Women and the environment: An Asia-Pacific Snapshot

Women and men, in all their diversities, interact with the environment differently. For instance, evidence shows that climate change has gender differentiated impacts, employment data indicate that women rely on natural resources more than men do, and literature is plentiful on the disproportionate barriers women face to own assets, the absence of which can limit their capacity to cope with disasters. Data on women’s representation in government bodies show that they are underrepresented in environmental decision-making, which limits their opportunities to shape environment policy. Examining statistics on the multiple connections between gender and the environment helps to shed light on the gendered impacts of climate change and how women’s resources, experiences and knowledge can help shape mitigation and adaptation policies. It highlights the importance of considering this nexus for policymaking, and thus it is key to promoting environmental conservation and sustainable development at large.

This brief makes use of existing data from various sources, ranging from official Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) indicators to microdata from standardized surveys and geospatial information. Where results from statistical tests are presented, such as those obtained from logistic regression or random forest models, these need to be understood as associations and not causations. In such instances, links to methodology, caveats and other details about the analysis are provided in endnotes.

The range of environmental areas covered in this brief is limited by data availability. The connections between gender and the environment are complex and multidimensional in nature, and groups of women and men are not all affected equally. As, the availability of data on the gender-environment nexus is limited, it is impossible for the analysis to include all these factors. Acknowledging this limitation, this brief does not attempt to provide a comprehensive picture of environmental issues from a gender angle, but rather it offers a snapshot of available data that could inform environmental decision-making.

The structure of this brief aligns with that of the framework proposed in Mainstreaming gender in environment statistics for the SDGs and beyond: Identifying priorities in Asia and the Pacific, which includes internationally agreed indicators structured around six areas (sections A to F), and was developed with the advice of gender and environment data experts through regional and international consultations. For some of the areas where official statistics on the gender-environment nexus remain unavailable, additional analysis has been conducted and this is noted in endnotes.

Source: UN Women

US Bans Imports of Russian Oil Amid Ukraine Invasion

The U.S. is banning all imports of Russian oil and gas, President Joe Biden announced Tuesday — a move that he said “will deal another powerful blow to Putin’s war machine” as Russian forces under the command of President Vladimir Putin continue their assault on Ukraine.

“This is a step that we’re taking to inflict further pain on Putin,” Biden said. “But there will be costs as well here in the United States.”

Gas prices have already surged to over $4 a gallon, the highest seen in the U.S. since 2008. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said these higher prices can be blamed on one man.

“Americans are paying a higher price at the pump because of the actions of President Putin,” she said. “This is a Putin spike at the gas pump, not one prompted by our sanctions.”

But California Republican Representative Kevin McCarthy criticized Biden for not encouraging more American oil production.

“Democrats want to blame surging prices on Russia,” he said. “But the truth is, their out-of-touch policies are why we are here in the first place. On Day One, the President canceled the Keystone Pipeline and stopped new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters. Then he gave the greenlight to Putin’s pipeline. These knee-jerk decisions had damaging effects up and down the supply chain.”

The oil ban, outlined in an executive order, is the latest move by Washington to squeeze Putin and limit his ability to fund his attack on neighboring Ukraine. Putin, one of the world’s wealthiest individuals, has been accused by critics of filling his pockets with ill-gotten gains from his energy-exporting nation.

Under the executive order, the U.S. is also banning all imports of crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas, coal and coal products and banning any American from investing in Russia’s energy sector. The ban is immediate; existing contracts will have 45 days to wrap up, White House officials said.

Last year, the U.S. imported nearly 700,000 barrels per day of crude oil and refined petroleum products from Russia — a far cry from the 4.5 million barrels of Russian oil that Europe imports each day.

“We’re moving forward on this ban, understanding that many of our European allies and partners may not be in a position to join us,” Biden said. “The United States produces far more oil domestically than all the European countries combined. In fact, we’re a net exporter of energy. So we can take this step when others cannot.”

Meanwhile, Britain on Tuesday said it would phase out imports of Russian oil and oil products by the end of this year.

Kristine Berzina, head of the geopolitics team at the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund, said the impact of this ban depends on market forces.

“This is a very major additional step,” she told VOA. “I think that it’s hard right now to say exactly how much it’s going to hurt, partially because the second piece of the puzzle is how much does each unit (of) that gas or oil cost? And paradoxically, the more you ban … all of that becomes more expensive per unit. Russia can still make a significant amount of money with a little bit of gas. So actually, the ban has to be big enough to where the volume not sold is significant enough for it to hurt.”

Biden also announced Tuesday that International Energy Agency members agreed to a collective release of 60 million barrels of crude oil from strategic petroleum reserves, with the United States committing half the amount.

“We believe that the impact of this oil ban we announced today will be not long term,” Psaki said. “And what we’re working to do is to take steps to mitigate it, which is in part the release from the strategic petroleum reserve, continuing to coordinate and communicate with global energy suppliers and continuing to consider a range of options.”

Biden said he had received support from his political allies and critics. Republican U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said, “This action is a necessary step for the world. Vladimir Putin’s war chest is dependent on revenue (that) comes from selling energy — some of it to Americans, when we have more than enough oil and gas for ourselves and most of the rest of the world.”

He added, “Because of this, oil is a weapon for Putin. It’s about time the Biden administration recognized this weaponization of energy. This import ban is designed to further cripple Putin’s financial stream to wage war on the freedom-loving people of Ukraine and a host of other mischief.”

Biden has repeatedly said that he has no intention of sending U.S. troops to Ukraine, and that these economic moves are a strong deterrent for Putin.

“Yesterday I spoke with my counterparts in France, Germany and the United Kingdom about how Russia is escalating violence against Ukraine, and the steps that we’re going to take together with our allies and partners around the world to respond to this aggression,” Biden said.

“We are enforcing the most significant package of economic sanctions in history, and it’s causing significant damage to Russia’s economy.”

Source: Voice of America

Study: COVID-19 Can Cause Brain Shrinkage, Memory Loss

COVID-19 can cause the brain to shrink, reduce grey matter in the regions that control emotion and memory, and damage areas that control the sense of smell, an Oxford University study has found.

The scientists said that the effects were even seen in people who had not been hospitalized with COVID, and whether the impact could be partially reversed or if they would persist in the long term needed further investigation.

“There is strong evidence for brain-related abnormalities in COVID-19,” the researchers said in their study, which was released on Monday.

Even in mild cases, participants in the research showed “a worsening of executive function” responsible for focus and organizing, and on an average brain sizes shrank between 0.2% and 2%.

The peer-reviewed study, published in the Nature journal, investigated brain changes in 785 participants aged 51–81 whose brains were scanned twice, including 401 people who caught COVID between their two scans. The second scan was done on average 141 days after the first scan.

The study was conducted when the Alpha variant was dominant in Britain and is unlikely to include anyone infected with the Delta variant.

Studies have found some people who had COVID suffered from “brain fog” or mental cloudiness that included impairment to attention, concentration, speed of information processing and memory. Read full story

The researchers did not say if vaccination against COVID had any impact on the condition but the UK Health Security Agency said last month that a review of 15 studies found that vaccinated people were about half as likely to develop symptoms of long COVID compared with the unvaccinated.

Source: Voice of America