... when the world is warming up and the extinction of humanity is becoming a realistic scenario?
Responsible to whom?, you might ask.
To the kids you plan to raise, or to humanity as a whole?
But let's start with some facts.
In 2020, the world population was 7.8 billion.
The date when humanity's demand for ecological resources and services each year exceeds what the Earth can renew in that year is known as Earth Overshoot Day.
In 2021, it was on July 29th.
In 2020, it was on August 22nd.[1]
So, our earth's resources are limited.
It has a limited capacity to absorb the waste and damaging effluents we produce as we live. It has a limited ability to provide food and energy.
And its ability to provide for an ever-increasing population is becoming progressively more limited.
We are rapidly approaching several of the planet's boundaries. Current economic practices that harm the environment, in both affluent and developing countries, cannot be continued without risking irreversible damage to essential global systems.
Few would deny that there is a physical limit to how many people may live on Earth in a long-term sustainable manner.
Unchecked population increase places demands on the natural environment that threaten to overwhelm all efforts to establish a sustainable future.
We must accept limits to expansion if we are to stop the devastation of our environment.
According to UN forecasts, the world's population will grow to 9.7 billion by 2050 and 10.8 billion by 2100.[2]
All the conferences, talks, books about saving the planet are in fact about saving humanity.
Anthropocene means that we, humans, have accelerated our own extinction. We are working towards it.
The dinosaurs had an excuse… a meteorite.
For us, we have ourselves to blame.
Should we, the human species, become extinct, our planet will recover from it.
Our recent history shows it.
A year ago, during the lockdown, when seven billion of people were stuck at home, the environment found a way to bounce back.
So, what can we do to save humanity?
During the Paris Agreement and the recent Glasgow COP 26, 195 countries have agreed to reduce their carbon emissions by 45%, to stay below the 1.5 °C limit by 2030.
But today the trajectory points toward +2.7 °C!
We believe that there are impactful strategies people can adapt to reduce their own carbon footprint.
And these actions will depend on where you live on the planet.
The most well-known ones are eating less red meat and reduced travel activity (car, flight). This is where the question of having fewer kids is rising.
The average amount of greenhouse gases emitted per person varies dramatically from country to country.
For example, each individual in the United States emits roughly 20 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year, whereas Indian citizens emit only about two tonnes per year.
In the UK, the average is 6 tonnes each year, in Portugal it is 5.3 tonnes and in France it is 5.5 t.[2]
Given the close link between GDP and CO2 emissions per capita, countries with higher living standards would be expected to have a higher carbon footprint,[6] some people today [7] are urging developed countries to limit global population growth in order to reduce their environmental effect by having fewer children.
According to the IPCC, population is one determinant in greenhouse gas emissions.
Its forecasts suggest that, if all other factors remain constant, future smaller populations will generate lower emissions, with the most sustainable future scenario having a world population lower than today's.
Having one child less would allow a person to avoid 58 tons of CO2 per year, far more than not owning a car (which would only save 2.4 tons of CO2 per year) or eating vegetarian (0.8 tonnes of CO2 per year).[8]
The researchers even went so far as to say that having one less child is the greenest act possible, and that this gesture should be included in worldwide governments' environmental awareness policies.[8]
Starting with the hypothesis that each parent is responsible for 50% of the emissions of their direct descendants, we can therefore calculate that if we have a child today, that child will pollute, and that child will then have children, who will pollute, and so on... all of this due to the initial decision to have a child.[8]
Furthermore, by following future demographic estimates, we may estimate a person's carbon inheritance, or all the CO2 emissions emitted by his descendants as a result of this original decision to have a child.
And, the emissions avoided as a result of the decision not to do so.
Consider our lifetime environmental effect, from the plastic we purchase to the food and clothing we consume. Despite our best efforts, we leave a considerable carbon footprint, which contributes to land degradation (over-cultivation, deforestation, urbanization, mining, and so on), and pollute the environment.
Having a child, implies multiplying each parent’s environmental footprint. And, as a result of our increasing life expectancy, we consume resources and produce garbage for roughly 40% longer than we used to six decades ago.
Furthermore, the massive population and its concentration in select places puts a burden on social infrastructure such as health care, welfare, and housing, as well as increasing unemployment.
The decision to have children should take in consideration the emissions it will entail at today's rates, but also the likelihood that those children might have children of their own, resulting in emissions that will be passed down for many generations.
That's one of the reasons why some researchers think that not having children is the greenest thing you could do today.
Is it that simple?
One thing to keep in mind is that controlling the increase of the population will not be the solution to the climate catastrophe because of the time frame.
We only have a few years to adequately address the climate problem.
The majority of societies have already seen a demographic shift towards fewer children, as in 2021, the world fertility rate is 2.44 children per woman, which is twice less than in 1950.[9]
In 1950, the world emitted 6 billion tons of CO2, the emissions are up to 35 billion tons today.[10]
So, the decrease of born children did not have the expected effect on CO2 emissions.
Moreover, developing countries have the fewest children and pollute the most, but third-world countries, which have many children, are only marginally responsible for the current state of ecological disaster.
Thus, in the time frame that we have, i.e. 10 years, it will be more impactful to act on our way of consuming (home energy use, travel, food choices and other routine activities) rather than on the number of people of Earth.
Although the Earth's resources are limited, human ingenuity is limitless.
Yes, population expansion and consumption place a strain on resource availability.
Markets, on the other hand, offer us with incentives to change our ways or innovate.
In the short run, rising prices generated by increased demand encourage us to consume differently.
In the long run, they inspire us to look for new sources of supplies or reconsider our entire strategy.
If the second impact predominates, natural resource prices may decrease as the population grows.
After all, more people imply more brain capacity for ideas, which means more abundance.
So the question is not, is it still responsible to have kids but do you want to have kids.
If you want to have kids but are not at ease about it because of the possible impact on the environment, have one kid fewer.
If you do not want to have kids to save humanity, you won’t.
If you do not want to have kids because you are scared of the planet you are going to leave them, you are probably right.
Finally, as Martin Luther has supposedly put it:
Even if I knew the world would end tomorrow, I would continue to plant my apple trees.
[1] https://www.overshootday.org/about-earth-overshoot-day/ (last accessed on November 14th, 2021)
[2] https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html (last accessed on November 14th, 2021)
[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-19/venice-canals-run-clear-amid-coronavirus-lockdown/12071378 (last accessed on November 14th, 2021)
[4] https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1099092 (last accessed on November 14th, 2021)
(last accessed on November 14th, 2021)
[6] https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2 (last accessed on November 14th, 2021)
[7] Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 14–20
[8] https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 (last accessed on November 14th, 2021)
[9] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/fertility-rate (last accessed on November 14th, 2021)
[10] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#:~:text=In%201950%20the%20world%20emitted,34%20billion%20tonnes%20each%20year (last accessed on November 14th, 2021)
Comments