärker von Armut betroffen und verfügen über weniger Geld oder Besitz als Männer. Im globalen Süden haben Frauen tendenziell weniger Landbesitz, weniger Zugang zu landwirtschaftlichen Produktionsmitteln wie Geräten, Saatgut oder Dünger, aber auch weniger Kapital.

Aufgrund der zunehmenden Trockenheit verlängert sich die Strecke bis zu den Wasserquellen. Die Wasserversorgung ist in vielen Kulturen Frauensache und meistens essen und trinken Männer zuerst, sodass am Ende kaum noch etwas für die Frauen übrigbleibt, obwohl diese das Wasser, aufgrund ihrer Menstruation, dringend benötigen. Durch die weiteren Wege, machen sich die Frauen häufig schon im Dunkeln auf den Weg oder kehren erst nachts zurück, wodurch sie einem erhöhten Risiko von sexualisierter Gewalt ausgesetzt sind.

Frauen werden früher zu Hausarbeit, wozu auch das Heranschaffen von Wasser gehört, herangezogen. Sie haben dadurch weniger Zeit und Gelegenheit, Bildung zu erlangen, wenn die Wege zu den Wasserstellen immer weiter werden.

Die Lebensmittel werden aufgrund klimatischer Veränderungen insgesamt knapper. Frauen in ärmeren Ländern sind eher dem Risiko zu hungern ausgesetzt als Männer, da die knappe Nahrung eher an sie verteilt wird.

Auch politisch gesehen haben Frauen einen Nachteil. In selbstversorgenden Familien führt die Politik dazu, dass sich diese Familien auf immer schlechteren Böden durchschlagen müssen. Sobald Männer die Familien als “Klimaflüchtlinge” verlassen, müssen die hinterbliebenen Frauen ihre Familien alleine versorgen, was sie noch angreifbarer macht.

Kommt es zu Extremwetterereignissen verletzen sich oder sterben Frauen sogar häufiger als Männer. Vor allem in Ländern, in denen Frauen einen niedrigeren sozioökonomischen Status haben, gehen diese selten ohne männliche Begleitung aus dem Haus, tragen Kleidung, die die Bewegungsfreiheit bei möglichen Überflutungen sehr einschränkt und werden später vor Klimakatastrophen gewarnt. Während die Männer bei der Arbeit sind, kümmern sich Frauen zu Hause um die Familie und den Haushalt. Oft können Frauen auch nicht schwimmen, was die Flucht bei Überschwemmungen nahezu unmöglich macht. So waren 2004 bei dem Tsunami in Südostasien 70 Prozent der Todesopfer Frauen.

Als 1991 der Zyklon “Gorki” an der Küste von Bangladesch wütete, kamen neunmal mehr Frauen ums Leben als Männer. Bei den verheerenden Buschbränden 2009 in Australien wollten sich doppelt so viele Frauen als Männer in Sicherheit bringen. Und als 2016 in Kenia wegen einer schweren Dürre zwei Millionen Menschen hungern mussten, waren es jeweils die Frauen, die als letzte Lebensmittel erhielten.

Hinzu kommt, dass klimawandelbedingte Katastrophen häufig die Versorgung mit Mitteln der Familienplanung und den Zugang zu gynäkologischen Untersuchungen oder Geburtshilfe einschränken.

Als wäre das nicht alles schon genug, steigt auch die sexualisierte Gewalt gegenüber Frauen. Zwangsheiraten könnten im globalen Süden wieder zunehmen, weil die Klimakrise den Zugang zu Bildung und Hilfsangeboten stark negativ beeinflusst. Es kommt zu Ernteausfällen, junge Frauen werden vermehrt zu Hause gebraucht, um die Familien zu unterstützen und werden häufiger jung verheiratet oder gegen Vieh verkauft. Es kommt auch dazu, dass (junge) Frauen zu Prostitution gezwungen werden. Dies hat dazu geführt, dass im südlichen Afrika, aufgrund von Dürreperioden, die HIV-Infektionen gestiegen sind. All diese “Maßnahmen” werden von den Familien durchgeführt, um das fehlende Einkommen zu kompensieren und die restliche Familie vor Hunger zu schützen.

Selbst wenn Frauen in Notunterkünften unterkommen, sind sie dort vermehrt Gewaltdelikten ausgesetzt und haben nahezu keine Privatsphäre.

Gerade weil Frauen stärker vom Klimawandel betroffen sind, nehmen sie den Klimawandel stärker als Bedrohung wahr als Männer. Sie setzen sich mehr für den Klimaschutz ein und fordern auch mehr politische Maßnahmen und sind auch bereit, mehr Geld dafür auszugeben. So war es ab dem 20. August 2018 Greta Thunberg, die in Schweden die „Schulstreiks für’s Klima“ startete und damit weltweit die “Fridays For Future”-Bewegung loslöste.

Abbildung 3: Greta Thunberg vor dem schwedischen Reichstag in Stockholm (Quelle: Tagesschau.de)

In Deutschland ist vor allem Luisa Neubauer für ihren Aktivismus bekannt und setzt sich auf Demos oder in Talkrunden vor allem mit männlichen Politikern auseinander. Generell sind überproportional viele Frauen an der Protestbewegung beteiligt.

Abbildung 4: Luisa Neubauer und heutiger Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz 2020 bei Markus Lanz
(Quelle: Utopia.de)

Frauen haben insgesamt einen klimafreundlicheren Lebensstil. Sie essen weniger Fleisch und fahren weniger Auto. Oft ist das aber keine bewusste Entscheidung, da sie weniger befugt sind, einen umweltbelastenden Lebensstil zu führen. Eine französische Studie fand vor kurzem heraus, dass Männer 26 Prozent mehr CO₂-Emissionen verursachen als Frauen. Während auf Männer jährlich 5,3 Tonnen CO₂ zurückgehen, sind es bei Frauen 3,9 Tonnen. Die Bereiche Verkehr und Ernährung machen zusammen rund die Hälfte eines durchschnittlichen CO₂-Fußabdruckes aus.

Viele argumentieren, dass Männer mehr Kalorien oder Fleisch benötigen oder allein durch ihren Job mehr CO₂ verbrauchen als Frauen. Dies konnte die Studie allerdings widerlegen. Rechnet man alle sozioökonomischen, biologischen und gesellschaftlichen Unterschiede heraus, bleibt immer noch ein Geschlechterunterschied von 18 Prozent. Für diese restlichen 18 Prozent konnten die Forscher:innen keine Erklärung bieten.

In Ländern, in denen Frauen politisch mehr Mitspracherecht haben, ist jedoch auch die CO₂-Belastung geringer und das Interesse an strukturellen Veränderungen größer. Außerdem zeigen Frauen in ihrem Alltag mehr Engagement, etwa beim Einkauf, bei der Arbeit, bei politischen Wahlen oder beim Engagement in ihren privaten Bereichen.

Leider ist es bisher weltweit so, dass kaum Frauen an den politischen Entscheidungen mitwirken können, da sie bei beispielsweise Klimakonferenzen immer noch unterrepräsentiert sind. Ihre Bedürfnisse werden von den männlichen Entscheidungsträgern stets vernachlässigt. Dementsprechend hätte es einen großen Einfluss, wenn Frauen mehr zu sagen hätten und häufiger bei Entscheidungen beteiligt werden.

Seit Jahrzehnten warnen Expert:innen, dass klassische Geschlechterrollen die Menschen anfälliger für extreme Wetterereignisse machen. Politische Entscheidungsträger haben diese Warnungen lange ignoriert. Heute sind sie gezwungen umzudenken und sich zu fragen, wie sich Ungleichheiten abbauen lassen, die sich anderenfalls immer weiter zu verstärken drohen.

Die Klimakrise bedroht vor allem arme Bevölkerungsschichten, die keinen politischen Einfluss haben. Die meisten Frauen haben kein Mitspracherecht, wenn es um die Diskussion um die Verwendung und Nutzung von Ressourcen oder um grundlegende Entscheidungen geht.

Abbildung 5: Quelle: Dgvn.de

Im Pariser Klimaabkommen von 2015 haben sich die Staatsoberhaupte darauf geeinigt, die globale Erderwärmung auf durchschnittlich 1,5 Grad Celsius über dem vorindustriellen Niveau zu begrenzen. Die Unterzeichner:innen einigten sich zudem auch auf einen “geschlechtergerechten” Ansatz bei der Anpassung an den Klimawandel. Dieser sollte sich an den besten verfügbaren wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen orientieren.

Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen, müssten die Systeme verändert werden, die noch immer an alten Ungleichheiten festhalten. Machtverhältnisse müssen neu gedacht werden. Dies würde bedeuten, dass Reichtum und Ressourcen weltweit gleichmäßiger verteilt werden müssen und es eine gerechtere Mitbestimmung und Beteiligung bei umweltpolitischen Themen gibt.

Bisher gibt es allerdings wenig Belege für diesen Wandel, weshalb die Ungleichheit immer noch Tagesordnung ist. Die Beteiligung von Frauen an Anpassungsprojekten ist sehr selten und auch in der nationalen Klimapolitik werden die Bedürfnisse von Frauen nicht genug beachtet.

Die Geschlechtergleichheit wird aber immerhin in vielerlei Hinsicht angestrebt. So ist es beispielsweise eines der 17 Ziele der Sustainable Development Goals (kurz: SDG’s). Durch die UN-Klimakonferenzen gründeten sich auch zwei transnationale Netzwerke: das zivilgesellschaftliche GenderCC – Women for Climate Justice und die Global Gender and Climate Alliance (GGCA).

Abschließend muss jedoch betont werden, dass das persönliche Konsumverhalten von Frauen und Männern einen nicht so großen Einfluss auf das Klima hat wie Unternehmen. Rund 100 Unternehmen machen weltweit bereits 70 Prozent der Treibhausemissionen aus. Somit haben Politik und Wirtschaft den größeren Einfluss.

Außerdem gibt es auch Momente, in denen Männer stärker vom Klimawandel bedroht sind, als Frauen. Dies ist allerdings die Seltenheit. Ein Beispiel ist aber, dass Männer, aufgrund ihres klassischen Rollenbildes, bei Waldbränden länger in ihrem Haus bleiben, um es zu “beschützen”, während sich die Frauen mit dem restlichen Teil der Familie in Sicherheit bringen. Dies ist u. a. auf die toxische Männlichkeit zurückzuführen, aufgrund derer dieses Verhalten von Männern erwartet wird. Dieser Faktor ist natürlich auch nicht gesund. Allerdings ist bewiesen, dass der Klimawandel zu einseitig naturwissenschaftlich und damit stark stereotyp männlich diskutiert wird. Frauen leiden somit insgesamt mehr unter den Folgen der Klimakrise und viele dieser Folgen wurden durch patriarchle Strukturen verursacht.

*** English version ***

Climate crisis: women more affected than men

by Lena Westphal (Sustainability Management)

It is becoming increasingly apparent that in many areas of life there is no equality between women and men. This is often due to the fact that research on certain topics that are relevant to women is lagging behind or is only just beginning to develop. For example, it is known that the climate crisis has more negative effects on women than on men. The federal government’s fourth Gender Equality Report takes up this topic as a focus theme with the title “Equality in the socio-ecological transformation”.

Disclaimer: This blog article refers to the family model of woman, man, possibly child(ren) and refers to a binary gender. I am aware that there are of course and fortunately (!) many different family models and genders and would like to point out that, for example, single women, single parents, women with a disability, trans* women or women in a same-sex relationship are even harder hit by the effects of the climate crisis than heterosexual cis women.

For example, the marginalization of LGBTIQ+ people increases in the event of a disaster. They often experience discrimination when it comes to access to water, food, healthcare and emergency shelters.

Women’s health is more affected by the effects of climate change than men, as they are more likely to suffer from heat-related symptoms such as headaches, reduced performance and sleep disorders. Heatwaves caused by global warming can also lead to complications and even premature births during pregnancy. The scarcity of resources, such as food, also has a greater impact on women, as they are less likely to survive than men. In 2023, for example, 75 percent of all deaths in the heatwave summer were female.

There are also social and political reasons why women are more affected by global warming. The classic role model of a woman, which is still part of our society, is that women first take care of others and only then take care of themselves. Worldwide, women perform more care work than men.

Figure 1: Symbolic image for care work (source: Spiegel.de)

The unequal distribution of care and household tasks makes it difficult for women to adapt to the effects of climate change. They usually have a low-paid job in the family and are therefore dependent on their partner. Overall, they also have less time to inform themselves sufficiently about climate change and its consequences.

Overall, it should be emphasized that this is not just a problem for women in the Global South, but a worldwide problem. After Hurricane Katrina in the USA in 2005, for example, more women than men gave up their jobs due to care work so that they could take better care of their families.

Women also work more frequently in care professions and are directly exposed to the risk of infection, as the coronavirus pandemic has already shown. The climate crisis will lead to further and more frequent pandemics in the long term, and women will again be exposed to an increased risk of infection, as they are increasingly working at the front line in systemically relevant professions. Pandemics also ensure that gender equality is once again at risk, as women are also more likely to homeschool their children than men.

More than two thirds of the studies (68 percent) show that women are exposed to greater health risks as a result of climate change. The pie chart shows the results of 130 studies on climate change and health: 89 studies came to the conclusion that women are more affected than men, 30 studies came to the conclusion that men are more affected than women, and 11 studies came to the conclusion that there is no difference in the extent to which men and women are affected. Globally, women are more likely than men to be affected by climate-related food insecurity and are also more likely to suffer from mental illness or intimate partner violence following extreme weather events.

Figure 2: Source: Carbonbrief.org

Worldwide, women are generally more affected by poverty and have less money or property than men. In the global South, women tend to own less land, have less access to agricultural production resources such as equipment, seeds or fertilizer, but also less capital.

Due to the increasing drought, the distance to water sources is increasing. In many cultures, water supply is a matter for women and men usually eat and drink first, so that in the end there is hardly anything left for the women, even though they urgently need the water due to their menstruation. Due to the longer distances, women often set off in the dark or only return at night, which exposes them to an increased risk of sexualized violence.

Women are called upon to do housework earlier, including fetching water. As a result, they have less time and opportunity to gain an education as the distances to water points become ever longer.

Food is becoming scarcer overall due to climatic changes. Women in poorer countries are more at risk of starvation than men, as the scarce food is more likely to be distributed to them.

Women are also at a political disadvantage. In self-sufficient families, the policy means that these families have to eke out a living on increasingly poor soil. As soon as men leave their families as “climate refugees”, the women left behind have to support their families alone, which makes them even more vulnerable.

When extreme weather events occur, women are injured or even die more often than men. Particularly in countries where women have a lower socio-economic status, they rarely leave the house without a male companion, wear clothing that severely restricts their freedom of movement in the event of flooding and are later warned of climate disasters. While men are at work, women are at home taking care of the family and the household. Women often cannot swim either, which makes it almost impossible for them to escape in the event of flooding. In the 2004 tsunami in South East Asia, for example, 70 percent of the fatalities were women.

When Cyclone “Gorki” hit the coast of Bangladesh in 1991, nine times more women lost their lives than men. During the devastating bushfires in Australia in 2009, twice as many women tried to flee to safety as men. And when two million people went hungry due to a severe drought in Kenya in 2016, it was women who were the last to receive food.

In addition, climate change-related disasters often limit the supply of family planning resources and access to gynecological examinations or obstetric care.

As if that wasn’t enough, sexualized violence against women is also on the rise. Forced marriages could increase again in the Global South because the climate crisis is having a major negative impact on access to education and aid. There are crop failures, young women are increasingly needed at home to support their families and are more often married off young or sold for livestock. (Young) women are also forced into prostitution. This has led to an increase in HIV infections in southern Africa due to periods of drought. All these “measures” are carried out by families to compensate for the lack of income and to protect the rest of the family from hunger. Even if women are accommodated in emergency shelters, they are increasingly exposed to violence and have almost no privacy.

Precisely because women are more affected by climate change, they perceive climate change as more of a threat than men. They are more committed to climate protection and also demand more political measures and are prepared to spend more money on them. It was Greta Thunberg, for example, who launched the “School Strikes for the Climate” in Sweden on August 20, 2018, thereby triggering the “Fridays For Future” movement worldwide.

Figure 3: Greta Thunberg in front of the Swedish Parliament in Stockholm (Source: Tagesschau.de)

In Germany, Luisa Neubauer in particular is known for her activism and mainly confronts male politicians at demonstrations or in talks. In general, a disproportionately high number of women are involved in the protest movement.

Figure 4: Luisa Neubauer and current Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz 2020 on Markus Lanz
(source: Utopia.de)

Overall, women have a more climate-friendly lifestyle. They eat less meat and drive less. However, this is often not a conscious decision, as they are less empowered to lead an environmentally harmful lifestyle. A French study recently found that men cause 26 percent more CO₂ emissions than women. While men are responsible for 5.3 tons of CO₂ per year, the figure for women is 3.9 tons. The transport and food sectors together account for around half of an average CO₂ footprint.

Many argue that men need more calories or meat or consume more CO₂ than women simply because of their job. However, the study was able to disprove this. If all socio-economic, biological and social differences are factored out, there is still a gender difference of 18 percent. The researchers were unable to provide an explanation for this remaining 18%.

However, in countries where women have a greater political say, carbon pollution is also lower and interest in structural change is greater. Women also show more commitment in their everyday lives, for example when shopping, at work, in political elections or in their private lives.

Unfortunately, women have hardly been able to participate in political decisions worldwide to date, as they are still underrepresented at climate conferences, for example. Their needs are always neglected by male decision-makers. Accordingly, it would have a major impact if women had more say and were more frequently involved in decision-making.

For decades, experts have warned that traditional gender roles make people more vulnerable to extreme weather events. Political decision-makers have long ignored these warnings. Today, they are forced to rethink and ask themselves how inequalities can be reduced, which otherwise threaten to become ever more pronounced.

The climate crisis primarily threatens poor sections of the population who have no political influence. Most women have no say when it comes to discussions about the use and utilization of resources or fundamental decisions.

Figure 5: Source: Dgvn.de

In the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015, the heads of state agreed to limit global warming to an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The signatories also agreed on a “gender-responsive” approach to adapting to climate change. This should be based on the best available scientific knowledge.

In order to achieve this goal, the systems that still hold on to old inequalities must be changed. Power relations need to be rethought. This would mean that wealth and resources must be distributed more evenly worldwide and that there must be fairer co-determination and participation in environmental policy issues.

So far, however, there is little evidence of this change, which is why inequality is still the order of the day. The participation of women in adaptation projects is very rare and women’s needs are not sufficiently considered in national climate policy.

However, gender equality is still being pursued in many respects. For example, it is one of the 17 goals of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs for short). The UN climate conferences also led to the establishment of two transnational networks: the civil society GenderCC – Women for Climate Justice and the Global Gender and Climate Alliance (GGCA).

Finally, however, it must be emphasized that the personal consumer behavior of women and men does not have as great an impact on the climate as companies. Around 100 companies already account for 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Politics and business therefore have the greater influence.

There are also times when men are more threatened by climate change than women. However, this is a rarity. One example, however, is that men, due to their traditional role model, stay longer in their house during forest fires to “protect” it, while women take the rest of the family to safety. This is partly due to toxic masculinity, because of which this behavior is expected of men. This factor is of course not healthy either. However, it has been proven that climate change is discussed too one-sidedly in scientific terms and thus in a strongly stereotypically male way. Women are therefore suffering more overall from the consequences of the climate crisis and many of these consequences were caused by patriarchal structures.


Inhaltliche Quellen:

Quellen Abbildungen:

Klimakrise: Frauen stärker betroffen als Männer

Continue Reading

Ocean Acidification

Does Eating Plastics Really Kill Ocean Animals?

Published

on

The ocean has long been the end of the pipe for plastic pollution, with ocean wildlife bearing the brunt of the overproduction and overconsumption of single-use plastics. The world now produces more plastics than at any point in history—hundreds of millions of tons each year—and more than 11 million metric tons are flowing into the ocean annually. That is equivalent to more than a garbage truck’s worth of plastics entering our ocean every minute.

How does plastic kill ocean animals?

When swallowed, these plastics can be deadly—causing blockages, twisting organs or even puncturing organ walls. Ingested plastics have been found in nearly 1,300 ocean animal species, including every family of mammals and seabirds, and all seven species of sea turtles. Concern about the ecological implications of plastic-induced death rates has fueled calls for policy solutions at every level of government, from the local to the international. However, it is hard to set policy goals without understanding the measurable risk plastic ingestion poses to these species.

Ocean Conservancy scientists, along with top researchers at the University of Toronto, Federal University of Alagoas in Brazil and the University of Tazmania, worked together to answer the question: how much plastic is too much? They sought to determine how much ingested plastic is likely to cause death in seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals. In other words, we sought to figure out the actual number of pieces and volume of macroplastics (plastics greater than 5 milimeters) that those animals must have in their gut to cause death 90% of the time.

Get Ocean Updates in Your Inbox

Sign up with your email and never miss an update.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Name(Required)







By providing your email address, you consent to receive emails from Ocean Conservancy.
Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

This field is hidden when viewing the form
Email Opt-in: Selected(Required)

How much ingested plastic does it take to kill an ocean animal?

We compiled data from more than 10,000 necropsies—animal autopsies—of seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals collected between the years 1900 and 2023 where we knew both the cause of death and whether and how much plastic the animal had eaten.

The results were alarming. We were surprised by the very small amount of plastic it takes to kill a seabird. We found that rubber (the kind balloons are made from) is the deadliest form of plastic to seabirds when ingested. It only takes six small pieces of rubber—each, on average, smaller than a pea in size—to kill a seabird.

Sea turtles are also surprisingly vulnerable, given their massive size: Less than half a baseball’s worth of plastics is likely to kill one in two Loggerhead turtles. Shockingly, nearly half of all sea turtles in our database had plastics in their guts at their time of death, which is especially troubling when you consider that five of the world’s seven sea turtle species are International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red-listed as threatened.

Our models found that marine mammals are especially vulnerable to the impacts of lost fishing debris, also known as ghost gear; when swallowed, with just 28 pieces—each smaller than a tennis ball—enough to kill a sperm whale. Additional key findings from our research for each of the animal groups we studied include:

  • Seabirds
    • About 35% of seabirds in our dataset had plastic in their digestive tracts.
    • Roughly 5% of seabirds who had plastics in them died specifically from plastic ingestion.
    • Hard plastics were consumed more frequently than all other material types, followed by soft plastics, fishing debris, rubber and foams.
    • When a seabird consumes only three pieces of rubber, like balloon shreds, our models predict there is a 50% chance this consumption will lead to the animal’s death.
  • Marine Mammals
    • In marine mammals, fishing debris was the most frequently ingested plastic material, followed by soft plastics, rubber, hard plastics, foam and cloth.
    • Roughly 12% of marine mammals in our dataset had plastic in their digestive tracts.
    • Nearly 6% of marine mammals from our dataset with plastics inside died as a result of eating those plastics. 
    • When a marine mammal consumes just 12 pieces of soft plastic—like grocery bags—our models predict a 50% chance this action will lead to the animal’s death.
    • Half a soccerball’s worth of soft plastic (by volume) is enough to kill 90% of individuals in most seal, sea lion, dolphin and porpoise species. 
  • Sea Turtles
    • In sea turtles, soft plastics like grocery bags were found to be the most frequently ingested plastic material, followed by fishing debris, hard plastics, foams, rubber and cloth.
    • Nearly 50% of individual sea turtles in our dataset had plastic in their digestive tracts
    • About 9% of turtles that ingested plastic in our dataset died as a result of eating it. 
    • Over 4% of all turtles in our dataset died directly from plastic ingestion. 
    • Just 1.5 golf ball’s worth of plastic (by volume) is enough to kill 50% of adult loggerhead sea turtles.

What can this research do?

This research emphasizes the risks macroplastic pollution poses to the life of marine animals, and the risk varies by species and plastic type. Our findings provide key insights to inform future research and policy actions aimed at reducing plastic pollution and the harm it causes to ocean wildlife and ecosystems. These results also underscore that important interventions like beach cleanups and better management of plastic waste are critical for protecting marine species. Because some types of plastics are deadlier than others when swallowed by marine life, policies targeting those specific items (e.g., plastic bags and balloons) can play an important role in protecting vulnerable species from the harms of plastic pollution in the future.

It is imperative to tackle the global plastics crisis by taking actions at all levels, from local to federal to international. In the U.S., bills like the REUSE Act—bipartisan legislation that would require examination and enhancement of existing reuse and refill systems—is just one way to make a difference. Add your name now and call on lawmakers to support and pass the REUSE Act.

Map of sea turtles, seabirds and marine mammals depicting the amount of ingested plastic that would cause death in 9 of 10 individuals, based on our models. It does not suggest that all of these species DO ingest plastic, as some have not been studied for it directly; rather, it shows that IF plastics are ingested, these amounts would likely lead to the animal’s death

The post Does Eating Plastics Really Kill Ocean Animals? appeared first on Ocean Conservancy.

Does Eating Plastics Really Kill Ocean Animals?

Continue Reading

Ocean Acidification

FYORD Travel Grant Reports: November 2025

Published

on

Hi! I am Riel Carlo O. Ingeniero from the Chemical Oceanography Department at GEOMAR. I recently had the opportunity to attend ICON 9 (International Conference on Nitrification and Related Processes) last July 2025, one of the leading conferences focused on advances in the nitrogen cycle. It was an honour to be selected to present my research twice – first during the Early Career Workshop on the opening day, and then through a poster presentation on the second day of the main conference.

ICON 9 brought together many of the most prominent names in marine nitrogen cycle research. I was fortunate to meet and engage with inspiring scientists, including Dr. Boran Kartal, Dr. Hanna Marchant from the Max Planck Institute in Bremen, Dr. Claudia Frey from the University of Vienna, Dr. Scott Wankel from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Dr. Bo Thamdrup from the University of Southern Denmark, and Dr. Qixing Ji from HKUST. I also had the chance to see Dr. Bess Ward in person, someone whose work I’ve long admired.

The conference was hosted by the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in Bremen, a place that holds deep personal significance. I first visited it 13 years ago during a DAAD International Summer School Biodiversity: Diversity of Ecosystems, Genes, and Species at the University of Osnabrück. That visit, including a tour of the Max Planck Institute and MARUM led by Prof. Dr. Rudolf Amann, played a pivotal role in my decision to pursue a career in marine science.

I recently completed my doctorate at Kiel University in June this year, and I am incredibly grateful for the excellent education and world-class research environment that Germany offers. Under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Hermann W. Bange and funded by the DAAD Research Grants – Doctoral Programmes in Germany and the SO305-BIOCAT-IIOE2 project, I have had the opportunity to work on cutting-edge research in marine biogeochemistry, with a particular focus on nitric oxide (NO) dynamics in the ocean.

Presenting in front of over 100 participants during the ICON 9 was not only a rewarding experience but also excellent preparation just days before my doctoral defense and oral examination. Overall, ICON 9 was a meaningful and inspiring milestone, a full-circle moment in my scientific career. 

Special thanks to FYORD and Kiel Marine Science for supporting my growth as an early-career marine scientist.

Riel Carlo


ICP is a conference with a unique size and structure. It takes place only every three years, and everyone in the field is looking forward to the meeting – indeed, it rather feels more like a “big get-together” than a conference. The program is linear, with one topic per day and no parallel sessions. This allows for focus and provides more room for discussions. I also had the feeling that this format is more comfortable for Early Career Scientists. You don´t have to plan a lot in advance, and you never feel like you´re missing out on anything. But perhaps the best way to capture the spirit of ICP is to take you on a walk through a typical day:

The days started with a short ride in one of the green-yellow tuk-tuks to the conference venue, which was located in one of the few green spots of the city on the campus of the Indian Institute of Science. The mornings were covered by talks by invited speakers. Actually all talks at ICP are only given by invited speakers, and you can only be selected for a talk once in a lifetime! Accordingly, we were able to enjoy some excellent presentations. Before lunch, there was a long plenum discussion with the five speakers from the morning. It was not only a great opportunity to hear different opinions on specific sub-topics, but also to show the connections between different talks, highlighting the most urgent research topics and gaps different groups are currently working on.

During lunch break, we could choose between a variety of typical Indian foods. Even though the chefs took care that the food was not too spicy for the foreign wimps, you never knew if you would sweat after the next bite. The highlight was definitely the daily Dosa, a South Indian speciality: It´s a thin, savory and crispy fried pancake made from fermented dough served with chutneys and sambars.

Long poster-sessions took place in the afternoons. All posters were put up during the whole week, which is also a big difference from huge conferences, where you usually just have a slot of one day or a few hours. It was enough time to look at the other posters, get inspired and exchange ideas. I also presented a poster with the results of the first two years of my PhD, in which I investigate climatically controlled changes in sedimentation at a site in the Southern Ocean close to Antarctica. We were able to link these changes on glacial-interglacial time scales with the ocean circulation and gain insights into the evolution of deep-water formation during times of rapid warming. Onall days, I had fruitful discussions about my work with experts in the field.

Each day was concluded with a perspective lecture by leading scientists fromthe different fields. These lectures were inspiring and an amazing summary, as they provided a broader context and deep insights into challenges and directions of palaeoceanographic research.

With the end of the scientific program, networking was not over yet, but had just started. The evenings offered a great opportunity to approach people and get into contact in a casual atmosphere. Whether at the icebreaker, conference banquet or at the Palaeomusicology Concert – another ICP tradition, which goes back to Nicholas Shackleton, paleoceanographer and skilled clarinet player. It´s an evening where the musical ones among the scientists show their skills. Singing, bagpipes, and even a small spontaneously formed band made the evening unforgettable!


My name is Igor Duarte, and I am a third-year PhD student at the Marine Symbiosis Lab, where we explore the origins and molecular novelties of close associations between bacteria and marine animals. The partnership I am mostly focused on in my PhD is between a free-living, mouthless flatworm from the genus Paracatenula, and the chemosynthetic bacteria from the genus Candidatus Riegeria that live inside its cells. In this system where no mouth is present to let nutrients in, the bacteria and are chemosynthetic, which means. After hundreds of millions of years of coevolution, this highly specialised symbiosis is now the only way by which each of these organisms can survive, and a topic of high interest to understand the evolution of such longstanding partnerships.

The FYORD Travel Grant programme supported my participation in the Gordon Research Conference (GRC) in Animal-Microbe Interactions, which this year took place in Portland, Maine, USA. Throughout the five days of the Conference, about 180 attendees from all over the world shared their main findings from the field of symbiosis, including the topics microbiome, intracellular microorganisms, parasitism, and evolution and molecular novelties of symbiotic associations. Additionally, the event was combined with a Gordon Research Seminar, which allowed early-career researchers to network more freely and exchange experiences from each one’s PhD and postdoctoral trajectories. I had the opportunity to present a poster entitled “Clade-specific genome evolution of Ca. Riegeria, the obligatory endosymbiont of a mouthless flatworm”, where I summarised the latest results from my PhD project.

What I liked most about participating in this conference was how nicely it was conceptualised, with the goal of creating a relaxed environment to foster relevant connections between new and veteran attendees. In such a set-up, not only was I introduced to cutting-edge methods which are being used to answer relevant questions from the field, but I also had the opportunity to discuss them directly with the authors. Another positive aspect was that the speakers were encouraged to share problems that they faced during their experiments to show what real science looks like and to showcase how such issues can be overcome. Overall, I believe the conference was a game-changer for my PhD as I could get to know the main researchers in the field, whom I had so far only read about, and build the feeling of being part of a diverse community of symbiosis-enthusiasts.

Igor

FYORD Travel Grant Reports: November 2025

Continue Reading

Ocean Acidification

Drifting in the Post-PhD Current

Published

on

Delivering

Five years into my PhD and I still wasn’t done. To be fair, I hadn’t exactly had an easy ride, starting just weeks before COVID lockdowns were announced, becoming a mother in my second year, and trying to build a new model system from scratch (Pipefish and their male pregnancy are adorable, but they don’t always make life easy). My work was trial and error, and it took me more than a year just to find a story worth telling. But eventually, the words came together. I had a draft for my first chapter. It was written! Only… was it enough? Basic research with no direct application, no flashy headline — just curiosity-driven science. Many of us know that creeping voice: does this even matter?

So, instead of calling it finished, I dove into one more dataset. In a rush of determination, I moved back into my old childhood bedroom at my parents’ house, spending days and nights analysing, writing, rewriting. By mid-November I had a plan: “Done by Christmas.”

Of course, life had other ideas. A hand surgery in between (note to future PhDs: don’t do that with a deadline). But somehow, even with one hand and one finger sticking out of a cast, I wrote. Introduction. Synthesis. Outlook. Acknowledgements.

By Christmas I wasn’t done, but close. My mother stepped in to take care of my daughter while I revised paragraph after paragraph under the Christmas tree. And then, in early January 2025, the moment came: university reopened, I submitted my dissertation, and it was gone. Done. Crazy. For two days, I let myself breathe and celebrate. Then reality hit: only six weeks until my defence.

Defending

Days passed and my defence presentation kept growing. Twenty slides, then thirty, then sixty. Every time I thought it was enough, I added more — extra data, backup information. Not because I wanted to show it all, but because I wanted to be ready for those tough questions. At the same time, I knew this wasn’t just about surviving the defence. I wanted to celebrate it. I booked a big conference room, reserved a restaurant table, and sent out invitations. And suddenly it felt real: my family travelling in from far away, a friend making the trip from abroad, old classmates and colleagues all saying yes. That was overwhelming in the best way. Practising my talk became part of my daily routine. Alone in my office and in front of colleagues or friends. I have to admit: I’ve always liked presenting more than drowning in raw data, so this part was actually… fun.

The morning of the defence, I woke up to an email that made my heart stop: Water pipe leakage at university. All buildings evacuated. No exams allowed. Seriously? After weeks of preparing, was it all about to fall apart? What I hadn’t expected was the incredible support around me. Within minutes, my PI had secured a new venue. Huge shout-out to the Marine Science Campus for stepping in and hosting me! And somehow, despite the last-minute chaos, everyone showed up. 

During the defence itself, my brain switched to autopilot. Over forty pairs of eyes were on me, waiting for me to present and defend five years of work. The questions that followed were tough and sometimes tricky, but also sparked real conversations. Ninety minutes passed in a blur. Then it was done. I was done. A doctor of natural sciences – me? Hell yeah. The rest of the day was exactly what I had dreamed of: celebrating, telling stories, reliving the journey with the people who had been part of it. Finally enjoying this thing, I had worked toward for over five years. Relief and happiness like I had never felt before. And, as the cherry on top, I got the nicest doctoral hat that I could have imagined – with a glowing giant microbe and two crocheted guinea pigs perched proudly on top.

The great relieve, successfully defended!

Drifting

The night of my defence, I went to bed expecting to wake up reborn – full of joy, energy, freedom. Instead, I woke up tired. Deeply tired. And strangely quiet inside. There was still paperwork to finish before I could officially call myself a doctor, and manuscripts waiting for submission. But the constant pressure, the expectations, the dependence on PIs, the weight of proving myself worthy of a title that even shows up in your passport, was suddenly gone. In its place came exhaustion, but also a growing sense of lightness. I gave myself a week to move slowly: sleeping, recharging, joining a retreat with my colleagues. Bit by bit, relief started to settle in. I really made it.

And the moment it truly sank in wasn’t the defence or the party, but a few weeks later. Walking out of the administration building at Kiel University with my PhD certificate in hand – that was the moment it felt real. 

Kim

Drifting in the Post-PhD Current

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com