It was eventual that the Leftists in charge of the once prestigious Scientific American magazine would put a woke spin on how to fight climate change, but nothing could be hilarious as this:

The article is authored by three climate researchers at the U.N. and one science journalist who attempt to fuse feminism and environmentalism together. However, the entire opinion piece (thank God that is all it is) really demonstrates that the climate doesn’t need to be saved. For example, here are some excerpts:

As water, fuel and nutritious food are harder to come by and the health care needs of family members increase, women and girls have to spend more time on unpaid care work. This reduces the time they have to do paid work, go to school or take care of themselves.

Despite the author’s scientific background, they almost immediately jump on to Leftist talking points. Encouraging women to work or pursuing education, instead of caring for their families, has worked out real well in the West with women being empowered by living empty, shallow lives lacking purpose by pursuing largely materalistic lives.

A feminist climate justice approach elevates their voices and values their contributions to understanding the climate crisis and charting a new way forward. For example, … in Bangladesh, during extreme floods, women relied on traditional rural cooking methods to provide food in remote affected areas.

We need to move away from economies based on extraction and pollution, towards ones that are based on regeneration and care for one another and for the environment.

What this really translates into is the author’s hostility to the family. They want to provide women the opportunity to spend less time in traditional roles including those who do not want to.

This is just another effort to push a political agenda into a field already overwhelmed by poor policies, unreliable science, and impractical solutions. Feminism has now entered the climate conversation, but the real focus should be on the fact that the planet doesn’t actually need saving.

The issue isn’t that feminism is influencing climate policy, but rather the climate policy itself. The science supporting alarming climate forecasts is full of uncertainties. The authors outline any number of redistributive policies including dismantling capitalism (whatever that means) that, if taken seriously, would destroy women’s lives. If the authors had their way, any of the women and other disadvantaged groups in the scenarios the authors outline is the state people in developed countries will end up in.

The Scientific American essay is another effort at needless virtue signaling hoping to spurn a discussion rooted in these ideologues efforts to achieve and maintain political power, even if it means people other than them will have their lives ruined. Then again, that may be the point.