Having a child is the worst thing you can do for the environment

[saveourtrees]

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. My family of 7 (I will not apologise for my children's lives) create less waste than my brother and his girlfriend. In fact we take in their pet waste and food waste for composting.
Virtually all of our clothes, toys, boardgames, furniture is secondhand. A couple of white goods (does oven count as white goods?)
we grow our some of own food, process and preserve, batchcook and freeze, hardly ever use the heating (hot water bottles and blankets), bake, make dinners from scratch etc.
I knit (using wool from the charity shop), sew badly to fix holes in clothes.
we don't buy cards or wrapping paper, we do absolutely everything we can.

We still make about 1.5 black bags full of rubbish a week though, solely from food packaging. We just don't have enough to stretch to a zero waste bulk shop in the city center. But one day, when I go back to work I think we could probably manage it.

So why am I feeling guilty for having children? If it wasn't for my children I probably wouldn't have even cared as much about the environment and the state of the world. A big drive for me changing from a typical consumer to a more conscious one was the birth of my first child. Suddenly when people asked 'what world are we leaving for our children?' they were talking about my children.

I think the eco conscious people not reproducing to ''save the planet'' is stupid. If the people who care, who would teach their children to mend and say no to fast fashion, eat less meat, don't holiday abroad, etc. .. if they don't have children but the avid consumers do then isn't that worse? There will be less eco friendly grownups in 20/ 30 years but just as many grown-ups who weren't taught by their parents how to be eco friendly

I don't know, but don't come onto mumsnet and tell mums they shouldn't have had their children. That really is horrible.

I don't understand the argument that 'children born now are more environmentally concious than previous generations'. When I think of my grandparents born early 1900, their lives were much more environmentally friendly. I look at the current young people and think that whilst they are aware they are not necessarily doing what needs to be done to protect the environment. They have been raised as consumers, I don't think they have any idea what its really like to live frugally/with little environmental impact.

That’s a really point!!

I don’t actually give a flying fig about earth per se

It’s about saving humanity

I reckon they should frame it like that, and people would be a lot more committed to the idea of making sacrifices etc

I would ask the people who think parents are responsible for their children's environmental impact if they think the same about the cost to the state of the children's education and healthcare.

Charging children's consumption (environmental or otherwise) to their parents is one way of keeping accounts, but another is to regard each child as its own cost-centre, to be handed a hypothetical bill at 18 which they need to work off by a lifetime of contributing more than they consume.

Seven kids? I call troll.

And if not, who has actually told YOU you shouldn’t have had kids? There have been a lot of threads about this but people are allowed to hold a different opinion. I’ve only seen people talking about why they’ve chosen not to personally, not condemning others.

@ArblemarchTFruitbat

I don't think saying that 'having a child is the worst thing you can do for the environment' is tantamount to someone telling you that you personally should not have had your child(ren).

In terms of the statement, what it's getting at is that every new person produced is one more lifetime carbon footprint, rather than that families with children produce more waste than families without.

Right but my point is that I'm trying to teach my children how to have a lower carbon footprint, so when the time comes for them to grow up and move on, they will have the skills necessary to live in an environmentally conscious way.

I don't have an answer for where they will live, I guess I am hoping that in 20 years when they want to move out, they can.
There has been increasing interest in "tiny homes" im hoping that there will be better solutions.
When they do move out though me and dh have decided that we definitely want to downsize (we are only in a 3 bed 1 reception room now anyway so) rather than keep a big house just for us.

I do feel guilty, not for having my children though. I feel guilty for living in England, for all the years of life I consumed mindlessly. I didn't even think about where my clothes come from or what settees or carpet are made from.
I used to care about the environment before, but I thought recycling and turning off the light when I left the room was eco friendly living. Its what I was taught at school. I didn't think about production waste, transport of goods, the packaging before the bits and bobs are even on the blooming shelves. It just didn't occur to me.
Like I knew driving was bad but I thought it was petrol that was the problem, I didn't think about the car. How it needs raw materials to be shipped to be turned into a car. I just didn't know about it all.
its not that I didn't care, I cared a lot, but I hadn't gone down the rabbit hole. I didn't realise how wasteful every single part of my life was and still is. if I never had children I would still be making more waste, buying new, probably travelling the world.
When my first was born I spent hours and hours on the Internet researching how to be environmentally friendly and then I came across the term zero waste and homesteaders and now I can't believe I was so blind.
Like I literally thought litter was the problem.

So in answer to the OP, I think population growth is the worst thing the planet, afterall it is 'people' who have got the planet into this mess. The population rate is falling, why is this touted as 'bad thing'?

@MsTSwift

Sorry but it’s pretty unjustifiable to have 5 kids in this day and age no matter how worthy your lifestyle. You want to bend the facts to fit your own agenda. Like those that say “well the plane will be going anyway whether I’m on it or not” or “I need to support the tourism industry”.

No it’s not. You’re the one bending facts to your agenda.

The facts are that in every country where women have full reproductive rights with no child maximum or minimum, the birth rate naturally declines to below replacement level. OP had 5 children, so what? Average it out with the millions of women in the U.K. and the net result is still well below zero growth/replacement level. Her decision has literally had zero impact on world population growth.

The primary thing that is driving world population growth is 2/3rds people living longer. The secondary factor is lack of women’s reproductive rights driving countries where women are oppressed to have high birth rates.

We’ve all made decisions in the past based on what we knew then. Large families used to be normal.

Going forward, endless travel, buying stuff, eating meat, large families etc will be looked at differently. Don’t take it personally - we are all having to look at our own choices and decisions

I don't have kids and I use that to justify how much I blast out the central heating (all the time, I hate being cold). I realise that is churlish and one doesn't discount the other. It's not as black and white as that.

It’s not just what you do though, it’s how other people raise their kids.
There’s also the impact of 5 people growing up, using resources, heating houses, driving cars, having children. Say they have 2 children each. That’s now 15 people you are personally responsible for bringing into the world that again will be using resources. It’s not just that you’re being environmentally conscious so it’s ok.

Right but my point is that I'm trying to teach my children how to have a lower carbon footprint, so when the time comes for them to grow up and move on, they will have the skills necessary to live in an environmentally conscious way.

Which is good but it's more than likely that at least one of them will go on and live the most environmentally unfriendly life possible. Similar to children brought up by very left leaning parents, one of their kids will definitely become a true blue Tory.

It’s great that you do all that and you shouldn’t have to apologize for your childrens live but you are wrong.
Each one of your children will one day move out and have their own life/ family. Not every one of them will be as conscious as you no mother how hard you try to instill it in them. That’s 7 people. 7 homes to run. 7 families with presumably the majority having children of their own. If everyone did that we would be in trouble fast. And no way does that have a lower footprint than one consuming couple.
It’s fine. Your kids are here. But don’t think that doesn’t have an impact.

23Returnoftheowl

"People points fingers at people doing differently to themselves...the SUV drivers point at the long-haul flyers, who point at people with lots of children, who then point at... And so it goes on.
Everyone can justify what they are doing that isn't eco-friendly, but try and call out other for not making exactly the same choices as them."

This ^
And it goes on further uk justify themselves because China and the US are worse

We all need to do what we can to save the planet

Sorry 5 kids. Misread your post.

I know it's not the point but can you not compost or recycle your food packaging?

Paper and cardboard can go to church most, plastics including soft packaging can go to recycling (at least it can where I live)

I’m afraid I agree that having a child is pretty damaging to the environment.

However, you have your dcs, you can’t send them back so the next best is to minimise your and their impact. Just like the rest of us.

*church most?! compost 😂

Btw I don’t think you should feel guilty about not knowing. Or having ‘consumed mindlessly’.

You did your best. You know better. That’s the important part.

@garlictwist

I don't have kids and I use that to justify how much I blast out the central heating (all the time, I hate being cold). I realise that is churlish and one doesn't discount the other. It's not as black and white as that.

I do both

My life wouldn’t be worth living without my children or if I was cold in my home.

If i had to go without the above, then I wouldn’t give a fig about saving the planet anyway!

Of course having more kids than just to "replace" yourself and partner is bad for the planet. As the population increases more houses need built on wild habitats. Without even going into fuel, waste etc thats just about the basic space to live, no matter how green and sustainable your life is. I dont get how anyone can argue that the human population going up isn't going to negatively impact the planet.

@saveourtrees

PS I am incredibly ashamed and embarrassed about making that much waste. It still isn't as much as what me and dh made before we had children though.

OP going off piste a bit But just curious, how did you generate more waste before children?

The other consideration to make is that sustainability is about so much more than environmental concerns. Environmental protection is one pillar, the other two are social and economic. All pillars must be strong in order for any to work.

Having a sibling contributes to social sustainability in that onlies are more likely to become lonelies which translates to poorer outcomes.

I see children as necessary for society and thus not an individual responsibility in terms of the environment, but a national one. So long as the nation as a whole has a birth rate at replacement level or below, that means everyone is making good choices environmentally. Someone has to have children and we should not be shaming those that do choose to have children when the net result at the national level is still a birth rate below zero growth.

I think you should do whatever works for you, but whatever way you look at it children are consumers, who generate waste, and you have created 7 of them. This is a fact, not a judgement, i am from a huge family myself and have 5 dc.

it's not the number of children. People in the third world typically have far larger families but a far smaller footprint than us. There's also plenty of food to go round, but it's not profitable to distribute it worldwide under capitalism.