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.

Children born now won't have anywhere near the carbon footprint each individual currently has. So many changes in world wide policies are happening right now.

If you cut your carbon emissions to zero for 70 years of your life, you would save one second of emissions from the global energy sector. You carbon footprint means absolutely nothing if governments and companies continue with what they're doing. I highly recommend watching Kurtzgezagt.

[quote saveourtrees]@icebreaker99 because I'm still not working because childcare would cost more than I can bring in, so at the moment we are on one income. Pair that with increase in council tax and the leccy bills we have recently had to tighten our belts.
yes we have a lot of mouths to feed but I genuinely believe if I hadn't had so many, I could have carried on without even knowing what batch cooking was. I certainly wouldn't have thought about growing my own.

This is my whole point. I wouldn't feel the strong urge I feel to protect my children.
I have noticed a lot of the people doing zero waste blogs and stuff are mothers. (mothers not fathers which is also interesting)
I wouldn't put in this much effort to preserve myself, but my kids is a different story[/quote]
This really is nonsense. Not having children doesn't mean you don't care about the future, as many people are capable of feeling empathy without something personally affecting them or their progeny. It's offensive and small-minded.

OP, I'm sorry you feel guilt about having so many children. The fact of the matter is no matter how much recycling you do, you almost certainly are creating a greater carbon footprint than a childless couple. (I don't think this makes childlessness a moral good. But if you're judging it based on environmental issues alone, having so many children expands your carbon footprint beyond whatever measures you're taking. Think of the "leccy bills" alone.)

I don't think anyone should shame you for it, nor ought you feel guilt. But please don't act like having children means that somehow you care about the earth in a deep and special way. Many of us don't need something to happen to them personally in order to care about it deeply.

I don’t think people are saying you shouldn’t have kids, but the statement having children is the worst thing you can do for the environment is most likely true.

It’s not necessarily at the point you are at now but in the future your children will each have a house, a house which will be heated, they’ll all have cars, all go on holiday, buying things for themselves and their homes, all be feeding their own families. But all this and many other things which impact the environment will be x7 rather than x1orx2 so 3.5/7 times the environmental impact of having 2 or 1 child.

If pps are worried about carbon emissions cull wild boar, buy electrical cars, reducing future earners if the world makes it is not the solution.

The business world managed by using zoom they need to continue with that when possible to reduce flights.
Second hand sites are bustling.

Who'll pay for the state pension if it exists.

Also the “bringing them up to be green” argument- do you have teens?! They don’t have a great rep for diligently listening to parents and living by their rules…

@ArblemarchTFruitbat

We don't have to have a big carbon footprint if we choose to live our lives differently!

But people won't - to really reduce our carbon footprint we would have to return to a primitive, pre-industrial way of life. The average person isn't going to give up electricity, for example.

But we don't need to give up electricity! We need to find less resource heavy methods of generating power. Our lifestyle needs to change yes. But stopping having children or making people feel guilty for having children isn't the answer!

@MsTSwift

Also the “bringing them up to be green” argument- do you have teens?! They don’t have a great rep for diligently listening to parents and living by their rules…

Yet every single teenager I know are far more energy conscious than most adults I know 🙄

At some point society is going to have to wake up and change.

Overpopulation is less of a concern than over consumption by the better off. Land and resources are concentrated in the hands of the well off.

@lentilsforever

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

This is how I feel, as far as we know humanity is totally unique and far more important to preserve than the planet.

The two do go hand in hand right now though (there is no Earth 2 yet)

Absolutely agree. Honestly some of the things coming out of the conference it seem we are on some sort of end game and many of our kids won’t survive. I really hope the positive mothers of multiple kids are right and it will all be ok and it’s fine to have large families etc but really not the message I’m getting

We are absolutely in a climate emergency. It is mind-boggling that anyone still tries to argue it.

That we are also dealing with a global pandemic is not a coincidence.

We have not taken care of ourselves or our planet.

So long as greed trumps sustainability, this downward spiral will continue.

But we absolutely have the power to turn this around.

Lobby your MP, vote for representatives who work for the greater good rather than to inflate their egos and line the pockets of their mates, buy local, look out for people worse off than you, buy less stuff, stop confusing possessions with self worth...

Haven't RTFT but they discuss this topic on BBC Radio 4's Analysis: www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0011chh

This problem and solution is, as ever, not as straightforward as you'd think.

It is true that lifestyle makes a difference. The average Malawian will only be generating 0.2 tonnes CO2e per year. The average Brit on the other hand will be generating 13 tonnes, the average American 21 tonnes. 5 tonnes is considered the realistic target for a sustainable but comfortable lifestyle.

If your brother's lifestyle is that of the average Brit, he and his girlfriend will generate 26 tonnes per year. Can you honestly say that between the seven of you, you generate less than that? Your annual emissions would need to be less than four tonnes each. Not impossible but you don't mention whether you drive a car or not. Each car (on average) pumps out 2.4 tonnes per year.

All that said, high birth rates are not an issue in the UK (nor much of the developed world). The UK's fertility rate is currently 1.65 which is substantially below replacement level. We don't want birth rates to drop too dramatically because that creates an aging population which has its own societal impact. Instead the global fertility rate needs to hover just below the replacement level of 2.1 (it's currently around 2.4) to allow a gradual drop in population. The way to achieve this is primarily through female emancipation - if you liberate and educate women they find better things to do than reproducing.

@DdraigGoch

It is true that lifestyle makes a difference. The average Malawian will only be generating 0.2 tonnes CO2e per year. The average Brit on the other hand will be generating 13 tonnes, the average American 21 tonnes. 5 tonnes is considered the realistic target for a sustainable but comfortable lifestyle.

If your brother's lifestyle is that of the average Brit, he and his girlfriend will generate 26 tonnes per year. Can you honestly say that between the seven of you, you generate less than that? Your annual emissions would need to be less than four tonnes each. Not impossible but you don't mention whether you drive a car or not. Each car (on average) pumps out 2.4 tonnes per year.

All that said, high birth rates are not an issue in the UK (nor much of the developed world). The UK's fertility rate is currently 1.65 which is substantially below replacement level. We don't want birth rates to drop too dramatically because that creates an aging population which has its own societal impact. Instead the global fertility rate needs to hover just below the replacement level of 2.1 (it's currently around 2.4) to allow a gradual drop in population. The way to achieve this is primarily through female emancipation - if you liberate and educate women they find better things to do than reproducing.

Basically this. 👏

@ArblemarchTFruitbat
to really reduce our carbon footprint we would have to return to a primitive, pre-industrial way of life. The average person isn't going to give up electricity, for example.

That would make our carbon footprint worse, not better. You’re talking about instead of using electricity generated by wind, solar, geothermal, water, tides, etc to power and heat things, we’d go back to chopping down trees and burning wood and charcoal to stay warm. Burning candles for light instead of LED lights. Nothing to power wastewater treatment plants, so we’d be drowning in raw sewage as would every other creature on the planet. Instead of email, we’d be sending messages by what? Horse post or carrier pigeon? so need millions more of them and their carbon footprint is much higher than that of a server and the internet.

*But just curious, how did you generate more waste before children?

Microwave meals, buying clothes new, not batchcooking and just throwing away food. loads of things. Buying a drink or snack out.*

Excuse me, is this how you are suggesting child free people live? Ha. If you lived this way then yes, you’re probably living in a more environmentally friendly way now. But honestly the offensive shit thrown the way of the child free by those with kids, just beggars belief. It doesn’t sound as if you have much common sense at all OP. I’m not surprised you’re still struggling to live in an environmentally friendly way.

@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.

It's not so much about your eco footprint as a family. It's that your seven children will likely create another seven families, which may create another 14 families if most have more than one child.

Will all these 14 families recycle properly? They'll almost certainly be running cars and powering houses.

@DdraigGoch
Exactly. Lifestyle is the problem and the solution is making the carbon footprint smaller per capita. We have been making progress on that as can be seen by massive difference between Europe and USA despite very similar living standards.

I do have to minor correct you, the UK fertility rate is currently 1.53 not 1.65

“The total fertility rate in 2020 was an estimated 1.58 children per woman and 1.53 in Quarter 1 2021; this is in line with the recent trend of a decreasing total fertility rate each year since 2012 (at 1.93).”
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/provisionalbirthsinenglandandwales/2020andquarter1jantomar2021

@MsTSwift

Also the “bringing them up to be green” argument- do you have teens?! They don’t have a great rep for diligently listening to parents and living by their rules…

Except it’s teens and young adults that are driving the efforts re climate change. Not middle age people let alone politicians too worried about elections and pacifying entire economic groups that are financing their parties.

I think it's easy to say reducing the number of children will solve the environmental crisis, of course it won't. We need fundamental changes to how we live.

But if the population was only 10% of what it is there would be hardly any cars on the roads etc.

@PerfectlyUnsuitable
Except it’s teens and young adults that are driving the efforts re climate change.

No they’re not. They’re drum banging cheerleading hysterics. Milling about screaming and waving signs doesn’t fight climate change. Anyone can stand up and shout “do better” “climate emergency”

The real people fighting climate change are the middle aged and older scientists and green technologists behind the thousands of patents behind green tech. The real people fighting climate change are the legions of mostly middle aged and older people fighting behind the scenes writing environmental laws and getting politicians to vote them into law and enforce them. Today’s youth are standing on the shoulders of giants.

@WhiteVanWoman91
Why do you think 90% of humans should be dead? How did you calculate 10% as the optimum global population?

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@WhiteVanWoman91
Why do you think 90% of humans should be dead? How did you calculate 10% as the optimum global population?[/quote]
I didn't/don't.

It was just an example. I'm saying it's not just how we live, it's the number of people doing it.

Agree Plan my teens talk the talk but are desperate to go on a shopping trip to NY and don’t like the long train journeys we make then go on to the sun when it’s sooo much quicker to fly…what some of their pals are up to on Instagram is shocking to me - like going to the Maldives for a week etc