Women more likely to reject AI over environmental and other concerns: 'Important to acknowledge the crucial role women play in shaping technological change'

In addition to Climate, Gendered's weekly news brief, we'll occasionally bring you a deep dive on one topic, problem, or idea that might make a difference. Tell us about the stories you'd like to see featured at CG.

As men outpace women in adopting generative artificial intelligence, studies suggest the gender gap may be influenced by multiple factors. According to Fast Company, previous research has demonstrated that women are more likely to distrust the technology and fear that it may displace their jobs. 

Now, a survey-based study from University of Oxford researchers indicates that other key factors contributing to women's rejection of the tech include social and ethical concerns as well as environmental concerns about the energy-intensive operations that power AI. Currently available as a preprint, the study suggests the pattern holds even among individuals identified as digitally competent.

"Women are like the canary in the coal mine," study co-author Fabian Stephany told Fast Company. "And we should listen to these concerns." CG followed up with Stephany to ask how women's concerns might ultimately improve AI — and whether women might meanwhile avoid the fate of that storied bird.

As Stephany and Jedrzej Duszynski note in their paper, closing the AI gender gap could be achieved by addressing the real concerns of hesitant adopters. For example, ensuring that the data centers driving AI draw exclusively or mostly on clean energy sources rather than polluting fossil fuels — without straining local power grids, driving up electricity costs, or disproportionately impacting the low-income, rural communities of color all around the world where the centers are often proposed for development — could make the tech more attractive to consumers striving for environmental and economic justice. 

In this case, current AI resistors could also be seen as improving the tech's sustainability and operations overall. Implementing effective safeguards for AI that improve unreliable accuracy, prevent bias, protect privacy, support mental health, preserve jobs, and secure intellectual property could also help to ease opponents' minds.

"It is important to acknowledge the crucial role women play in shaping technological change," Stephany told CG. "There are already more sustainable alternatives to mainstream AI models, and I think our study shows that there is a real and meaningful market segment — particularly among young, highly literate women — who value more environmentally friendly models that create less societal disruption and mental health harm. It is important for the tech industry to recognise this demand, and I am quite confident it will adapt to it, because women have a very good point here."

Seeing an environmental risk threshold as not only valuable but also potentially commercially profitable could feel quite refreshing, if a little optimistic. Stephany acknowledged, though, that there could be challenges ahead — perhaps for those same people ultimately improving the tech by demanding better. 

What if AI companies don't evolve fast enough? What if more sustainable alternatives, like GreenPT and Viro, don't inspire enough eco-friendlier options? What if the result is that the gender gap in AI adoption persists? Human resources and management professor Catherine Connelly of DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University told Canadian HR Reporter that some women workers may worry about a kind of "glass ceiling," a potential barrier to career advancement.

"With today's technologies," Stephany told CG, "if women use them less, it is likely that they will also benefit less from the efficiency and productivity gains [the tech may provide] — which could further amplify existing gender gaps in productivity, for instance, in the labor market."

There's some tension here, since some applications of AI — supporting energy systems, refining disease diagnosis, improving food security, and contributing to extreme weather warnings — have significant potential to address major environmental concerns and benefit historically marginalized communities. To ensure that such efforts can succeed without sacrificing the well-being of the very populations they are intended to serve, some community advocates are fighting for land-use regulations to mitigate data center pollution, policies to protect against data harvesting, and more.

In the meantime, groups like Library Freedom Project are helping those hoping to avoid AI across Android, Windows, and Apple platforms. And if workplaces are being encouraged to develop corporate AI policies — Connelly recommends employers encourage staff feedback on the tech and audit its authorized and unauthorized applications — maybe individuals will create their own policies for personal AI use? 

Auditing everyday uses at home to limit nonessential or harmful use while clearing the way for more meaningful applications could make a lot of sense. According to a United States-wide survey published by the Brookings Institution in November 2025, 57% of respondents said they used AI "for personal purposes." And many people already practice basic conservation to reduce their environmental footprints — shutting off the faucet when brushing teeth, turning off lights around the house, carpooling, and researching brands to select those that best align with their values.

While Dario Amodei, the chief executive officer of AI company Anthropic, recently indicated in an essay reflecting on the risks of the tech that data center water usage isn't a real issue — a topic of some debate compared to perhaps more straightforward energy consumption concerns — he did note, "The underlying issue that deserves attention is ensuring that AI development remains accountable to the public interest."

He echoed the sentiments in an interview with Axios in late January. Amodei noted, "People are worried about their power bills, which I think is understandable and kind of well-targeted," but suggested that this might be allayed if the public can share in the "abundance" generated by the tech, perhaps through "more robust tax policies" to distribute that wealth.

In alignment with Stephany's insistence that women's concerns be well and truly heard, Amodei also said that public concerns should be addressed by company leadership rather than dismissed, calling on the U.S. Congress to help by passing "transparency legislation, as robust as possible."

One goal at Climate, Gendered is to bring a spotlight to the reality that proliferating pollution, increasing temperatures, rising seas, extreme weather, habitat loss, and more can uniquely and disproportionately impact girls, women, trans communities, and non-binary people — especially those from communities of color, Indigenous people, disabled people, immigrants and displaced people, people experiencing poverty, and residents of low- and middle-income countries. We're also interested in the climate crises and concerns that can disproportionately affect men and boys. 

This work cannot be done alone or in silos. We welcome with gratitude your feedback and observations. And please feel encouraged to share one way you noticed this week that climate and gender connect — and share CG with a friend.