Has anyone decided not to have more DC for environmental reasons?

[KlingybunFistelvase]

Just that really.

DH and I were about to start TTC DC2, but we're having a rethink ATM. One of the big factors for me is carbon footprint / impact on the environment. Wondered if this is something other people considered when deciding whether to try for a second / third / fourth?

I read an article about this and the author talks about a study. It's based on an American woman, so not sure how that translates into a British / European woman. Here is a quote from the article. I'm happy to post the whole thing of that helps:

("But what if I recycle and take public transportation?"). They measured the potential savings of replacing your old car, fridge, windows, and light bulbs with energy-efficient versions, driving less and recycling. Those lifestyle changes were insignificant compared to the environmental burden of producing another human being: a Prius-driving, composting, American woman "would save about 486 tons of CO2 emissions during her lifetime, but, if she were to have two children, this would eventually add nearly 40 times that amount of CO2 (18,882 t) to the earth’s atmosphere

I'm not saying that this^^ is exactly right and of course it's only one study, but it maybe explains where the argument comes from for some people. Only as you said it irked you, app.

Sorry that should be "happy to post a link to the whole thing".

Sorry I think I wasn't clear there- I'm not suggesting driving a Prius is comparable with not having a child (and actually, I don't own a car at all so I find it pretty amusing that the most radical thing the study could come up with is an electric car).

I'm saying everything about how we live now is unsustainable, and people in developing countries quite rightly are trying to aspire to the same standard of living. Having one fewer child, which most people on this thread see as being quite radical, while everyone continues to live in a way that vastly exceeds our resources isn't anywhere near enough. We need a radical rethink and restructuring of society. That doesn't mean individuals shouldn't bother to do anything, or we should wait till the governments of the world wake up and act, but I guess it's far beyond a situation where a small decision by a few to reduce the number of children they have will make a significant change.

Similarly, allowing much of the world to live in poverty which encourages them - understandably - to have far more children isn't great either. None of these are either or situations, but actually, if we accept that people with larger families in poorer parts of the world have a smaller footprint than families here, it doesn't highlight that it's lifestyle rather than family size that has the biggest effect.

Sorry- that should be it does highlight that it's lifestyle rather than family size that has the largest effect.

I agree with you that lifestyle is a big problem, but also agree it isn't an either / or thing. Population growth, globally, is definitely a big problem too. You seem to accept that, as you say it's not and either or, unless I'm misunderstanding. In that case, I don't really understand what you find irksome about someone proposing that they have fewer children? Of course it isn't the answer to the worlds woes. If only it were so simple!

No matter what we do as individuals, it often feels like a drop in the ocean . That is irksome.

There is NO population growth problem anymore. Come 2050 the global population will have reached its maximum. You having one more or one less child will not change that.

What evidence do you have of that, titchy?

Titchy is not entirely wrong but far from completely right. Throughout the world, women are having fewer and fewer children mostly because they have more choice, which is wonderful, and hence the rate of population increase is slowing down and predicted to reduce until it flattens off completely sometime around 2100.

Unfortunately, because of the huge numbers of young people still to reach reproductive age, and the otherwise fantastic increase in life expectancy and decrease in infant mortality, even if every woman in the world had a maximum of two children we've still got a huge amount of unavoidable pent up population growth waiting to happen between now and then.

The Wikipedia page gives a decent overview although obviously where you're predicting the future opinions will differ.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

Decent article posted by Rita..

Basically birth rates globally have been stable for the past 20 years. Improvements in health worldwide means people are living longer. The population is growing simply because fewer people are dying.

If anyone is genuinely interested can I recommend the great Hans Rosling for an informed, expert lecture on this issue which uses actual facts:

{{ Hans]]

Sorry clicky link:

Thanks titchy, I don't have time to watch it now, but will do! V interesting.

Does he propose any solutions? Stop living so long?!

He proposes no solution due to the simple fact that there is no problem.

If you have just a few spare minutes look at this one:

I admit to having some sympathy with the Chinese 1 child policy (now defunct). And I think that it would work a lot better in the Uk, in a way, because there isn't the massive preference for boys here that there is in China.

I've thought about this too, and feel slightly bad for having my one DS. I feel like I shouldn't have another due to overpopulation etc, and can't help but think people shouldn't have more than 2, though I'd love more.

I have to admit that I've thought this too madness. There was an article in the fail recently saying we are just too late in the day for the "educate women an they'll have fewer children of their own accord" method. Obviously I don't love the fail, but I see where they were coming from with that statement alone. The article itself was a heap of shit obvs.