Environmental Impact of Children

R.D. aka MR.D

So I was wondering if anyone has any strong feelings on being childfree due to environmental reasons? It wouldn't be a core reason for me but like an added bonus.

This article has a very interesting infographic on what people think has the biggest impact: https://www.ft.com/content/c5e0cdf2-aaef-4812-9d8e-f47dbcded55c
Do you think that it is still taboo to talk about how children impact the environment? I notice on Zero Waste groups I'm in any mention of this is greeted with ire but mention that you ordered from Amazon as a last resort and you are the worst in the world.

Do you think more people will be childfree in the future for this reason? Reducing meat eating seems to be more common and accepted now, will the idea of fewer or no children catch on?

Eric Cartman

If anything id go the other way. I need the money saved by not having children to run a fleet of cars that would be lets say.... carbon heavy, luxury meats and my passion for recreational air travel.

R.D. aka MR.D

Pre-COVID, I travelled a lot and used to joke I made up for the carbon impact by not having kids!! :pac:

But that infographic makes it seem like we are allowed a few of the other bad things!

cee_jay

The link is behind a paywall for me so I can't see the infographic. I can say the environmental issues are ones which directed my choice.
I do have a friend who lives a very sustainable life who won't be having children for that reason. Her one "vice" if you can call it that, in pre covid times, was a lot of travelling. She always says not having children offsets that damage, and the most sustainable thing we can do for the planet right now is stop having kids.

shtpEdthePlum

I agree that every person born is a further burden to the already overstretched planet. I'm also concerned about the ability of the children born today achieve a reasonable quality of life. With climate change, future food shortages due to soil degredation, freezing cold conditions in winter, droughts in summer and pandemics likely to sweep across the globe, I'm struggling to see the future earth as a very hospitable place.

Hopefully I'm wrong, obviously.

cee_jay wrote: »

The link is behind a paywall for me so I can't see the infographic. I can say the environmental issues are ones which directed my choice.
I do have a friend who lives a very sustainable life who won't be having children for that reason. Her one "vice" if you can call it that, in pre covid times, was a lot of travelling. She always says not having children offsets that damage, and the most sustainable thing we can do for the planet right now is stop having kids.

I find this quite amusing because the carbon emitted by the flights is a different type of pollution to the overall waste products (single use plastics, water for farming beef, misc travel emissions) accrued throughout a lifetime.

Also many people would prioritise children over holidays as essential v non-essential, so it's really fascinating to see that flipped.

bunny_mac

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

Do you think that it is still taboo to talk about how children impact the environment?

Absolutely! Overpopulation is never talked about, which I find utterly bizarre. It's a huge problem, if not *the* problem.

UI_Paddy

Being childfree or having less kids could certainly become more common and accepted, but it will never be a majority desire. A huge number of people will always have that longing for a new generation to carry on their legacy. Not saying everyone has to have kids, but it's a very human feeling that I can understand anyone having.

magicbastarder

overconsumption, not overpopulation, is the main problem in the west. overpopulation is a tricky one because it's been used in eugenics arguments plenty of times, so it's an argument you need to be careful to avoid sharing some unsavoury bedfellows with.
it's easy to point to india as an example of overpopulation, for example - 4 times the population of the states, but its total CO2 output is less than half that of the states. their per capita meat consumption is a tiny fraction of what it is in the states (less than 5%).

so it's a complex mixture of both.
and as above, i find the 'i don't do X, so that allows me to do Y' argument slightly tiring. just admit you do Y and don't create excuses for yourself.

R.D. aka MR.D

cee_jay wrote: »

The link is behind a paywall for me so I can't see the infographic. I can say the environmental issues are ones which directed my choice.
I do have a friend who lives a very sustainable life who won't be having children for that reason. Her one "vice" if you can call it that, in pre covid times, was a lot of travelling. She always says not having children offsets that damage, and the most sustainable thing we can do for the planet right now is stop having kids.

Oh I'm super sorry. I'm so bad at boards figuring things out, making it be a link took me like 20mins. You can see it on google images if you type in the headline. Maybe a more savy person than me could post it?

cee_jay

Oh don't worry! This is one graph I have seen used before:

CelticRambler

magicbastarder wrote: »

overconsumption, not overpopulation, is the main problem in the west. overpopulation is a tricky one because it's been used in eugenics arguments plenty of times, so it's an argument you need to be careful to avoid sharing some unsavoury bedfellows with.

bunny_mac wrote: »

Absolutely! Overpopulation is never talked about, which I find utterly bizarre.

The late Hans Rosling talked about it a lot, and pointed out (very conclusively) that the problem of overpopulation is, at this point in the world's development, entirely caused by old people living too long.

The number of children being born into the world plateaued about forty years ago and is now heading downwards. The number of old people not dying, but living on and on, and being an ever-greater drain on the planet's resources is still increasing.

Articles and infographics comparing the financial and/or environmental cost of having/rearing a child almost always exclude the financial and environmental cost of looking after the over-60s - a one that dwarfs the former.

R.D. aka MR.D

CelticRambler wrote: »

The late Hans Rosling talked about it a lot, and pointed out (very conclusively) that the problem of overpopulation is, at this point in the world's development, entirely caused by old people living too long.

The number of children being born into the world plateaued about forty years ago and is now heading downwards. The number of old people not dying, but living on and on, and being an ever-greater drain on the planet's resources is still increasing.

Articles and infographics comparing the financial and/or environmental cost of having/rearing a child almost always exclude the financial and environmental cost of looking after the over-60s - a one that dwarfs the former.

That is very interesting, I suppose the reason that children are mentioned is because that is something we can control. We can't do anything about people already here but we can stop creating new ones.

shtpEdthePlum

Maybe there is an optimal number of people the earth can comfortable sustain while being enabled to replenish (assuming the exploitation of resources is stopped and sustainability prevails).

This generation is too entrenched, but we likely have about 3800 years before the next ice age, so I'm sure we can figure out out before then.

However, it doesn't help matters that generally in countries with very low standards of living and education, people will have more children and at a younger age. These children will go on to do the same unless the cycle is broken, leading to much larger numbers of people overall, even if their individual lifespans are shorter they will consume as many resources and they still contribute to waste in a big way.

Feels very clinical talking about humanity in these terms but it is also important to be able to talk about it, and i appreciate this forum because it's often not appropriate to say these things as people have already had kids and don't want to discuss the ethics of it, even theoretically!

magicbastarder

CelticRambler wrote: »

The number of children being born into the world plateaued about forty years ago and is now heading downwards.

just to put numbers on this, it's currently at around 2.4, so still above 'replacement' level, but expected to fall below that soon.
nigeria is the country experiencing the biggest population boom:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

bunny_mac

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

That is very interesting, I suppose the reason that children are mentioned is because that is something we can control. We can't do anything about people already here but we can stop creating new ones.

Exactly this. We can't go around culling old people but we can absolutely stop creating more new people.

CelticRambler

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

However, it doesn't help matters that generally in countries with very low standards of living and education, people will have more children and at a younger age. These children will go on to do the same unless the cycle is broken, leading to much larger numbers of people overall, even if their individual lifespans are shorter they will consume as many resources and they still contribute to waste in a big way.

That was exactly the preconception that Hans Rosling spent so many years trying to correct. The clichéd "1%" (or more accuratey 5%) is responsible for vastly more consumption that the whole of the "countries with very low standards". One white western child-become-adult-becomes OAP will consume something in the order of 100 times more "stuff" than 100 third-world children.

In a similar vein, the planet is well-capable of sustaining the current population and could cope with an extra 5bn or so - if westerners weren't such greedy, wasteful hoarders. Child-rearing in "civilised" countries only contributes to the drain on resources because it is an extension of our bad adult consumerist habits.

CelticRambler

bunny_mac wrote: »

Exactly this. We can't go around culling old people but we can absolutely stop creating more new people.

Culling? No, but there is a whole industry dedicated to not letting people die when that'd be the best thing for them (and society in general). There's a massive amount of money to be made out of keeping people alive beyond their "use by" date. Here on the Continent, there's an accelerating movement to make dying a normal part of life, much as it is in the more "enlightened" Third World countries.

magicbastarder

cf. the trope that if you ask an oncologist what course of treatment they would suggest for a patient with advanced cancer, their answer will often change if you tell them *they're* the patient in this hypothetical scenario.

bunny_mac

CelticRambler wrote: »

Culling? No, but there is a whole industry dedicated to not letting people die when that'd be the best thing for them (and society in general). There's a massive amount of money to be made out of keeping people alive beyond their "use by" date. Here on the Continent, there's an accelerating movement to make dying a normal part of life, much as it is in the more "enlightened" Third World countries.

I get what you're saying, I agree that often people are kept alive way past what makes sense and I'm all for assisted dying and hope it will be legal by the time I'm old, but it turns into a minefield if you're talking about letting people die for the good of the planet. I mean, who gets to decide someone's 'use by' date or how 'useful' someone is to society? At the moment the decision to treat or not is ultimately the patient's, so you could argue that this 'industry' you speak of only exists because people clearly choose to make use of it. I'm pretty sure you can't force someone to prolong their life beyond what they're comfortable with.

CelticRambler

bunny_mac wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you can't force someone to prolong their life beyond what they're comfortable with.

Oh, you can. I've met several of them. Later this afternoon, I'll be visiting a friend who's aged mother, in an assisted living facility, literally went on hunger strike in an attempt to be allowed to die. She was force fed daily until she agreed to eat voluntarily. Then she died, a couple of months later.

Another friend had a long-running dispute with her brother, who insisted that the doctors try "everything" to keep their mother alive because he couldn't bear the thought of living without her. That went on for more than a year.

Yet another friend, a great fan of conventional medicine, had a similar face-off with the girlfriend of her ex-husband and father of her child. The GF didn't believe the doctors had tried enough alterative treatments to stop his pancreatic cancer ...

When there's money to be made, you'll find plenty of doctors finding reasons to keep people alive that have nothing to do with the person's best interest.

In the context of this thread, I suppose you could argue that if these people didn't have any children to pay for their parents' care (either directly, to the care homes concerned, or indirectly through the taxes that pay for the health service), there'd less justification for prolonging their lives, so in that sense it's the children's fault ... even if they're grown adults.

bunny_mac

CelticRambler wrote: »

In the context of this thread, I suppose you could argue that if these people didn't have any children to pay for their parents' care (either directly, to the care homes concerned, or indirectly through the taxes that pay for the health service), there'd less justification for prolonging their lives, so in that sense it's the children's fault ... even if they're grown adults.

You do know people with no children can pay for their own care? (With all the money they saved by not having children.) And we pay taxes too. But let me guess, you'd be all in favour of culling the childfree when they get old because we contribute nothing to society? What about people with football teams of children who've never worked a day in their lives and whose children won't either? Is there a 'justification' for prolonging their lives?

Eric Cartman

CelticRambler wrote: »

Culling? No, but there is a whole industry dedicated to not letting people die when that'd be the best thing for them (and society in general). There's a massive amount of money to be made out of keeping people alive beyond their "use by" date. Here on the Continent, there's an accelerating movement to make dying a normal part of life, much as it is in the more "enlightened" Third World countries.

Id agree somewhat. I think people over 85 really shouldnt be having a lot of medical procedures performed - chemo, transplants, major heart surgery etc.. if you make it that long then youve had a good run, just let nature take over after

What’s worse for the climate crisis: Your child or your pet?
https://www.euronews.com/living/2021/04/28/what-s-worse-for-the-climate-crisis-your-child-or-your-pet

shtpEdthePlum

bunny_mac wrote: »

I get what you're saying, I agree that often people are kept alive way past what makes sense and I'm all for assisted dying and hope it will be legal by the time I'm old, but it turns into a minefield if you're talking about letting people die for the good of the planet. I mean, who gets to decide someone's 'use by' date or how 'useful' someone is to society? At the moment the decision to treat or not is ultimately the patient's, so you could argue that this 'industry' you speak of only exists because people clearly choose to make use of it. I'm pretty sure you can't force someone to prolong their life beyond what they're comfortable with.

Oh my days but you can.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

What’s worse for the climate crisis: Your child or your pet?

Funny you should find and mention that. To while away a few hours on a wet Wednesday, I decided to look into the FT survey, which (for those who don't already know) is essentially based on a 2017 "research" paper, which I also looked into.

It contains this gem:

We originally hypothesized that two additional actions, not owning a dog and purchasing green energy, would also fit our criteria for recommended high-impact actions, but found both to be of questionable merit. Only two studies with conflicting results could be found for dog ownership ... , so we have not included it in figure 1

Fair enough - it's reasonable to exclude an hypothesis where you've only got two sources and they say opposite things. They wrote off "green energy" because they couldn't make sense of the numbers. :rolleyes:

But, and it's a big BUT, their "not having a child" hypothesis is based on one single paper [pdf], which isn't even proper research but someone proposing a formula for calculating whole-of-life carbon debits, based entirely on the historical behaviour of parents and grandparents.

Not only that, but the authors deliberately excluded data from low environmental impact countries because ... well ...

The choice to focus on developed regions was motivated by the higher emission and consumption levels in those regions

In other words, that "best thing you can do for the planet" figure they came up with is completely bogus - they've aggressively massaged just about every set of data used to give a shocking headline figure, and the world's media has mindlessly regurgitated it for the four years since.

Somewhat ironically, though, their review (it wasn't research at all, they just did a lot of reading and summarising) and the "carbon cost of children" paper from where they got their headline figure reinforces the point I made earlier: the best thing you can do for the planet is kill your parents.

bunny_mac

CelticRambler wrote: »

But, and it's a big BUT, their "not having a child" hypothesis is based on one single paper [pdf], which isn't even proper research but someone proposing a formula for calculating whole-of-life carbon debits, based entirely on the historical behaviour of parents and grandparents.

But surely not creating another human being to use up resources is going to be a positive no matter what? How could it be any other way? But I know you're just going to continue to argue for killing old people etc. to justify the ridiculous number of children you have (on a childfree board) so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to engage...

CelticRambler

bunny_mac wrote: »

But surely not creating another human being to use up resources is going to be a positive no matter what? How could it be any other way?

Because, if you dig into the data, it's not the creation of more humans that uses up resources, it's the kind of human. If you're worried about the environmental impact of humans, the very best thing you can do is not be American. After that, the next best thing you can do is not be Western European or Australian.

That's why this study is not just inaccurate but actually harmful: the dramatic headline reads "environmental impact of children" and provokes threads such as this one. The small print, which few read, includes the clarifications that (a) this conclusion only applies to rich, wasteful, consumerist Westerners; and (b) these findings assume that the next two generations will follow the same wasteful consumerist behaviour of their parents and grandparents; and (c) any data that were too complex to interpret were excluded from the calculation.

Moreover, the original paper didn't argue for not having children - it argued in favour of (Americans) having fewer children per family, which is in itself an assertion of questionable environmental merit.

The suggestion that having no/fewer children will dramatically reduce the human race's carbon dioxide emissions is totally undermined if the person not having a child transfers all their bad CO2 habits to, for example, looking after a dog. In fact the data, as presented, support a proposal for having more children, as long as they're the right kind of children.

Edit: Or to put it another way, I suppose the FT survey is actually quite encouraging - it shows that the majority of people don't believe baseless, random statistics they read on the internet.

bunny_mac

CelticRambler wrote: »

Because, if you dig into the data, it's not the creation of more humans that uses up resources, it's the kind of human.

But every human uses resources. Every single one. So it makes perfect sense that fewer humans is better, regardless of where they are. I once had a *insert unprintable insult here* with six children try to tell me that the environmental impact of her SIX children was less than my singular environmental impact because they were so environmentally aware. I mean come on! Six humans, regardless of how eco-friendly they are, will use up way more resources than one human. Or no humans!

Thelonious Monk

We are all rich westerners posting here, us not having kids has to be the best thing we can do for the environment. Look at all the plastic and rubbish one must buy for a child, whole houses full of crap. Every child probably goes on to have thousands of animals killed for them to eat, then they have kids...

One of us probably consumes as much as 200 Bangladeshis but we are who we are in this mega consumer country and there's no argument for me in saying the best thing for the environment is not to have kids.