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.

* 3 bed 1 reception room *

What possessed you to have 7 children when money is clearly very tight?

I'm on the fence about this one... OP you seem to lead a fairly green life and you haven't described any big carbon outputs (Do you eat beef, do you ever take flights? Drive a car?). However, if someone remains childless they are preventing carbon emissions by a new person over their whole lifetime as well as that of all their dependents. That is huge, and your regular adult in today's world would be unlikely to be able to save/offset all that no matter how much they tried to live their lives in an environmentally friendly way. On the other hand, it is not possible to accurately predict the carbon footprints of future generations, of course we hope that it will be much lower than ours! And another relevant point is that the rich output vastly more carbon than the poor, so having a child as a rich person and making that child rich by leaving them all your assets is likely to create a much larger carbon footprint going down the generations than a poorer person having children.

dependents -> descendents

I don’t think children should be counted in climate issues (or indeed anything else) like a consumer good or lifestyle choice.

@Returnoftheowl

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.

Couldn't agree more. My parents were talking this weekend about how climate change is directly caused by people who gon foreign holidays.... Funnily enough, they prefer to holiday in the UK but see no issue with the their two cars, regular food waste and consumerism. People need to stop pointing fingers and reflect on the changes they could make to do better.

I can say I am not having kids, and part of my reason for that was what future they will have and claimte change. It is not the sole reason and I would never dictate on others whether they should have children or how many.

You can make do and mend all you like now but all of your kids will probably want a house, vehicle and an iPhone43 plus kids of their own. In a couple of generations your family will have a footprint larger than a small Indian village. That’s the issue.

Having more children means consuming more resources to feed and cloth them and using more energy to heat your home, clothe your kids, transport your family etc. All of these things generate carbon, use water and rely on fossil fuels. I think we should be free to have the size families we want, and you sound you are doing the best you can, and more than most, when it comes to sustainable living. But more people = more use of earth's resources, that's just a fact.

@KoreyBay18

It's true though.

That doesn't mean you should take it personally, or that you aren't doing a fantastic job at being environmentally friendly. It does mean that the environmental damage done by your children and their descendants will significantly outweigh any positives of your environmentally friendly lifestyle though.

Right but I have no control over what my children do when they are adults so if they aren't good for the planet by that time then I guess its on them and not on me. I am doing my best to teach them the skills they need, make them think about where things come from (the charity shop lol) and I think they care. I also have noticed that its getting easier year by year to reduce our own personal waste and to join little groups that make a difference locally. Maybe when the kids are older and not as dependent I could start a little group.

Its sort of like the mother of rapists and paedophiles. I'm sure every mother teaches their children not to rape (maybe not by saying don't rape but by installing good values) some of those children grow up to be rapist and murderers and paedophiles. It's not their mothers or fathers fault (of course unless it is and they were abused or something).

I didn't start the post to be goady either. I started the post because I read on here, yet again, "oh it doesn't matter how many trees you planted, if you've had children you are bad for the environment."

Well it's not wrong OP.

It's not about how many bags of rubbish you've got, it's about consumption over a lifetime and that includes food, heat, water, transport, etc, etc. Think how many children they'll have and the impact that'll make and so on and on.

No point beating yourself up about it, you can't exactly give them back, but you should be conscious of the reality.

There's also plenty of food to go round, but it's not profitable to distribute it worldwide under capitalism.

This makes no sense. Food is shipped worldwide all the time under “capitalism” and profits are made. In addition, the trillions in free food aid provided by those same capitalist societies have reduced the number of people suffering from hunger by 216 million despite an increase in world population of 1.9bn comparing today to 1990.

I believe having children IS the worst thing you can do environmentally. Your carbon footprint and that of your children when they grow up and (presumably) have families of their own is massive. Whether you believe the statement to be true or not is neither here nor there, it doesn’t change the irreversible impact you’ve had by having children.

I’m child free for environmental reasons. That’s not rewriting the past, that’s why I don’t have children. I’m also vegan. So while my views may be unpopular, at least I’m not being hypocritical.

But all that said - your children are here, they’re loved and they’re your family so anyone who tells you they shouldn’t be here is a twat.

Do I disapprove hypothetically about people having too many children? Yep. Am I ever going to tell any parent that their children should never have been born? Nope, because I’m not a monster.

i always worry when people start taking about 'over population' and related topics because it invariably leads to eco fascism. There's talk of Europe's ageing population and falling birth rates.

I agree. I think blaming climate change on ‘overpopulation’ without any acknowledgement of, for example, differing consumption levels between the global north and global south, has really sinister undertones to it.

Most western countries have a negative birth rate. It makes no sense to judge people having too many kids as if you were living in a place where every bit of land had a pair of feet on it. Lots of people in the UK have no kids, or only one.

But as you've alluded, Op - people who talk about this often seem to forget that it is the lower population, western countries that use most of the stuff. If you mention it, they will acknowledge that it's bad, but they seem to believe it's not related to birth rate.

I'd suggest it very much is related. One of the main reasons people in the west have fewer kids is so they can have a higher standard of living. Each generations their expectations grow.

Talk to people who are in their 20s now - many of them can't imagine living without the things that 40 years ago, when I was a child, didn't exist. When they imagine living an environmentally friendly life, of course getting rid of those things isn't part of it, those are necessities. They all require resources, though.

It's a conundrum, but the answer isn't just have smaller families and we'll live lighter on the planet. So far no one seems to have found a top-out level for human greed and consumption.

@GoldenOmber

I don’t think children should be counted in climate issues (or indeed anything else) like a consumer good or lifestyle choice.

I agree. Every person has their own footprint. Children are not extensions of their parents footprint. Otherwise how far back do we go? Ghengis Khan is supposed to be a common ancestor of 20million people today...so do we rage at him for being an eco-destroyer?

And it’s been proven over and over give women the right to decide and population birth rates naturally decline to zero growth or lower. U.K. was well below zero growth before all this child-shaming and child-phobia started up. There is no need for it at all.

@PlanDeRaccordement

There's also plenty of food to go round, but it's not profitable to distribute it worldwide under capitalism.

This makes no sense. Food is shipped worldwide all the time under “capitalism” and profits are made. In addition, the trillions in free food aid provided by those same capitalist societies have reduced the number of people suffering from hunger by 216 million despite an increase in world population of 1.9bn comparing today to 1990.

There are manifestly people starving and malnourished, despite this, so I'm not sure how you can argue it is being distributed to where it is needed.

We live in a country that contributes 1% to the worldwide problem. Even we cut it to zero we are reliant on the rest of the world to do the same.
The campaigners really need to focus their attention globally rather than virtue signaling to their own tiny bubbles. Our children are pretty much doomed if everyone else doesn't join in. I don’t think Greta does the whole movement any favours. I would like to see a massive network of influencers target age appropriate groups. Normal people rather than tree huggers who can get the message across within their own communities globally.
So come on Mrs Hinch ditch all those horrendous cleaning products and buy yourself a block of carbolic and a scrubbing brush and clean the old fashioned way! So many people follow this idiot and spend a fortune on cleaning stuff. No sprays no fancy cloths just good old fashioned elbow grease. Plus you would save yourself the cost of a gym subscription.
That leads me into my other idea. Using gym equipment to generate electricity. All that effort on the treadmills, bikes and rowing machines is totally wasted!
Sorry I’m being facetious because I don’t think your choice of family size is anyones business as long as you can afford them.
I do think owning a massive house for a couple of people to rattle around in is an issue. Our decision to remain in our shoebox was based on only having one child, energy bills and basically small house means less work and less bills leading to more free time and less stress. It also offsets our top end luxury suv which was totally frivoubut is amazing to drive and still pumps less CO2 into the atmosphere than a ten year old petrol fuelled mini.

I have 3 kids. I think it’s undeniably true that the more kids you have, the bigger your footprint is. If we had carbon allowances, then there shouldn’t be additional allowances for more than the first child - the thing abt kids is that it’s an impact that just goes on and on. What’s a bit mad now is that because we are frugal, and because there are 5 in our house, we have a v low per person footprint, which wd not be the case if it were just DH and I who lived in this house.

Right but I have no control over what my children do when they are adults

So you accept that having children in bad for the environment?
You can’t just have them and then choose to blame them if they decide not to be as environmentally friendly as you. At the end of the day you have a large family that impacts on the environment 🤷‍♀️ not much you can do about it now but lashing out because you feel guilty about it isn’t helpful.

Even if you do all the eco stuff you mention op the number of children you have is a factor

Btw it is utter rubbish that we contribute only 1% to world emissions - we import almost everything we consume, and NONE of that is counted in ‘our’ emissions. We badly need consumption-related figures, not just production ones.

@MareofBeasttown

Personally I think child free people should be given tax incentives. ( I have children).

I used to agree with this, until I found out that china's one child policy worked so well that they are now urging people to have more children.

it seems to be a slippery slope.

I honestly don't think the problem is over population from having children, I think the problem is that people are living longer. Also not downsizing, which i completely understand.
Also properties sitting empty, sometimes for years. There are a good few houses local to me which have been empty my entire life. Probably unlivable now but why were they left empty for so long in the first place. Those are the problems we should be fixing.

Frivolent

@LobsterNapkin
That’s not even remotely what I said?
The argument was that under capitalism it is not profitable to distribute food worldwide. Which is utter rubbish because food is being distributed world wide profitably and more food for free as food aid.

The fact that there is not yet zero world hunger is not due to “capitalism”. In fact capitalist societies have done the most to reduce world hunger.

Over their lives they will consume a lot of stuff beyond what you chuck into bin bags, and each will use resources and energy- having children is pretty much the worst thing someone can do for the environment.

Well, they're here now. Not like you can give them back.

Honestly, it's difficult to square environmental concerns with concerns about falling birthrates and the rolling back of women's reproductive control. In most countries where women have reproductive freedom, birth rates are below replacement rate. Great for the environment, apparently terrible news for the economy. Hence China trying to bully women into having 3 children (with apparently limited success, I might add).

You are a complete outlier in wanting to have 5 children and, to be frank, outliers with multiple children aren't much of a concern in the great scheme of things when up to 20% of women in the UK won't have children at all. Most women will limit themselves to 1 or 2 children if given economic and educational opportunities and reproductive freedom. So empower women and you cut the birth rate.

While it is good that you are trying to limit your family's environmental impact, the primary question I would have asked myself before having five children was whether I could secure a decent quality of life for them, with sufficient resources, parental attention and opportunities.