Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Amanda Poretto is 27 years old – the average age of new mothers in the United States. However, she remains unsure about whether Children,
Despite family expectations – his father’s desire to become a grandfather and his late mother’s belief that he would eventually embrace motherhood – Poretto, who works in advertising, takes a different approach.
“Some people think not having kids is a bad thing,” she said.
“I don’t think I need to bring more people (into the world) when there is currently so much here that we need to fix.”
His sentiment reflects a growing trend among younger generations of Americans who are increasingly citing Climate change The primary reason for their reluctance to have children.
Concerns are focused on the possibility of proliferating in a world grappling with increasing and more intense extreme weather events, a direct result of greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. There is also the possibility that their own children may have an environmental impact on the planet.
Recent studies underscore this trend: a 2024 Lancet study based on people aged 16 to 25 showed that most people were either “very” or “extremely” concerned about climate change, with 52 percent admitting that it made them hesitant about having children.
A Pew Research Center The report, also published in 2024, found that adults under 50 without children were four times more likely than their counterparts over 50 to consider climate a factor in their decision.
This year, a study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that when asked whether climate change had made them question whether they would have children, more than half of respondents answered “yes” or “probably”.
Impact of climate on children
parenthood And climate change is not only related out of fear for a child’s well-being, but also out of concern for the well-being of the planet.
“Compared with the carbon emissions of all other decisions, having a child is by far, orders of magnitude, larger,” said Nandita Bajaj, executive director of Population Balance, a nonprofit focused on the environmental impact of humans.
Unlike other options, reproduction comes with something that bioethics professor Travis Rider says Johns Hopkins University Called “carbon legacy”.
“You’re not just doing carbon expensive activities like buying a bigger house and a bigger car and diapers and all that,” Ryder said. “You’re also creating someone who will have their own carbon footprint for the rest of their life.”
That child can have children, and those children can have children, creating an impact that will last for generations, Ryder said. Of course, the logical extreme of minimizing the environmental footprint means having no children, Ryder said, which he’s not advocating.
It is difficult to measure the impact of a child. This is because there is no agreement on what percentage of their influence is the parents’ responsibility, and partly because the amount of influence a child has depends on their parents’ lifestyle.
“The best predictor of how expensive carbon will be is how rich you are,” Ryder said.
For example, according to the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, the US emits 123 times more carbon than Ghana. Adjusted for population size, this means the average American emits 12 times more than the average person.
a taboo
Fertility may have the biggest climate impact, but when it comes to actions people can take to reduce their individual contributions to global warming, having fewer children isn’t often discussed.
Researchers studying climate change and family planning suggest two reasons.
“If someone tells you they’re pregnant or they’re pregnant, the immediate reaction is to offer some kind of support, congratulate them, that kind of thing,” said Trevor Hedbert, who teaches moral philosophy. University of Arizona,
The second factor: the impact of reproduction is sometimes tied to conversations about overpopulation, Ryder said. The environmental movement in the 1970s expressed fears that there were too many people for the planet’s resources, leading to racism and eugenics, which provoked a severe backlash.
Climate affects people’s choices
43-year-old Ash Sanders knew since childhood that she did not want to have children. Then she became pregnant.
“I didn’t want to add another person to the world and have them have any more impact on a world that was already overstretched and stressed by the number of humans that are here,” she said.
Sanders, a freelance writer who covers religion and the environment, wanted to have an abortion but felt pressured by her Mormon upbringing and father to have a child. He said that he was called a bad person for not wanting to have a child.
She put her child up for open adoption and meets him regularly. Today he is confused about his decision.
She said, “I feel guilty for bringing her into the world. I mean she loves the world, she’s a happy baby, she’s great. I’m a huge fan of hers. But I feel guilty all the time.”
Juan Jaramillo said the environment has always been a factor for him parenthood Calculus, even when he was a teenager in the 1970s. He later went to school to become a marine biologist.
“Pollution and climate change were not an issue yet, but all the other problems we face now were there then too,” he said.
Also, he didn’t want children. So he got sterilization done and he has no regrets about his decision. Her decision not to have children and her environmental concerns came to the fore.
That’s not the case for Ryder, a bioethics professor who has spent years studying that effect, and still wants to be a father.
“Having children is an extremely meaningful and important activity for people. It is also carbon costly,” he said. “So how do you weigh these things?”
For Ryder, finding that balance meant more than just having a child.