In the podcast conversation with Naomi Oreseke that I listened to recently (see Anger with climate change deniers)...she discussed the reduction and eventually banning of CFCs in relation to the hole in the ozone layer. In the podcast Naomi said this action was as a result of a direction action by 'people power' rather than government regulation. She went on to say that it was essentially women, as consumers, that decided to steer away from products using CFCs. At this point in time, women were using large amounts of hairspray containing CFCs and by choosing not to use these products and others women managed to create positive action to rectify an issue that they saw as important.
Women are generally known to be the ones more concerned about the environment and the impact they are having on the environment. Thus it stands to reason that women if given a chance could address many of the current threats to the environment. I think one of the difficulties when it comes to addresses issues that are contributing to human-induced climate change is that the industries producing most of the pollutants are generally run by males and/or their services are primarily aimed at males or "powering" male interests. Is this a generalisation? Yes, of course. But it is an interesting parallel to be drawn.
There is a movement called 'One Million Women' aimed at getting women to take responsibility for their actions in relation to climate change impacts. It also just brings awareness to women that they can personally make a change when it comes to addressing these issues relating to climate change.