It seems that if you read anything about ways to reduce your carbon emissions these days, the argument to have fewer kids always comes up. Even when an article has nothing to do with the topic of childbearing, you can be sure that someone is shouting about overpopulation in the comments section. Sometimes these comments are a classic example of whataboutism (“we should all eat less meat!” “how about you just have fewer kids!”), but the reality is that many people in progressive circles, particularly young people, truly do consider having fewer children or no children as an environmentally responsible thing to do.
As a person who clearly cares about the climate and someone whose kid is just about to turn 3, I’ve mulled over this question a lot. Here are some thoughts, not totally organized.
First of all, the idea of having fewer children as a way to reduce my carbon footprint doesn’t make sense to me from an accounting perspective. If my child’s carbon footprint belongs to me, does my carbon footprint… belong to my parents?
Second, it’s well established that emission varies widely by culture & lifestyle, ranging from 16.5 tonnes per capita per year in the US, 4.8 in Portugal, to 1.7 in India, thus, the idea that having children is necessarily a “high carbon” activity is just plainly untrue. “But what about the fact that my child’s emission will be higher simply by virtue of living in an industrial country?” one might ask. I guess my response would be that much of a country’s emissions are already embedded in our infrastructure and basic services, which are not affected by our personal choices. Aka, whether you choose to have kids does not change the fact that the US military emits more greenhouse gases than some 140 countries!
Next, population changes have far reaching consequences, just look at any country with low birth rates (e.g., Japan). A shrinking workforce and aging population present such significant social challenges that many developed countries around the world are now implementing policies to encourage childbirth (e.g., Singapore). Personally, I’d rather these potential parents to be those that care about the climate! 😉
Lastly, there is the philosophical question of whether it’s moral to have children in the era of climate crisis. This is harder to square away, and I still often feel paralyzed by a future that seems so uncertain. On the other hand, having a kid has made me realize that children are so much more than their emissions – they are bundles of joy, symbols of hope, and agents of change – and that’s made my desire to help create a livable and more just future all the stronger. As David Wallace-Wells told Ezra Klein for one of Klein’s columns: “In a net-zero world, nobody has a carbon footprint, and we could stop tabulating guilt by counting babies.”
Ultimately, the choice to have children is so personal, and you should know that however you are feeling, IT IS VALID. (Reproductive justice goes both ways – people should have the choice to not have children and the choice to have children if they want.) But if you long to have kids and feel guilty about their emission impact, I hope this post gives you some food for thought 🙂
Relevant reading:
- Nara Schoenberg, Chicago Tribune | Some young people planning fewer or no kids because of climate change (article)
- Ezra Klein, NYTimes | Your kids are not doomed (article; browse the comments for some strong opposing views)
- Sigal Samuel, Vox | Having fewer kids will not save the climate (article)
- Bill McKibben | Maybe one: a case for smaller families (book)
- Elizabeth Bechard | Parenting in a changing climate (book)
Sensible Sustainability 
Leave a comment