to think you can't understand climate science and want kids

I completely understand what you are saying, OP.

I have always only ever wanted to be a Mum, and I am thankful that we are blessed with two beautiful children. However, if I knew then what I know now, I most likely wouldn’t have had them. We are seeing more and more how climate change is impacting our planet, and I worry about their future.

Ah I see. So you’re suggesting that “Africans and Asians” have families of 9 - 12 in the UK.

It's a good question and of course I worry. I guess my feelings on this come down to:

• Is all hope lost? No and that feeling of helplessness buoys the fossil fuel industry. Hopelessness leads to inaction.
• If we don't have a next generation then we are saying all hope is lost.
• humans have always lived with a sense of impending doom - that's a part of consciousness and understanding our mortality. I don't judge people who have children in war and famine and I don't judge my pregnant grandmother for continuing a pregnancy during the Cuban Missile Crisis when it looked very much like the end. In fact, I wouldn't be here if she had.
• things can change very quickly. High infant mortality was a horrendous fact of life but then we had a medical revolution with the advent of antibiotics and vaccines. Also infant mortality rates are getting better throughout the world - it's not just a western success story and this doesn't have to be either.
• I work in a medical science related field - there is so much hope coming from new research it helps charge me in a way.
• we don't actually need to invent a new solution, this isn't Project Hail Mary. We don't need to wait for nuclear fusion to be scalable, we already know what to do and the market trends show renewables are reaching a market tipping point.
• I don't think this is the OP, but those who sneer from the sidelines and say it's now pointless to try are just as bad as fossil fuel lobbyists. If you will be more motivated to fight for the future with kids then great, if you would have more time and motivation without kids then that is also great

I was not writing about Africa or Asia!

Ignoring that this claim about family size isn’t supported by the data, the carbon footprint per capita in countries such as the UK and USA is vastly greater than the same for Africa and Asia.

Like Africans and Asians will have 9 to 12 to a family and nobody says anything to them about it, yet Britons are supposed to go extinct, whilst simultaneously not putting their heating on, giving up cars and meat? Fuck that x 10.

“These ideas have gained traction through the efforts of activist groups such as the BirthStrike movement and UK charity Population Matters.”

No, they’ve gained traction through a vast amount of peer reviewed research across disciplines. Sure, there are nuances to the debate, but the fundamental principles are firmly established.

Wait until you discover that the world isn’t flat! 🤯

https://theconversation.com/why-parents-shouldnt-be-saddled-with-environmental-guilt-for-having-children-189933

Is climate change really a reason not to have children? Here’s four reasons why it’s not that simple
These ideas have gained traction through the efforts of activist groups such as the BirthStrike movement and UK charity Population Matters.

....
When broken down like this, the carbon footprint of having a child is much less drastic and no longer stands out compared to other consumption choices. According to one estimate that follows this logic, each parent bears responsibility for about 45 tonnes of additional CO₂ emissions. This is the same as taking one transatlantic return flight every four years of one’s lifetime.

This is a moral philphovy view point
https://justice-everywhere.org/general/why-it-can-be-ok-to-have-kids-in-the-climate-emergency/

If you don't want kids - don't have them.

I have also seen articles and studies claiming we should stop having pets due to carbon impact and plans to mitiagte.

https://grist.org/culture/the-climate-paradox-of-having-a-dog/

https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-pets/

Again have pets if you want but they do have an impact.

You clearly don't understand climate Science though.

@Goldenbear
No, having a pet does not have as large a carbon footprint as having a child. A child's lifetime emissions are vastly higher—often by orders of magnitude—due to decades of resource consumption, transportation, education, and healthcare, whereas an average dog emits about 770 kg of (\text{CO}_2\text{e}) per year and a cat emits roughly 310 kg. 1, 2, 3]

Comparing Annual and Lifetime Emissions

• Pet Dog: Emits an average of 770 kg \(\text{CO}_2\text{e}\) annually (though large dogs can exceed 2,500 kg depending on diet and size).
• Pet Cat: Emits roughly 310 kg \(\text{CO}_2\text{e}\) annually.
• Human Child: Estimates suggest having one fewer child reduces a parent's broader generational emissions footprint by 58 tonnes of \(\text{CO}_{2}\) per year of life, driven by a full human lifespan of high-level consumption and societal infrastructure.

What about pets?

@NullaEffugium no kids no carbon footprints. If you choose to have kids you're adding to global warming. Unless you adopted.

Furthermore, it's illogical to blame the current generation for two generations worth of future emissions (why can't I just blame my grandmother for everything and edit my personal carbon footprint to zero? It's just a weird way to slice the data and doesn't fit with anything else we do in the CO2 budgeting space)

I have always thought the same thing. Our carbon footprint is individual.
Counting the children we have as under our own is ridiculous.

Pets should be counted more. Did you know that pet food for dogs and cats account for 30% of all meat consumption in western countries! And that a dog is 800kg of CO2 emissions per year? That is the same as two round trip flights to Europe per year, or driving a petrol car 3,000km in a year.

And to answer your question about fear for your theoretical children's future, I think it isn't as bad as you fear. We have probably said goodbye to the scenario where we keep warming to 1.5 degrees C but the model where the world sees 8 degrees of global warming has also been retired. Global efforts, feeble though they are, have already averted the most catastrophic scenario.

It's a fine line to tread between concern and optimism where the climate is concerned and we all have to find our own line through that. Climate deniers exploit both ends of the spectrum (from shut up and drink cocktails in the sun to the clinates fucked anyway we may as well keep burning it via).

Some people will choose to express their hope for just climate solutions by having children and some people won't. Personally I did (two decades ago so with different information at my fingertips) and I think I'd make the same decision again today.

I hope this is a useful reply to your question, here goes (not an expert but I do handle scientific literature in my work)

I was interested where this idea of the carbon cost of having children came from and it seems to be from a journal article published in Environmental Science Letters. That article assumes that the children and grandchildren of people alive today will in the future still drive combustion cars and heat their houses using fossil fuels (just with modest efficiency gains). In reality we are much further along the path to decarbonization than that in western countries altogether so I think it overestimates the carbon cost of children.

Furthermore, it's illogical to blame the current generation for two generations worth of future emissions (why can't I just blame my grandmother for everything and edit my personal carbon footprint to zero? It's just a weird way to slice the data and doesn't fit with anything else we do in the CO2 budgeting space)

Mitigating climate change is at least in part about allowing the human race to continue on earth, which obviously requires future generations. It's also about avoiding desperate societal collapse (which would certainly happen if one were theoretically able to crunch population growth down to zero starting tomorrow).

We shouldn't be bringing our children up to have the same carbon habits as their parents. Progress is being made on this but it's bloody slow so far.

Edit: typo

The average global temperature has increased by a grand total of 1.2 degrees since 1850.

I think the world will be a really, really tough place in 30 years. Of course, children brought up in that situation will know no different and I’m sure will still experience satisfaction and joy, albeit in very changed circumstances to now. I do worry about today’s children, they will grow up in plenty and grow old in hardship 😞

😂 well that’s a new one.

Never. It's always sucked-that should tell people something but apparently it goes right over their heads.

What does it take to wish you weren't born then? If immense suffering won't do it then nothing will. If people love suffering that much why bother even trying to save the planet?

Quite. The year 536 in south west England a volcano blocked out the weather for 18 months destroying the crops (they didn’t understand what it was so just assumed the end of the world). So there was a famine. We were regularly being attacked by Vikings who raped and murdered costal dwellers.Then the Black Death arrived and killed about one third of the population irrespective of age.

This has all happened before. We’ve had a blessed few decades. That is not normal for humans.

At what point in history would it have seemed like a good idea, objectively, to bring children into the world?

Some scientists are predicting societal collapse by 2050 due to the impacts of climate crisis - mass migration cause by extreme weather, food and water scarcity and the resulting wars over these resources. There is nothing to suggest population collapse will happen sooner.

What actually needs to be revived is a kind of moral sincerity, we need to find ways of engaging with each other and working towards redeeming what's wrong, cynicism and despair only leads to inertia IMO.