Should you drop your dreams of parenthood to fight climate change?
Are you a young parent, or do you plan to become one in the near future? Are you worried about climate change? Are you struggling to do anything about it?
Here’s an idea for you. What if I told you that having no child (or one less child) is 25 times more effective at reducing your carbon footprint than anything else you could do? This is what a recent, widely reported study claims: cycling, recycling and going plant-based are all fine, but if you really want to make a difference, consider bringing one less baby polluter into this world. Or should you?

When I first came across this argument, it made a lot of sense. Just look at that infographic. Almost 60 tonnes of carbon dioxide! If some 700 million other concerned couples made that choice every year, we’d slash our global carbon budget, which is roughly 40 GT (giga tonnes) per year.
You may be thinking: what is this population control madness? Something doesn’t feel right here. I had the same feeling. What if sacrificing your self-replication instinct for a better planet (the ultimate choice for the eco-concerned individual), were not such a genius plan after all? During the recent Mission2020 Swarm Camp we learned what some of the wealthiest men on Earth, gathering every year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, consider the biggest challenge we face as a civilisation. It’s not an economic model predicated on infinite growth and cyclical crises. It’s irresponsible parents, particularly those who have swells of kids in the regions of the world most affected by climate change. In one, cold word: overpopulation.
What if this were a subtle argument for population control, this time targeted at irresponsible parents in richer countries? People like you and I. Just have less kids, and this climate business will get back to normal. And why is it such a compelling meme, even if we exclude there’s an elitist agenda behind it?
Maybe because it rides on our consumerist guilt. In the last 40 years we’ve absorbed the notion that there is no such thing as a society. We’re just individuals, acting in our self-interest and voting with our wallets. When it comes to climate change, we welcome and sometimes adopt consumer-centric solutions: buy local, drive less, eat organic, etc.
Steeped in a culture telling us to think of ourselves as consumers instead of citizens, as self-reliant instead of interdependent, is it any wonder we deal with a systemic issue by turning in droves to ineffectual, individual efforts?
Martin Lukacs in Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals
Such individual consumer choices are worthless if we don’t also act as citizens and push for systemic change. Of course we can vote with our wallets and should continue to do so. But it won’t be enough. We can’t just rely on the markets to do the right thing.
If we want to bring down emissions fast, we will need to overcome free-market mantras: take railways and utilities and energy grids back into public control; regulate corporations to phase out fossil fuels; and raise taxes to pay for massive investment in climate-ready infrastructure and renewable energy — so that solar panels can go on everyone’s rooftop, not just on those who can afford it.
Martin Lukacs, again.
So, eco-concerned parent or soon-to-be-parent, stop worrying about the future emissions of your unborn child, and consider exercising your political power instead. Check out these collective solutions from Project DrawDown, ranked by impact, for a starter. Then talk to your fellow citizens.
