Last month, several Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a resolution with a rather unique take on the environmental debate.
According to a report in The Hill, the resolution stated that climate change is hurting women more than men.
"Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy and reproductive health," read the resolution.
And so we have the latest absurdity under the relatively new and ever broadening category of "climate justice."
The radical environmental movement is in transition.
Chris Foreman, a progressive writing for The Breakthrough Institute, says the more leftist environmentalists have taken a cue from advocates of the social and economic justice movements.
This incarnation of environmentalism links the impacts of climate change with global poverty.
The theory goes that if the effects of global warming create an even greater hardship on the world's poor, there is an even more critical moral imperative to replace carbon-based energy with green alternatives, while imposing a more even global economic playing field.
Foreman quotes Greenpeace International executive director Kumi Naidoo from South Africa as saying: "Look, 1.6 billion people have no access to energy and yet live in regions that are blessed with an abundant solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy. If we can address that problem, we can alleviate poverty and create jobs and move into a green energy future."
Foreman says the logic is dubious. "Demands for climate justice too often ignore basic practicalities of energy, poverty and climate change," he writes.