How many children do you have or want to have? Oregon State University just released a study that having a child dramatically increases your carbon footprint.
“The average long-term carbon impact of a child born in the U.S. – along with all of its descendants – is more than 160 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh.”
My response: Obviously. Your response:
Does that mean none of us should have children? It’s a touchy subject. One that grates sufficiently on me. I understand the reality of dwindling resources. Oil. Water. Food. Someone somewhere is going to lose out; and it’s likely that most people who live in my country won’t be the ones picking at scraps.
But my bone is with the field of science, one I respect and value for being a critical workhorse, one I also find heart-numbing in the way it undercuts a round picture of “humanity.” Because science with a capital S depends on numbers. Science rarely charts the emotional human quotient. What about the capacity of an individual to profoundly affect their orbit, whether that orbit is one of high-powered government officials or the small-town residents at the one grocer who need that smile to get them through the day?
My bias: I assume that each individual is born to offer a unique love, perspective and learning in his/her community. One we can all learn from. But….
Environmentalist Bill McKibben wrote an unparalleled book called Maybe One about his carbon-footprint related choice to have one child. He defends only-children as being sociable, flexible and not strange for lack of siblings. Italy already has a drought of newborns; no one is having babies. We know what used to happen and still does happen to infant girls in China (there are 120 boys born for every 100 girls, the most severe gender imbalance in the world).
Yet, overpopulation is one of the great crises of our time. Using science’s own method of checks and balances, do you think having one less child would make a difference? Can you measure the food, oil, water a person consumes against the intellectual, emotional, and social impact a person might make?
This entry was posted on Friday, August 7th, 2009 at 2:11 pm and is filed under Environment, Orienting. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
There are currently 16 responses
You’re brave to bring this up, Molly– at least based on the reactions I’ve gotten from people who want to have big families and are horrified when I speak of children in terms of their environmental impact. One response I’ve heard is: how do you know that your child won’t be the one to solve major problems facing the world? (similar to your lovely description of one’s orbit) Our first and Maybe One should arrive in the next couple of weeks, and I’m committed to working for tiny footprints and positive impact.
“I’m committed to working for tiny footprints and positive impact.”
Smart way of phrasing it. Thank you, Cristina. I’m eager to hear about your little one who is arriving so soon.
I’m so glad to see someone writing about this issue! It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while, as a 31 year old woman considering whether or not to have children. It seems to me that it should be at the CENTER of environmental discussions (instead of at the whispered fringes), since more humans = more destruction. And by having a child, you are not just creating one life, but most likely a whole new line of humans reaching into the future.
On the other hand, I personally feel that by not having a child, I would miss out on a basic and powerful part of what it means to fully experience life as a human. Emotionally (and, perhaps, selfishly) that is almost impossible for me to give up. Not to mention that people are often inspired to environmental action by wanting to save the planet for their children and future generations. Without that motivation, what’s the point?
Tricky issue, but one that should be a larger part in the current public dialogue. So I, like Cristina, appreciate your bravery in bringing it up.
Anna, You bring up an interesting point. That “saving the planet” is really about saving us and our children. The planet will happily do its thing; our concern is whether it’ll become a hostile, unlivable environment for us.
Truth that being a parent is one deep expression of life. Some choose not to go there, but, like you said, others can’t resist. Relationships are what make us human. And children, I imagine (since I’m not yet a parent), usher humility into our lives.
Good luck with your processing on the topic! It’s such a personal one, so thank you for sharing.
I am pregnant with my first child. My requestd shower gifts are hand-me-downs, our diapers are cloth. We own one car in a city with poor public transportation. I’m going to mix baby food at home (hello blender!) so as to avoid endless packaging. I’ve chosen my child’s doctor and nursery based on whether or not I can walk there. The point isn’t that you can’t have children; it’s how you have them. In the meantime, among your circle of friends, how many people board airplanes regularly? How many buy new? How many keep their computers on all day and leave unused appliances plugged in? All of us–if we want to survive–have to learn to be placed, and be simple.
You mean USA will beging to consume far less resources and polluting earth, otherwise just another crappy study
dora, YES!
And does having a child increase YOUR carbon footprint, or simply add another carbon footprint to the earth?
It’s sad to me that the people choosing not to overpopulate the earth are the smart and considerate ones, the ones who actually stop for a minute to think about the impact of their decisions on the rest of the world. I don’t think we should be competing with the Duggars, but it scares me that people like that (right wing religious fanatics) are the ones repopulating.
What scares me is that liberals (like me, us) tend to think about these things but super-christian-right wingers think that children are ‘given’ to them by god and ‘he’ will give them as many as he deems neccesary. Not only that but they think of their children as soldiers for their ideals (and I obv don’t mean all christians here at all). Have you heard of the freaky quiverful movement? :
“We exalt Jesus Christ as Lord, and acknowledge His headship in all areas of our lives, including fertility. We exist to serve those believers who trust the Lord for family size”
I mean, when you believe that god will take care of everything because the earth was ‘made for humans’ you’ll go right ahead and fill it up and use it up. So, I’m not saying I want my own liberal, atheist, queer, bike-riding quiverful of 5-10 kids to compete with theirs….but it does get you thinking about what happens when these numbers balance out.
@Mar:
Woah. I appreciate the parentheses on “obv don’t mean all”, but your words are still rather stereotypical and hurtful. I am a liberal Christian, (sometimes even dare to reclaim the word “evangelical”) who cares deeply about issues of conservation, justice, equality and am able to reflect meaningfully and thoughtfully on the ramifications of believing God is somehow present in our world, in our lives, and most fully in our relationships with each other.
There are many, many of us out there. Like most reasonable, unexciting folks, we do not have ridiculous mouthpieces like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I suspect you know this but felt the need to speak well of the thoughtful theists who are asking some of the same good questions that you are and working for the same good.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned adoption. We can still experience the joys and pains and “human experience” of being a parent while not adding another person to the world. There are plenty of children already waiting for a home, for a guardian who will love and care for them.
We raise adoptive children in the same way we would raise children we birth ourselves…thus answering the “what if your child will be the one to solve the world’s problems?” question. This would also provide that motivation to save the environment for our child(ren)’s sake another commenter mentioned earlier.
We can have our own “quiverfull” of adopted children without adding another slew of carbon footprints to the world.
In my opinion, adoption is the answer for those of us who want to be parents but who are concerned about the environmental impact that brings. We can still “compete” with the Duggars by populating the world with concerned, thoughtful citizens, while not actually adding another human to our already overpopulated planet.
This is why I see environmentalism and feminism as deeply interconnected. When women have access to family planning and more reproductive choice, they have fewer children. Therefore, providing women with more options when it comes to reproduction and fertility helps save the planet as well as empower women.
Dora, I disagree with you. As long as your children breathe air and consume food and water, and have shelter (let alone use electricity!), they have a carbon impact. Cloth diapers are a lot better than disposables, for example, but they’re not as environmental as no diapers whatsoever. The same way, raising a child in an environmentally conscious household is a lot better for the environment than raising one in an environmentally apathetic one, but it doesn’t even come close to the environmental impact (or lack thereof) of not having one. Especially in America, even with making environmental choices, the lifelong environmental impact of every single human being is huge.
And again, if you’re going to have kids, of course it’s laudable and important to raise them environmentally… but it doesn’t even compare to not having them.
*and by “have” i mean reproduce, obviously if you adopt a child who lives in the US anyway, you’re not increasing the human race’s carbon at all, since they were already alive and already in a carbon-extravagant country.
Ultimately this issue, like most, is about choice and priority. But it does raise those stereotypes about who should be having babies/who shouldn’t be and that’s where I like to zoom myself out and make space for all. Really appreciate all the back and forth thoughtful responses.
Lauren, I think your adoption argument is well meaning and sincere, but I think it has some flaws.
1. Adoption in and of itself necessitates a great deal of travel and paperwork, whether domestic or international.
2. Adoption frequently involves shifting a child from lesser to greater affluence, which results in a larger carbon footprint. This is obviously a generalization with plenty of exceptions, but as a rule, economically disadvantaged families/countries do not adopt the offspring of the wealthy. People with more disposable income live in larger houses, buy larger cars, travel further on vacation and typically consume more fossil fuels and disposable goods.
3. Specific to international adoption: As an example, if you adopt a child from China, where the average carbon footprint is 1/5th that of an American’s, you have essentially changed one Chinese person’s carbon footprint into an American’s carbon footprint.
4. One cannot assume that the birth family will not decide to have more children in the future.
4a. If a family places a child due to temporary economic reasons or because they are simply not ready to raise a child, they are fairly likely to have more children when the time is right for them. If a couple hoped to have two children, total, and placed one for adoption, it is not unlikely that when they start a family, they will still want to have two children in their house.
4b. If a family places a child due to ableism or the inability to adequately meet a specific child’s needs, they may choose to have another child after the placement of the child perceived as disabled.
4c. If a family’s parental rights are terminated due to neglect or other circumstances, they may choose to have more children when their situation improves.
This is not in any way an argument against adoption. I just don’t feel that adoption qualifies as a beneficial act for the environment, or even ultimately serves to reduce the total burden on (or population of) the planet.
“Can you measure the food, oil, water a person consumes against the intellectual, emotional, and social impact a person might make?”
Might is the operative word. You might give birth to the person who cures AIDS, or you might birth a psycho serial killer who eats you and your spouses’s livers with fava beans and a nice Chianti. You can never tell. One shouldn’t have children with the thought that they will do something extradorinary with their lives. It is best to just go ahead and do something extraordinary yourself, for you to make a great intellectual, emotional, and social impact on the world. Why give that job to someone else when you’re capable of doing it yourself? Because if you’re waiting on your kids to do it, you’re likely to get disappointed. Half the time they won’t even talk to you unless you pry the cell phone out of their hands.(Have you ever had to send a text message to someone sitting in the same room as you?)
That aside, should we consider carbon footprints when having kids? Heck yes. It’s a quality of life issue. Humans are like bunnies. If you put bunnies on an island they will quickly multiply and the whole place will be overwhelmed. However, there comes a certain point in which, instead of rising exponentially, the bunny population plummets to zero. Why? Because they run out of resources. Earth has limited resources. We’re running out of clean water. Our soil is eroded. Do we need to stop having kids? No. People who don’t want kids, or don’t like them, or are only having it to please someone other than themselves such as their parents or religion don’t need to have kids. The rest of us need to slow down. If you’re ony of those crazy people on TLC who have 18 kids starting at age 20 and finishing (yeah, right) around 40, and their kids have 18 kids each starting at the same age, by the time you are 80 you will have 324 grandchildren (and, later on, 5832 great grandchildren). However, if you have 2 kids between ages 35-40 and your kids do the same, when you’re 80 you’ll have 4 grandchildren (and later, 16 great-grandchildren). This is a significant difference. This is sustainable. This is the difference between our future generations thriving and them going under and being ruled by a high class of apea.
Thanks for those of you who brought up the fact that conscious liberals think about these issues and consider the pros and cons of bringing a new life into the world while extremists at the other end often have large families. This has always been a peeve of mine–it is often wrapped up in power, gender, patriarchy, religion, etc. But a former co-worker of mine (who is also a mother) put it rather succinctly: “If we don’t have babies, we’ll run out of votes.”
Leave a reply
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed