Having Children Brings High Carbon Impact

PregnantReuters Her carbon footprint is getting bigger, too, a new study suggests.

Having children is the surest way to send your carbon footprint soaring, according to a new study from statisticians at Oregon State University.

The study found that having a child has an impact that far outweighs that of other energy-saving behaviors.

Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.

“Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle,” the report states.

The impact of children varies dramatically depending on geography: An American woman who has a baby will generate nearly seven times the carbon footprint of that of a Chinese woman who has a child, the study found.

The calculations take account of the fact that each child is, in turn, likely to have more children. And because the calculations derive from the fertility rate — the expected number of children per woman in various countries — the findings focus on women, although clearly men participate in the decision to have children.

“In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime,” said Paul Murtaugh, a professor of statistics at O.S.U., in a statement accompanying the study’s release. “Those are important issues and it’s essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources.”

The full report is published in the February 2009 edition of the journal Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Wow, even more reasons why educated women won’t be having children, leaving the ignorant, Bible-bashing conservatives to fill our country with anti-science zealots. Why are the intelligentsia so bent on destroying themselves by proclaiming that having children is backward and shameful?

Seeing as over-population is at the root of almost every environmental problem we as a species face today this study only reinforces the obvious…too many people in the world. But that’s not going to stop people from wanting their own cute little baby to dress up and take care of.

//www.sincerelysustainable.com

As if the developed world already doesn’t have a dwindling population problem, we have to tie into their eco-guilt.

Kinda exposes the whole point of the carbon foot print calculation as a FOOLS ERRAND.

My husband, who is a scientist, has been saying this for years.

This is just silly. If people use carbon, then having more people using carbon will increase impact. How is this news?

Why need a study for that? Humans and their acts are the biggest pollutants that includes having more kids and creating toys like dogs, cats etc also……

The world has to shrink if the planet has to survive

Duh. Over-population causes just about all our problems. Someone like Pamela Anderson who loves animals and buys vinyl shoes for her many kids instead of leather ones is buying many, many pair of those chemically-made vinyl shoes over decades, thus making things worse overall for humans and animals due to her kids.

Thank you for publishing this report. I have long been concerned that climate change activists have deliberately ignored the elephant in the room–population control. Instead of offering incentives to have more children, we should offer incentives to NOT have more children. The world is overpopulated with humans, pushing every other species into oblivion.

Of the serial killers I’m aware, John Wayne Gacy was the greenest. His victims were young, so he snuffed out many years of carbon consumption. He could have only been greener by targeting females.

Children are not pollution; children are people. Every child is a blessing for his parents, his family and his entire society. This article is a joke, right? If there aren’t going to be any more people, what’s the point of saving the planet. It’s not as if cockroaches care how many greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere.

The very first commandment God gave people was to be fruitful and multiply. You don’t have to be a religious fanatic to believe that an aversion to children is insanity.

This is absurd. It reminds me of the old religious viewpoint attributed (possibly apocryphally or incorrectly attributed by myself, I don’t remember specifically enough where I read it) to St. Augustine. The gist of it was sex was wrong despite the need for reproduction since if no one had children and humans died out there would be no more sin because there would be no one left to sin.

If you believe that human kinds existence is in some way wrong fair enough, this reinforces your views. Otherwise its basically meaningless since most of us believe that a new generation is beneficial, for ourselves and potentially for the earth. If you want to lower your carbon footprint educate your kids so that they do it themselves and push for the infrastructure to allow for it. The problem isn’t that people are reproducing, it’s how we are living our lives. Change how we’re living today and how the next generation will live tomorrow. With the right habits and push for better technology we can imagine a world where human life may even be carbon negative if we so desire.

Leave the reproducing up to people who don’t care about their carbon footprint though and you pretty much doom things to failure. Just as St. Augustine’s view would have left the world to sinners. Not that I agree with either viewpoint. Neither sex or carbon emissions should be counted as sin.

Cap and Trade proponents take note!
Here’s an entirely new segment of society you can speculate on!
Buy futures on this new phenomenon before it’s too late!
Gee, maybe there’s a market for people too old to conceive; and maybe we can promote the (wildly successful Chinese) policy of 1 child-per-family!

Wow, Robert, got some angst to work through? You reveal yourself to be as ignorant in your comments as those you rail against…. So much for tolerance and open-mindedness to those who don’t share your world view.

Were the Gov’t is going with this is population control folks via the Al Gore group. We will be forced to have less children like in China or face fines and or jail time. Another Obama administration effort in change that they feel we need. Mark it down when you begin to hear this stuff from so called Greenies its already in the pipeline coming straight for us! This country needs change and quickly one way or the other ! I hope the American people soon see the handwritting on the wall !

Attn: Liberal Global Warming Believers

Please play up this sort of story. Tell everyone you know. It will only confirm to the rest of America that you are kooks who can’t be trusted with developing any sort of environmental policy for our country.

Thank you

The “changing-lifestyle” examples listed for the typical American woman are not significant against reproduction because those changes aren’t significant in the first place. Just owning a home or a car or flying in a plane far outweighs the collective carbon reduction from greenwashed marketing products. Children born of educated parents are already calling out conspicuous green consumption. Studies like this one shouldn’t surprise anyone who has raised children, but I hope intelligent people ignore it and, as has been said, raise children who can think.

Really? Individual humans create a carbon footprint, so having fewer humans results in a smaller carbon footprint?

Astounding.

No, really.

Back in the 60s I recall seeing a grim and terrifying film–in school–about the impact of future population growth.

I’ve always assumed that uncontrolled population growth was, in fact, the true root of all other environmental woes, yet in the years since then I’ve heard scant discussion on this topic, and in fact have seen many groups, most of them religious conservatives, either espouse having MORE children or have set themselves against any type of birth control.

Once again, people intelligent and literate enough to grasp the importance of this fact limit their reproduction while others refuse to or, in some cases, cannot because family planning services are unavailable–as funding for same has been cut due to interference by, once again, religious conservatives.

Sex education, birth control and, yes, the right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy legally and safely, need to be available for us to survive as a species. This is a fact, not a theory. Based on what’s happened in the decades since I saw that film, I can’t say I feel very hopeful. The largest irony, of course, is that those who insist on procreating apparently care little for the declining quality of life their offspring will ultimately face.

I must conclude that we are doomed, as a species, by our own self interest. How horrifying and pathetic. I’m glad I don’t have kids.

Agree with the shrinkage, we need. But something else. If you examine each of the household energy use DOE does (or our travel surveys DOT does when congress lets it pay for them), you see that smaller families have higher per capita energy use and driving.
My argument is not that we should have bigger families, rather that because we have spread out into smaller households — more singles, more childless people more sole (and soul) survivors, and more youth living away from their families and getting married later — household size has shrunk. It has also shrunk because (fortunately) fertile women are having lots fewer children. But the unbundling of the household, from nearly 3.5 people/household in 1960 to around 2.4 today, has by itself increased energy and car use by roughly the inverse of the square root of (3.5/2.4), or almost 20% (I “discovered” this in my review, “Energy Use and Life-Styles- A matter of time” in the Annual Review of Energy and Environment in 1989).

Mingles? Three generational households Who knows. But the fewer we are, the less pressure on land, air, water, energy, food.
Lee Schipper
Stanford and Berkeley

I’m sure Robert (#1) meant to refer to us as “ignorant, Bible-THUMPING conservatives…and anti-science zealots.”

Just wanted to keep those pejoratives clear.

While we wander around in a stupor not grasping that those who populate the earth will wipe us out, attempt to keep the moral high ground by ecological fastidiousness which would will be nice but is beside the point if we die out, forget how we came to be alive and well at this moment on the backs of our savage forebears, other tribes are having babies and looking at our concerns with puzzlement and contempt. we are not one world unless we are all on the same page and that is not going to happen any time soon considering that is another part of our animal nature. embracing our animal essence in the sense of staying alive would be helpful. have those babies, good people; we are are losing ground.

Here’s what I love about this conundrum: The people who care about he environment will follow this, those that don’t will ignore it, and the greens will lose the demographic race in the longrun.

What will solve the climate crisis is economically-driven environmentalism. If you can save money by being more efficient, then individuals and businesses will pursue the “green” alternative. Although the disciples of the green religion think otherwise, there will never be enough people in this world willing to self-sacrifice in the name of the planet… and all their sacrifices are outweighed anyway each time a new coal powered plant comes online in China.

You have the study to tell you how much having a kid will change the climate, not merely that it will. This is economic projection about how sustainable the future will be, and is important to population forecasts and impact reports for global warming.

Ideally, the America lifestyle would include a low domestic birthrate, robust immigration to make up the population difference with surplus to fix the demographic pyramid, and sustainable technological improvements to close that 7x as much carbon as China gap. Since less kids would be born into the families of domestic Social Security dependents, we’d have to strenghten the social safety net for the elderly even more, which means that immigration allowance would have to be pretty robust. Global ecological considerations do not have to be contrary to national growth aspirations.

Duh. This is obvious. And useless. Reproducing has little inherent harm to the earth. Why don’t we have a discussion questioning the reasons for gross consumption by people in the developed world? Why don’t we talk about the emotional issues that drive Americans (and to a lesser but growing extent, the rest of the world) to spend/toss/spend/toss at soaring rates?

Let’s hit at the core of the problem. When we start being honest with ourselves about why we need a 4-pages-long registry for the birth of a single baby, then maybe we’ll see a greener earth.