Normal view

Received — 29 April 2026 The Conversation

What women’s work songs reveal about the changing climate

Anusuyabai Pandekar and her daughter-in-law Mandabai sit facing each other beside a stone grindmill. The mill is still. No grain rests between its stones. No flour gathers at the edges. Instead it sits between them like an object from another time.

One of the women begins to sing. The other joins. The melody carries the rhythm of a labour no longer being done, cyclical and without clear beginning or end:

It is raining heavily, let the soil become wet.

Women go to the fields, carrying baskets of bhakri (bread).

The pre-monsoon rain is beating down on the fields.

Under the jasmine tree, the ploughman is working with the drill-plough.

Scenes like the one this song describes, once common across rural western India, now belong increasingly to the archive. Hand-grinding has given way to electric mills. The work that once informed these songs has thinned out, leaving behind recordings, fragments and memory.

Accounts of drought and environmental change rarely include such voices. In official records and news reports, what is measured often overshadows what is lived. Climate change is typically explained through numbers, including emissions targets, temperature thresholds and rainfall variability. This data is necessary. But it cannot capture how change is inhabited: how it settles into bodies, reshapes routines and presses into everyday life.

Long before climate science named the crisis, women were registering these shifts in another language – song.

Anusuyabai Pandekar and her daughter-in-law Manda singing in May 2017 for the Grindmill Songs Project archive.

Climate, labour and everyday life

Across the world, women’s work songs function as informal archives of environmental change. Emerging from repetitive labour – including grinding, pounding, planting and carrying – they register shifts in seasons, resources and survival long before these enter formal records.

I began to understand this during my doctoral work in 2020 and 2021. I was researching labour arrangements within the sugar industry in drought-affected regions of western India. Policy reports described rainfall deficits, groundwater depletion and crop loss. But women spoke instead of work – walking further for water, delaying planting and stretching food across uncertain seasons.

Their voices extended beyond conversation into an unexpected archive – The Grindmill Songs Project. First documented in the 1990s and now hosted by the People’s Archive of Rural India, the project brings together around 100,000 songs organised by people, places and themes. I used this archive alongside ethnographic interviews to trace labour, marriage and drought in the sugarcane industry, where women’s voices were largely absent from official records.

Here, labour and environmental strain were articulated with a precision often absent from formal accounts. Climate was not abstract; it was embedded in the rhythms of work.


The climate crisis has a communications problem. How do we tell stories that move people – not just to fear the future, but to imagine and build a better one? This article is part of Climate Storytelling, a series exploring how arts and science can join forces to spark understanding, hope and action.


The water-guzzling sugarcane crop, around which the region’s economy turns, surfaced repeatedly in both speech and song. It appeared as a metaphor for happiness, for domestic violence, even for dowry; a substance moving between fields and households, binding labour, desire and coercion. Environmental stress did not stand apart from these concerns, but moved through them. As one song goes:

A daughter’s existence is like a sack of sugar

Father got his daughter married, he became a merchant

Another describes married life through the language of extraction:

Father says, daughter, how are you treated by your in-laws

Like a 12-year-old sugarcane crushed in the sugar-mill

A broader pattern emerges from this context. Across regions, environmental change is first encountered through its effects on labour, and only later abstracted into data. Comparable dynamics appear elsewhere. In west African farming communities, songs synchronise collective labour while expressing shared experience of seasonal uncertainty. In Malawi, during famine, women sang:

Koke kolole … pull, pull hard, pull the clouds –

why does the rain not come?

Our dead fathers, what have we done?

Forgive us … do you want us to die?

Send us rain.

Here, ecological crisis is framed as a breakdown within a moral and social order. Such songs interpret environmental failure through relationships between the living and the dead and between obligation and neglect.

On the Swahili coast, fishing songs similarly accompany sailing and net-making, embedding weather knowledge, labour discipline and social commentary within everyday maritime life. These songs accompany work, but they also organise it, giving rhythm to collective effort while encoding knowledge about seasons, risk and survival.

A Gaelic waulking song that helps women beat cloth to a specific rhythm, sung in the Outer Hebrides.

This relationship between labour and environment extends across very different histories. In the Caribbean, work songs bear the imprint of plantation economies shaped by extraction and environmental vulnerability. In Latin America, women’s traditions carry histories of colonial labour within their rhythms.

In Colombia’s San Basilio de Palenque, women still sing as they coax peanuts from rain-softened soil, gathering food, language and memory in the same gesture. Elsewhere, songs track movement itself: young men leaving with the dry-season wind, rivers in flood separating families.

Along cold North Sea coasts, herring workers, known as the “gutters”, sang Gaelic work songs in the 19th century while gutting fish at speed, their rhythms coordinating labour under harsh conditions. Beyond work, women also composed laments that dwelt on separation from men at sea.

Listening to climate differently

These songs describe hardship. But they also make it perceptible, situating environmental stress within labour, social relations and obligation. Climate change follows existing inequalities. In many contexts, its earliest effects are absorbed through women’s work, through longer hours, shifting responsibilities and increased strain.

Importantly, these songs were not intentionally composed as records of environmental change. They emerge from labour, relationships and survival. Yet because women’s work is so closely tied to land, water and season, environmental shifts are registered within them, often indirectly, as part of their lived experience.

Work songs therefore offer a distinct kind of record. Against archives that have historically privileged elite and male voices, they preserve forms of knowledge grounded in everyday labour.

But the conditions that sustained such singing are fading. Mechanisation and the decline of collective work have reduced the spaces in which these songs were produced and shared, with many now confined to ritual settings such as weddings and childbirth gatherings. As these practices decline, so too do the forms of knowledge embedded within them.

Listening to these songs does not replace data-driven, scientific knowledge about climate change. It complements it by making visible dimensions of change that are otherwise difficult to capture, including the reorganisation of labour, the strain on relationships and the uncertainty of survival.

The Conversation

Reetika Revathy Subramanian received funding from the Gates Cambridge Trust for her doctoral research at the University of Cambridge Centre for Gender Studies (2019–2024), on which this article primarily draws.

Elon Musk vs Sam Altman: how the legal battle of the tech billionaires could shape the future of AI

Tolga Akmen/ POOL EPA, Alex Brandon AP, The Conversation

There was a time when Elon Musk and Sam Altman were friends. But the two tech billionaires are now embroiled in a bitter legal battle in the United States that could reshape not just OpenAI, the artificial intelligence (AI) firm behind ChatGPT they cofounded in 2015, but also the future of the technology more broadly.

Launched by Musk in 2024, the lawsuit is the culmination of a years-long feud that centres on the evolution of OpenAI from a non-profit to a for-profit enterprise.

The trial, which kicked off this week in California, is expected to last roughly three weeks. But its ripple effects could be felt for many years to come.

The case and the cast

The lawsuit pits Musk against Altman, OpenAI president Greg Brockman, OpenAI itself, and Microsoft, the AI firm’s largest backer.

Musk cofounded and helped fund OpenAI to the tune of about US$44 million. By his own account from the witness stand this week, he “came up with the idea, the name, recruited the key people, taught them everything I know, provided all of the initial funding”.

Brockman served as technical cofounder; Altman became chief executive in 2019. Their alliance with Musk fractured as the organisation grew. Musk departed the board in 2018. He says he was pushed out.

However, OpenAI says he walked when denied majority control. Musk subsequently launched his own rival AI venture, xAI, which is now part of SpaceX.

What Musk is alleging

As part of the lawsuit, Musk is alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, false advertising and unfair business practices.

His core claim is that Altman and Brockman induced him to donate on the understanding that any artificial general intelligence – or AGI – built at OpenAI would stay “open” and shared with humanity.

Instead, Musk argues, the founders turned the charity into a “wealth machine”. They did this in two stages. First, via a 2019 capped-profit subsidiary. Here, OpenAI’s for-profit unit limited the returns, with the excess handed back to the nonprofit. Second, through a full restructure into a public benefit corporation, which is now valued at roughly US$852 billion.

Musk’s lawyers told jurors Altman and Brockman “stole a charity, full stop”. Outside court, Musk has been throwing insults at his opponents, prompting the judge to threaten a gag order.

OpenAI flatly rejects Musk’s narrative. As its lead counsel, William Savitt, told jurors:

We are here because Mr Musk didn’t get his way with OpenAI.

The company alleges, as described in two pre-trial blog posts, that Musk himself proposed merging OpenAI with Tesla in 2017 and walked away when denied majority control.

The lawsuit, OpenAI says, is “motivated by jealousy” and designed to damage a competitor.

A company under pressure

The trial arrives at a precarious moment for OpenAI.

The New Yorker magazine recently published an investigation describing Altman as a “pathological liar”. The investigation drew on an internal dossier compiled by OpenAI’s former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever which alleged a “consistent pattern of lying” to the company’s board.

Altman called the piece “incendiary” but acknowledged “a bunch of mistakes”. Musk has been amplifying the article to his X followers throughout the trial.

Financially, OpenAI is bleeding.

Internal projections point to roughly US$14 billion in losses for 2026 alone, with cumulative losses expected to top US$44 billion before any profit materialises.

Shortly before the trial began, OpenAI quietly shut down Sora, its flagship video-generation model.

Before closing, it burned around US$1 million a day in computing costs. The closure took down a US$1 billion Disney partnership with it.

Even a fresh US$122 billion fundraise from Amazon, Nvidia and SoftBank has not eased the pressure.

What Musk wants

Musk wants the jury to unwind OpenAI’s for-profit conversion, remove Altman from the nonprofit board, and strip both Altman and Brockman of their roles in the for-profit entity.

He is also demanding US$130 billion in damages from OpenAI – for what his team calls “ill-gotten gains”.

He has accused Microsoft of “aiding and abetting” and argues it is liable for a share.

His legal team argues OpenAI’s existing models already constitute AGI, because they have surpassed human intelligence in many tasks. Under the founding agreement, AGI could not be commercially licensed. This would include the licence currently used by Microsoft for CoPilot.

What’s at stake

If Musk wins, the consequences would be significant.

OpenAI’s planned initial public offering would almost certainly be derailed. This is expected in late 2026 at a US$1 trillion valuation. Investors in the recent funding round could face clawbacks.

Altman, the public face of the AI boom, could be removed from the company he has led since 2019. The broader question of whether AI labs founded as charities can lawfully pivot into commercial enterprises would be settled, at least in California. This has potential implications for Anthropic and other mission-driven peers.

Even a defeat for Musk would not end the controversy.

The trial has already pried open Silicon Valley’s normally sealed boardrooms, surfacing diaries, Slack threads and HR memos that paint an unflattering portrait of OpenAI’s governance.

The case crystallises a wider public anxiety: an incredibly powerful technology is being built and controlled by a tiny number of feuding tech bros. And it’s the rest of us who have to live with the consequences.

The Conversation

Rob Nicholls is a part of the University of Sydney Centre for AI, Trust, and Governance and receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Climate change hits South African women unevenly: why race, class, age and power matter

As heat, floods and drought intensify, governments, donors and cities rely on climate risk assessments to decide who gets support and where money goes. A climate risk assessment uses information on climate hazards, exposure, vulnerability and responses to identify where, who or what is most at risk to climate impacts.

When climate shocks such as heat waves, droughts or floods strike, women are often described as vulnerable. But women are not a uniform group and they don’t all experience climate impacts in the same way.


Read more: Extreme weather affects mental health: what vulnerable women in Kenya told us


Their vulnerability to climate shocks is shaped by far more than gender alone. Factors like race, ethnicity, age, disability and class play a role in making some women more vulnerable than others. Power relations, such as ableism, racism, sexism and ageism, can also privilege some women while marginalising others.

This is known as intersectionality. Critical race theory scholar, professor of law and activist Kimberlé Crenshaw came up with the term “intersectionality” in 1989. It describes how overlapping identities can create forms of harm that remain invisible when problems are framed through only one lens. For example, separate frames for “Black people” and “women” can miss the distinct experiences of “Black women”.

If climate risk assessments don’t look at how identities and power overlap, they can miss why some women are far more at risk than others. For example, women who are impoverished and live in flood prone areas are more at risk and will find it more difficult to recover from climate disasters.


Read more: Women are seen as ‘saviours’ or ‘victims’ in climate change debates: why this is a problem


Women are more vulnerable to climate change if their opportunities are limited and if they’ve suffered as a result of economic structures that concentrate wealth and resources in the hands of a few.

Together with our co-author Songo Benya, we wanted to better understand women’s climate vulnerability in South Africa. Rather than treating women as a group of people who are all the same, we wanted to find out which women are most vulnerable to the impact of climate change and why.


Read more: Forest loss in Malawi: how having women at the table affected debates and decisions about solutions – research


We reviewed all the South African scientific literature published between 2004 and 2024 on how income, education, household roles and resources combine to shape women’s ability to respond to climate change.

Our research found that treating women as a single group can hide differences in vulnerability, exposure and responses to climate impacts. Women who lacked secure land tenure, access to credit, decision-making power or climate information often faced greater barriers to adopting adaptation strategies.

Understanding which women are worst affected by climate hazards

The country’s inequality is still rooted in apartheid, for example by shaping who gets good quality health services and who doesn’t. When climate shocks hit, these gaps decide who is most exposed and who has the means to cope or recover.

1. Economic factors

These are the biggest drivers that intersect with gender to shape climate vulnerability. We found that Black women were more often engaged in lower-income or climate-sensitive livelihoods, such as smallholder farming or informal trade. They faced barriers to accessing finance, credit and productive assets. These constraints limited women’s ability to invest in adaptation strategies or recover from climate shocks.

2. Limited land ownership

In many rural areas, customary land tenure systems favour male inheritance. They hamper women’s ability to make decisions about land use, adopt climate-resilient farming practices or access agricultural support. Access to knowledge, education and climate information also affected vulnerability.

3. The burden of housework

Household responsibilities were a major factor, intersecting with economic status and gender. Women are often primarily responsible for childcare, water collection, food provision, and caring for elderly relatives. Household labour limited the time and resources available to adopt new livelihoods or adaptation strategies. Caring for children increased risks, but also motivated women to persist and find ways through hardship.

4. Power dynamics and wider social exclusion

Women had less say in decision-making in homes led by men compared to those led by women. However, homes led by women often had lower levels of education, which limited their influence beyond the home. In some cases, women were more climate vulnerable if they lacked social ties to community leaders. This made it harder to access resources.


Read more: What does a house mean to you? We asked some women who head households in South Africa


Where women lived, and the condition of their homes and services, influenced by race and income inequalities, made some women more vulnerable. Many women, particularly Black women in peri-urban and informal settlements, faced greater exposure to climate risks like flooding due to poor housing quality, limited infrastructure and inadequate services.

What needs to happen next

All the literature we reviewed showed that women were barely coping with the impact of climate change. This included loss of life; decreased health, income, learning, wellbeing and livelihoods; and damage to resources and infrastructure.

Reported responses for the women described in the literature were often short-term measures. Sometimes these were maladaptive, such as depleting savings, taking on risky debt, or engaging in transactional sex.


Read more: Climate change is hurting Kenyan women working in coastal tourism – they explain how


Collective strategies, such as community solidarity and social learning networks, appeared less often. (These are spaces where different people involved in the issue, such as local women farmers, extension officers, non-governmental organisation representatives and others, come together to learn from each other.) Where they did appear, they tended to reduce vulnerability more effectively.

More gender-sensitive climate action is needed. In South Africa, this means prioritising women’s real, day-to-day needs, especially by strengthening women’s access to income, and in the informal trade and smallholder farming sectors. Women informal traders can be supported by governments through better planning, and infrastructure like sheltered trading areas that are protected from extreme weather.


Read more: African women entrepreneurs are a smart bet for climate change investment: research shows why


Adapting to a warming climate also requires confronting the deeper social issues that increase risk. These include patriarchal norms and unfair division of household labour. This will free up their time, security and resources to respond to climate challenges.

More broadly, climate risk assessments need to consider how different identities, contexts and power relations influence women’s lives. This is especially important considering that these assessments can influence who gets climate funding and support. Climate policies may respond to climate risks. But without an intersectional approach, they’ll fail to reach the women who need the support the most.

The Conversation

Petra Brigitte Holden receives funding currently from the European Union, FCDO, IDRC, and Frontiers Planet Prize.

Gina Ziervogel receives funding currently from IDRC, FCDO and AFD.

Leigh Stadler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

❌