Bridget Burns is executive director of WEDO (Women’s Environment and Development Organization), a global advocacy organization advancing gender equality and climate justice.

You’ve probably heard this stat before – it’s repeated in headlines, conferences, even UN speeches: “Women are 14 times more likely than men to die in disasters.”

It’s dramatic. It sticks. It moves people. But here’s the problem: It’s not actually true. Or at least, not in the way it’s been used.

The real story about gender and climate-related disasters is both more complicated – and more urgent. And it must be told in a credible way that highlights the social, economic, and cultural factors that can be changed.

What’s the harm in a catchy stat?

The “14 times more likely” figure has served as a wake-up call for many. But clinging to it now risks undermining our credibility. It flattens a complex story. It turns women into passive victims instead of agents of change. And it distracts from the real question:

Not “Are women 14 times more likely to die?”
But “What structures are putting certain people in our communities at greater risk – and how do we dismantle them?”

Because when we ask that question – when we analyze the patterns and understand the context – we save lives.

Peruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action

Its origins and why it falls short

The origin of the “14 times” figure is surprisingly shaky. It doesn’t come from a comprehensive global study, but from an opinion article by a disaster responder, reflecting on one tragic event: the 1991 cyclone in Bangladesh. Over time, that single data point took on a life of its own, repeated so often it began to feel like an undisputed truth.

Yes, women do often face greater risks in disasters – but not because of some innate vulnerability, and rarely at a fixed 14:1 ratio. Rather, as the 2007 landmark study on disasters by Neumayer and Plümper found, it’s because of enduring inequalities. When women and men enjoy equal rights, their death rates in disasters are similar. Women aren’t inherently more vulnerable; they are held back by social barriers. 

That is a crisis we absolutely need to address – and one that we can.

Inequality is the risk factor

Take that same 1991 Bangladesh cyclone. Warnings didn’t reach many women, and cultural norms kept them at home. The result? Far more women died than men.

Now compare that to a similar storm: Cyclone Sidr in 2007. By then, Bangladesh had learned hard lessons and invested in women as community educators and first responders. Early warning systems improved. Shelters became more accessible. And the result? The death toll – and the gender gap – dropped dramatically.

Scientists predict global warming of more than 1.5C for 2025-2029 period

The truth is powerful enough

We don’t need one mythic number to make the case for gender-responsive climate action. The truth is compelling enough. Disasters – like climate change itself – are not gender-neutral. They magnify existing inequalities. They intensify harm for those with less power, less mobility, and less voice.

When we understand this, we can build better policies to respond. We can center women’s leadership across the board, including climate change policy-making and disaster response and readiness, and save lives and livelihoods. 

A better data future is possible 

As the world gathers in early June for the 8th Session of the Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction, the urgency of building equitable, resilie