What happens when ideology hijacks science? You get articles like Scientific American’s recent gem, “How Feminism Can Guide Climate Change Action.” Spoiler: it’s yet another attempt to inject a political narrative into a domain that’s already drowning in bad policy, shaky science, and unworkable solutions. Feminism is the latest player in the climate theater, but the real show here isn’t how feminism can save the planet—it’s how the planet doesn’t need saving at all.

The Premise: Climate Meets Gender Ideology

The article argues that feminism has the tools to guide climate change action because—wait for it—the current economic system

… rooted in the extraction of natural resources and exploitation of cheap or unpaid labor, often done by women and marginalized communities.

This curious fusion of gender politics and environmentalism is not only absurd; it’s irrelevant. Whether or not economic systems “exploit labor” has nothing to do with global temperature changes. But don’t expect Scientific American to let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

Here’s the reality: the models and measurements underpinning climate alarmism are fraught with uncertainties. Predicting global temperatures decades into the future requires assumptions about everything from solar cycles to cloud dynamics to technological advancement. And yet, the article barrels ahead, proposing to dismantle capitalism based on flawed projections and untested theories. Feminism is just the latest garnish on this overcooked dish.

Feminism’s “Solutions” to a Nonexistent Problem

The article offers a laundry list of feminist-flavored fixes for the supposed climate crisis:

1. Redistribute resources: Translation: punish industries that create value and jobs, and funnel those resources into vaguely defined “regenerative” projects. How this reduces global temperatures remains a mystery.
2. Representation of women’s voices: The authors claim diverse representation will lead to better environmental decisions. But here’s the thing: climate policies based on bad science remain bad policies, no matter who proposes them.
3. Reparations and corporate taxes: Wealthy nations and corporations, they argue, owe reparations to the Global South for their supposed climate sins. This ignores the fact that industrialized economies have lifted billions out of poverty, including in those very nations. Penalizing success will do nothing to stabilize the climate—it will only hinder innovation.

None of these proposals address the glaring uncertainties in climate science. Instead, they assume we can predict the future with precision and that drastic, economy-destroying measures are the only option. Newsflash: they’re not.

Cherry-Picked Suffering

The authors claim that climate change disproportionately harms women, citing figures like

…globally, climate change may push up to 158 million more women and girls into poverty, and 236 million more women and girls into food insecurity, by 2050…

Let’s set aside the implausibility of these projections (seriously, who’s calculating poverty rates three decades out?). What they don’t mention is that poverty, drought, and disaster affect everyone. Men, women, and children all suffer when economic opportunities are stifled by misguided climate policies—like forcing developing nations to forego cheap, reliable energy in favor of expensive renewables.

The authors also link climate change to child marriage and girls dropping out of school. This is a masterclass in misdirection. Climate change isn’t driving these social issues—poverty and cultural norms are. And poverty is exacerbated when developing countries are told they can’t use their natural resources to fuel their economies. The feminist angle here is not only misleading; it’s counterproductive.

Romanticizing the Unrealistic

The article fawns over concepts like “Buen Vivir” (Living Well), a philosophy from Bolivia and Ecuador that emphasizes harmony with nature. Sounds lovely, until you remember that Bolivia’s economy is heavily dependent on lithium mining—one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the planet. That lithium, by the way, is essential for the batteries powering the solar panels and electric vehicles so beloved by climate activists. The hypocrisy is almost too rich.

Ignoring Reality: The Problem With Climate Policies

Let’s be honest: the problem isn’t that feminism is being used to shape climate policy. The problem is climate policy itself. The science behind catastrophic climate predictions is riddled with uncertainties. Models struggle to account for natural variability, feedback loops, and the sheer complexity of the Earth’s climate system. Yet, we’re expected to gamble trillions of dollars on policies that, at best, might reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a degree by the end of the century.

The authors call for dismantling capitalism, redistributing resources, and taxing corporations—all under the guise of “feminist climate justice.” But even if you buy into the alarmist climate narrative (and you shouldn’t), these proposals would do little more than tank economies and exacerbate poverty. Ironically, the very people feminism claims to champion—women and marginalized groups—would suffer the most.

The Bigger Picture: Climate Uncertainty

At its core, this article is yet another distraction from the inconvenient truth: climate policies are pointless because the underlying science is far from settled. We don’t know what the climate will look like in 10 years, let alone 100. The Earth’s climate has always changed—it’s been warmer, it’s been colder, and humans have survived and thrived through it all. Betting the global economy on unreliable models and untested policies is not only reckless; it’s unnecessary.

Instead of embracing uncertainty and focusing on resilience, climate activists double down on their dogma. And now, they’re dragging feminism into the fray, hoping the veneer of social justice will mask the flaws in their argument. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t.

Conclusion: Feminism Won’t Save the Climate, and Neither Should We

The real takeaway from this article isn’t that feminism can guide climate change action—it’s that climate change action doesn’t need guiding at all. The uncertainties in climate science make sweeping policies pointless at best and destructive at worst. Feminism, which in earlier incarnations may have been a worthy cause in its own right, has no business being shoehorned into this debate. And frankly, neither does any other ideology.

Instead of wasting time on “feminist climate justice” frameworks, perhaps it’s time to embrace a simpler truth: the climate will continue to change, as it always has. Our focus should be on adapting to those changes, not on indulging ideological fantasies. Anything else is just hot air.

Related