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.

That is your opinion, it is not a fact.

Either you have a large family and feel guilty or you’re genuinely a stupid. Every single person is bad for the environment to a certain extent. Including children. It’s really not that difficult to comprehend. I have children, I don’t have my head up my arse about how we as a family contribute negatively towards the environment because of my decision to have them though.

It’s true though OP. A person born and raised in the west will use around four times the resource of a person born in the global south.

Whether you like it or not, having kids IS the worst thing you can do for the environment. They will have their own kids possibly, buy and drive cars, have their own homes that will use energy. Use laptops and phones.

So that won't count towards their own carbon footprints then? They get let off for free for all the impact they make because their carbon footprint is still the moral responsibility of their mother?

Well no, of course not, nobody thinks that, they're responsible for their own.

But then their carbon footprint is only OP's fault up to age 18 or so? So then she's not responsible for their own homes and cars and so on after that age, let alone the "oh but think how many descendants they'll have in three generations that some people upthread were talking about. And it sounds like their current carbon footprint is pretty low in OP's house, so that's ok, right?

No, I'm guessing that's not OK either, because she somehow has to be morally responsible for the impact her reproductive choices are in a way that translates to measurable carbon impact.

Except it doesn't, because that doesn't work. This is why it's pointless and nonsensical to discuss having children and its impact on climate change as some consumer lifestyle choice. The whole conversation is incapable of factoring in that children will grow up to be adults, and adults aren't a fixed measurable amount of carbon in the same way as a car is.

Obviously the more people there are on the planet, the lower per capita emissions have to be in order to keep climate impacts manageable. But that and the questions it raises are a bigger systems issue, not something we can fix by thinking of new people as interchangable carbon-emitting consumer units that existing people can simply consume less of.

each child has an environmental impact?!

Yes, but not necessarily a bad impact. Define “bad”? Isn’t this all about overpopulation? So, yes overpopulation is “bad”.

But. If you’re in the UK having any number of children currently results in zero overall population growth or at 1.53 actually it would have caused a decline because population growth in U.K. is now 100% caused by immigration. So how can having these children be “bad” for the environment if they are not the cause of overpopulation in U.K.?

@50ShadesOfCatholic

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.

This is interesting, I don't actually think about the social or economical impact of anything I do. I tell you what though I don't socialise with anyone outside my family, except 2 people but thats few and far between.

my family are a drop in and stay for hours, shall I walk you back? yeah. stay for hours... kind of family. See eachother or call every single day. Thats why I had so many kids. I love that and I want it for myself.
don't mind not having a car or a holiday or new clothes. I do want children though. I couldn't have gone without that. I really don't think I could have.

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.

But you're hardly alone in that. Turn back the clock 40 years, and being eco-friendly was seen as something rather cranky and new-age. Look at how Prince Charles used to be regarded as a tree-hugging weirdo. I'm no fan of his, but it's to his credit that he was banging the eco drum long before it became fashionable.

I remember in the late 80s the sudden fuss about the ozone layer - apparently no one had realised the aerosols of the time were destroying it. I remember my friends and I proudly buying hairspray in a diffuser to 'do our bit' (aerosols were later modified to remove the damaging CFCs).

I'm childfree but I readily acknowledge this isn't from environmental motives - that's just a bonus. I place more weight on the fact I am a non-driver and I don't take foreign holidays; I also recycle, use up all my leftovers and cook from scratch which minimises food packaging.

@Hortonhearsadoctorwho

That is your opinion, it is not a fact.

Either you have a large family and feel guilty or you’re genuinely a stupid. Every single person is bad for the environment to a certain extent. Including children. It’s really not that difficult to comprehend. I have children, I don’t have my head up my arse about how we as a family contribute negatively towards the environment because of my decision to have them though.

I’m not stupid. I rather think you have been indoctrinated into eco fascism as many individuals these days have been. Eco facsimile includes the belief that all humans are bad for the environment...a belief you obviously strongly hold.

Humans are not inherently bad for the environment because we are part of it. It’s imbalance...too many of us and therefore too much waste that would be bad. But the mere existence of humans on the planet is neither bad nor good. We are just one animal species among many. Therefore children are not inherently bad for the environment either.

Isn’t this all about overpopulation? So, yes overpopulation is “bad”.

It’s not about overpopulation it’s about environmental impact.
You have a baby. Their nappies either go to landfill or you have a huge increase in water/heating and detergent to wash nappies. Both have an environmental impact. Times that by 5.
You have baby using nhs resources, which have an environmental impact, the doctors appointments the environmental impact of the vaccines, tests, appointments.
Times that by 5.
You’re weaning, the extra food has an environmental impact, the extra hot water for bath time, the extra buying of whatever is needed.
Each child has a negative environmental impact.

Will it change anything? Probably not but it’s still ignorant to think you can have 5 kids and not have that impact because of them.

@JackieWeaverHandforthCouncil

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.

Why are people obsessed with my children having a car? None of my siblings have a car. Cycling and public transport facilities are getting better (and greener) I would be very surprised if my children ever got a car. Maybe if they moved rural.

From a pure biology and science point of view, the meaning of life is to pass on your DNA. It's a strong biological urge. I wouldnt try to fight it.

You do you. Just doing the best you can is better than most people will aspire too.

@Hortonhearsadoctorwho

Isn’t this all about overpopulation? So, yes overpopulation is “bad”.

It’s not about overpopulation it’s about environmental impact.
You have a baby. Their nappies either go to landfill or you have a huge increase in water/heating and detergent to wash nappies. Both have an environmental impact. Times that by 5.
You have baby using nhs resources, which have an environmental impact, the doctors appointments the environmental impact of the vaccines, tests, appointments.
Times that by 5.
You’re weaning, the extra food has an environmental impact, the extra hot water for bath time, the extra buying of whatever is needed.
Each child has a negative environmental impact.

Will it change anything? Probably not but it’s still ignorant to think you can have 5 kids and not have that impact because of them.

@Hortonhearsadoctorwho

All life has an impact on the environment. That’s not a negative thing because the resources of this planet are there to support life...all life including humans. And all the natural resources you listed are in fact renewable. Only exception is the NHS doctors...have to have children and educate them to replace those!

I’m not saying there is not an impact, I’m saying that having children in the UK is not a negative impact or a bad impact on the environment because the rate at which children are currently born is in fact below replacement rate.

These threads expose the crazy magical thinking humans deploy to justify their choices. There is finite space and resources. If there are too many of us the planet won’t cope and the situation will be dire for some of not all of us. Whatever the issue is it is NOT fixed by there being more people. There need to be fewer of us particularly us westerners with our lifestyles. it’s as simple as that!

Ah yes all the hedgehogs mining for oil to heat their homes, that’s exactly the same as a human 🙈

Whatever the issue is it is NOT fixed by there being more people.

True, but no one having children in the UK is contributing to more people. Birth rate is below replacement rate. Do you not get this? For every 4 people dying, only 3 are born. You’re back here scape goating mother’s when they’re actually doing the smart thing by naturally and slowly decreasing the population.

but in reality most of our food has to be cheap

Why does it have to be cheap? Is it because you have a large family? If you had less children would you be able to buy more expensive food which was better for the environment? I'm genuinely interested. Seven children in a three bedroom one reception property sounds like such a squeeze, how do you ensure the mental health of your children so they have there own space to study and chill out?

@Hortonhearsadoctorwho

Ah yes all the hedgehogs mining for oil to heat their homes, that’s exactly the same as a human 🙈

Ha ha very funny. I never said we are exactly like hedgehogs, merely that humans have as much of a right to life and to procreate as any other animal. We are not superior to or separate from the environment. We are part of it.

@Isitmeorthemm

I do agree with the op..kind of. I have 2 and due a third surprise baby soon. For many years I've only bought second hand, that's clothes and toys apart from things like underwear or something specific needed for the dc that I couldn't find second hand. I also make a lot of my own things whether it's home deco things or knitting blankets and scrapes etc. We grow out own veg, but local where we can and have little waste. We walk wherever we can possibly walk rain or shine. My childless neighbours on the other hand both have a 4x4 each, go on many holidays, buy takeout everyday, have new clothes all the time and never recycle. Why would I have less dc when so many people don't give a shit about the planet. I'm not going to change my life choices to offset their carbon footprint.

See this is what I mean

a side note, why can't you fond second hand pants?!

OP, I think you are taking this too personally, if I may say so. For instance, I fly long haul maybe once a year. I have to because my mother and my sister both live in other countries not reachable by train. As does DS' brother. I admit this is terrible for the environment. I just can't do much about it right now. Other than that, I do not eat meat, do not have a car, and make everything from scratch. But that long haul air travel!

It is possible to admit that we all do things that are bad for the environment, but sometimes our lives just turn out that way. Your children are here now, and you seem to be doing quite a lot, so just accept that they are not great for the environment:)

YANBU.

First, without beings to enjoy it, there's no point in having an environment. Having kids means having people to enjoy the environment, making having the environment a particular way that people enjoy worthwhile.

If there were no living things, why would it matter in any way if the planet become a barren dusty wasteland?
Why should you forgo your potential children enjoying the environment so that others who don't think about it in the same way can enjoy it instead? No good reason.

Second, what if your kids become climate scientists or engineers who pioneer new ways to protect the environment, that otherwise wouldn't exist?

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

I disagree but having 5 children is.

Right but my point is that I'm trying to teach my children how to have a lower carbon footprint

So, teach them about contraception and tell them not to have 5 children. Regardless of how environmentally careful you are you have to accept that a family of 7 is going to use more of the planet’s resources than a family of three or four.

These same people who don't have children have other primary reasons why they don't have children. They also tend to take a lot of planes and eat a lot of meat

What a ridiculous and patently untrue statement – usually given as an excuse by the obsessively fecund.

Op they had world leaders travelling to COP26 in private planes. You donplenty for the planet. Don't feel guilty

@RampantIvy

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

I disagree but having 5 children is.

Right but my point is that I'm trying to teach my children how to have a lower carbon footprint

So, teach them about contraception and tell them not to have 5 children. Regardless of how environmentally careful you are you have to accept that a family of 7 is going to use more of the planet’s resources than a family of three or four.

These same people who don't have children have other primary reasons why they don't have children. They also tend to take a lot of planes and eat a lot of meat

What a ridiculous and patently untrue statement – usually given as an excuse by the obsessively fecund.

I appreciated this post, for points but also fecund which I haven’t heard for a while. Seems a pungent word

Blimey, for a terrifying moment I thought I’d written this thread! Surely, no matter what you do, 5 children will grow, have cars, kids of their own, produce more waste than 0, obviously. Saying that, no judgement from me, but I’m very glad I didn’t have dc, because I think the world is going to shit and nothing we do will save it.

I used to clean for a woman who is very well off. She had so many clothes that she had filled the two spare bedrooms and one of the large bathrooms in her mansion with rail after rail of clothes. I would say at least half of them still had the shop labels on them. The worst part for me, (although I’m not sure that it matters) was that the rails were all grouped by like items- so 3 rails were filled with black jeans, 2 with white vest tops (not joking), there was a whole rail for dressing gowns. When I was emptying the kitchen bins on my first visit they were both just general waste so I asked if there was any recycling to take out too and say told me “oh who can be bothered with that? Not me” she had two black general waste wheelie bins and two blue recycling wheelie bins. For just her and her husband.

You’ve nothing to feel guilty about OP.

Im childless, vegetarian, dont fly, dont drive, produce 80% of my own clothes etc. You can have my society acceptable allowance of children op, I cant begrudge you them.

I do think though these comments come out to people who are overly preachy to others about environmental aspects, e.g. if someone comes on preaching really strong about how everyone who has ever been on a plane is killing the planet then people are bound to point out they are hypocritical if they have 4 children

If everyone does a bit, and everyone votes for political parties that prioritise the environment (if that even exists and doesnt deprioritise other stuff that is fundamentally important) then thats far better than people striving to be perfect and beating themselves up for every sin