Should We Stop Having Children to Save the Earth?
One of my friends has a bumper sticker on her car that reads, “Thank you for not breeding.” Every time I read it, I feel a pang of guilt that I have two children. I know that children in developed countries, especially Americans, use up for more resources than children around the world. The statistics are staggering when comparing children’s footprints across the globe, which causes many environmentalists to suggest that not having children may be the single most important thing you do for the environment. As a mother of two, this is a hard pill to swallow, and I try to convince myself that my children will be part of the solution since they are raised with green family values.
According to Mother Jones, a developed world baby’s carbon footprint is quite large:
Between 2000 and 2050, the U.S. will add 114 million kids to its population. Africa will add 1.2 billion—but their respective CO2 emissions will be the same.
One American child generates as much CO2 as 106 Haitian kids.
Zahara Jolie-Pitt will produce 45,000 lbs of CO2 yearly, compared with 221 lbs if she still lived in Ethiopia.
A typical baby goes through 3,800 disposable diapers in her first 2.5 years.
96% of American babies wear disposable diapers. In China, only 6% do. In India, 2%.
China claims its one-child policy has prevented 400 million births—saving 1.5 billion tons of CO2 in 2004 alone.
China is often criticized for its one-child-policy as a restriction on personal freedom. I am not a proponent of laws that dictate the demographics of a family, but I do think that through education, we can have a significant impact on helping families decide the right number of children for themselves and the environment. I believe in educated choice.
I do have a few friends who have three or more children. One friend was accosted by another mother as being environmentally irresponsible for having three children. For many environmentalists, having children feels like a hypocritical action. Angharad Penrhyn Jones said in the Guardian:
Eco activists spend their lives agonising over the planet’s future - but that doesn’t stop them having children. We mustn’t give up hope.
It is a personal decision whether or not to have children. I believe it is possible to live by environmental ethics and have a child, obviously since I am a mother. The amount of carbon left behind as individuals and families is the most important factor, whether we have children or not. It is all about carbon emissions. If you leave a very small family’s carbon footprint, you are being eco-responsible and can still have children. It is one reason why I live-off-the-grid and grow my food. Just remember:
American children make up 4% of the world’s population, but they consume more than 40% of the world’s toys.
I recently discovered Bill McKibben’s book regarding the decision to have one kid as an environmental choice. Personally, using China (and I’m Chinese American) as an example for ANY policy, particularly the one child rule which historically and currently has caused ridiculous numbers of girl deaths and filled the orphanages, is questionable.
Having children (or more than one child) is not selfish. The power and the love of siblings is not something to feel guilty about — nor is it if you decide to have only one child.
But personally, I’d say having a bunch of gas guzzling expensive cars, and our nation’s focus on capitalism and excess are far better concerns than folks driving around with “Thanks for not breeding” bumper sticker.
I had such a collection of responses while reading this!
First, I have to say that “breeding” as a verb for having a family, or “breeder” as a term for parents, strikes me as so offensive that it would cancel out any pangs I felt upon reading such a bumper sticker.
Second, the entire notion of saving the environment is just for humans, isn’t it? If we are willing to become extinct and allow the earth to move on to the next dominant species, or perhaps a relatively lifeless rest period, then we can just go on doing what we’re doing, because that is the direction we’re currently heading in. The planet itself won’t be harmed by our behavior — just its appropriateness for us.
Third, I know plenty of single people and childless couples whose carbon footprint as a household is larger than that of my family. Focusing on childbearing can allow those who — for whatever reason — choose not to have children to feel that they are free to continue overconsumption and waste, since they have made that sacrifice for the earth.
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
This is something my husband and I have discussed. We have two kids right now, and what amazes me is the stuff the accumulate that he and I didn’t even buy for them. Birthday presents and the like.
But what really got his attention, and it’s a stat like the one quoted in the article here, was how many resources it takes to make disposable diapers. He’d refused to go along with cloth diapers before. Now he gets it. Too late for our two, but that’s how it is.
On the plus side, we get by with one car right now. Should we ever get another, we still want to mostly live as though there’s just the one. There have been just a few times where I’ve wished for a second car although most of the time I cope just fine. I say “I cope” because it falls mostly to me, being the at home parent. And any other vehicle will have fuel efficiency as a major consideration.
He wants more kids, and I do argue for adoption if he wants a large family. Seems to me to be a smarter way to go about raising a lot of kids.
We are deliberating on whether to add another child to our family. For us it is about finances, future lifestyle, education and yes, the impact of this additional person on our world. But I also think about it this way, it will be one more person who will live and believe in green ways. One more person to try to make the world better; one person we can help educate to love and honor his/her world.
I don’t feel one bit guilty for having 4 children. I could go on and on about how we try to reduce our footprint (breastfeeding, cloth diapering, small family farm, etc.), but my real point is this, however politically incorrect it may be: if people like us don’t have MORE children, we will never have a prayer of doing the right things for the survival of the human race. As long as idiots who don’t contribute any brain power are having 6 kids who won’t contribute any brain power, we won’t make any head-way. Intelligent people who raise and educate their children right are the ones who will make a difference.
Good point Motherhood Uncensored about the Chinese policy. I should have mentioned the drawbacks beyond loss of personal freedom with such laws. And yes, the bumper sticker was on the back of an SUV!
As a proud father of a rowdy two year old boy that is looking to having more children I’d say it’s up to you. I see any forced restriction on reproduction such as China’s as a form a slavery. I will not condone or comply to such a thing.
How many people are on earth is not as important as how much they consume (Jared Diamond, Collapse) First world “standard” of living is what kills the environment the fastest. By consuming more here we export pollution abroad. The tragedy is that China (India, Indonesia) etc. cannot come to first world standard of living; that is not sustainable… yet undeniable.
Not all American children’s carbon footprints are equal. Living a sustainable lifestyle is so much larger than considering whether to have kids.
Personally, I’d love to see more parents in developed countries raising breastfed, cloth diapered, vegetarian, car-free children. To people like that, I say, “Thanks for ‘breeding’!”
Whenever I hear things like this it makes me remember one of Barbara Kingsolver’s short essays entitled “Somebody’s Baby”. (It can be found in her Hightide In Tucson book.) It’s a look at how children are viewed in different parts of the world, and parental responsibility, and community responsibility. We all have to do our best to raise not only our own children but respect and nurture all the children of the world.
I grew up in a 2 child family and always “knew” that I would have 2 children, no more. I thought academically and environmentally about it, and that I would be “replacing myself and my spouse”. But after our 2nd was born we were blessed with the magic of a 3rd child that I had previously thought would be the end all to any environmental ground I may have gained. But our now over-populated family, has a little girl that could make any environmentalist/greenlover/whatever melt any day of the week as she plants our veggies in the back at 2 years old.
But I have learned that every family has their own magic number for the “right” number of children they “should” have. From there it is the parent’s responsibility to make best choices to help guide their children, the world’s children, to a healthy lifestyle and loving environment.
That’s my soapbox.