Bridget Burns is executive director of WEDO (Women’s Environment and Development Organization), a global advocacy organization advancing gender equality and climate justice.
You’ve probably heard this stat before – it’s repeated in headlines, conferences, even UN speeches: “Women are 14 times more likely than men to die in disasters.”
It’s dramatic. It sticks. It moves people. But here’s the problem: It’s not actually true. Or at least, not in the way it’s been used.
The real story about gender and climate-related disasters is both more complicated – and more urgent. And it must be told in a credible way that highlights the social, economic, and cultural factors that can be changed.
What’s the harm in a catchy stat?
The “14 times more likely” figure has served as a wake-up call for many. But clinging to it now risks undermining our credibility. It flattens a complex story. It turns women into passive victims instead of agents of change. And it distracts from the real question:
Not “Are women 14 times more likely to die?”
But “What structures are putting certain people in our communities at greater risk – and how do we dismantle them?”
Because when we ask that question – when we analyze the patterns and understand the context – we save lives.
Peruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Its origins and why it falls short
The origin of the “14 times” figure is surprisingly shaky. It doesn’t come from a comprehensive global study, but from an opinion article by a disaster responder, reflecting on one tragic event: the 1991 cyclone in Bangladesh. Over time, that single data point took on a life of its own, repeated so often it began to feel like an undisputed truth.
Yes, women do often face greater risks in disasters – but not because of some innate vulnerability, and rarely at a fixed 14:1 ratio. Rather, as the 2007 landmark study on disasters by Neumayer and Plümper found, it’s because of enduring inequalities. When women and men enjoy equal rights, their death rates in disasters are similar. Women aren’t inherently more vulnerable; they are held back by social barriers.
That is a crisis we absolutely need to address – and one that we can.
Inequality is the risk factor
Take that same 1991 Bangladesh cyclone. Warnings didn’t reach many women, and cultural norms kept them at home. The result? Far more women died than men.
Now compare that to a similar storm: Cyclone Sidr in 2007. By then, Bangladesh had learned hard lessons and invested in women as community educators and first responders. Early warning systems improved. Shelters became more accessible. And the result? The death toll – and the gender gap – dropped dramatically.
Scientists predict global warming of more than 1.5C for 2025-2029 period
The truth is powerful enough
We don’t need one mythic number to make the case for gender-responsive climate action. The truth is compelling enough. Disasters – like climate change itself – are not gender-neutral. They magnify existing inequalities. They intensify harm for those with less power, less mobility, and less voice.
When we understand this, we can build better policies to respond. We can center women’s leadership across the board, including climate change policy-making and disaster response and readiness, and save lives and livelihoods.
A better data future is possible
As the world gathers in early June for the 8th Session of the Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction, the urgency of building equitable, resilient systems is front and center. This is our opportunity to sharpen the tools we use to address risk – and that means retiring the ones that no longer serve us.
Instead, we need:
- Localized, disaggregated data that reflects the lived experience of women, girls, and gender-diverse people.
- Policies that address the caregiving responsibilities, mobility limitations, and systemic exclusions that increase risk.
- Recognition of and investment in women’s leadership in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.
Move past the soundbites – tell the full story
When the world is on fire – literally and politically – the stories we tell are not just background noise. They shape what people believe is worth saving, who they think is worth protecting, and whose knowledge gets to lead.
Brazil seeks early deals on two stalled issues at Bonn climate talks
If we let inaccurate, or outdated narratives dominate – like the idea that women are just helpless victims of disaster – we risk building policies that reflect those assumptions. We risk continuing to pour resources into the wrong solutions. And we absolutely miss the opportunity to center the people who are already doing the work of resilience, resistance, and repair.
If we want to build just, resilient systems, we need to let go of myths – even compelling ones – and start telling the truth. Not because it’s dramatic, but because it saves lives.
WEDO co-leads initiatives such as the Gender and Environment Data Alliance (GEDA), and the Gender Just Climate Solutions program – aimed at strengthening data and uplifting solutions that center gender equality in environmental action and climate-induced disaster response.
The post Women aren’t 14 times more likely to die in disasters – inequality is the real killer appeared first on Climate Home News.
Women aren’t 14 times more likely to die in disasters – inequality is the real killer
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES
Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.
This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.
Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits