The Problem with the ‘Science’ Behind Having Fewer Children for the Planet’s Sake

Would you like to lose ten pounds of ugly fat? Great! Off with your head.

This old chestnut came to mind as I was perusing the now-infamous new study from Lund University’s child-averse climate scientists, advising people to save the planet by giving up their cars, avoiding air travel, becoming vegetarians, and having fewer kids. The study got rave reviews from the Guardian and Jill Filipovic, perhaps because the last item is really the primary thing. It turns out that hamburgers and SUVs are smallish indulgences next to that gurgling bundle of CO2-emitting joy.

The study’s authors, Seth Wynes and Kimberly Nicholas, compare parenthood with several environmentally unfriendly actions (such as driving, eating meat, and using inefficient appliances), ultimately concluding that childbearing does far more damage to the planet than all the other actions they measured. Actually, it’s worse than all the rest combined. Parents, how do you live with yourselves?

I have no scientific credentials of any kind. Nevertheless, I can discern through armchair reflection alone, that these scholars are quite wrong. Infertility is not the best way to reduce your carbon footprint. If you really care about the earth, drink the hemlock.

If that assessment seems harsh, read the write-up for yourself. The methodology alone shows why these authors don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. Claiming that they want to consider the “maximum possible effect” of our lifestyle choices, Wynes and Nicholas calculate a year’s worth of emissions for most of their evaluated actions. How much CO2 could you save by not driving for a year? How much by eating vegetarian for a year? And so forth.

Parenthood, of course, isn’t the sort of thing you can step into and out of on a per annum basis. That’s the excuse for blaming parents for the projected carbon emissions of their child’s entire life, and then adding still more to that total based on projected grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They’re leaning on this cool concept that another team of climatologists dreamed up, called a “carbon legacy.” Each parent gets credited (or demerited) with half of every child’s projected lifetime emissions, a quarter of each projected grandchild’s projected emissions, and so forth down the generations. The cumulative total becomes your “legacy,” which is how we end up at the conclusion that childbearing is orders of magnitude worse than gas-guzzling, air travel, or the consumption of animal flesh.

Parents, on this evaluation, are worse offenders by far than the childless businessman who flies all over the country, sampling steakhouses and taking joyrides in private helicopters. The Lund study is not just a bleg about inefficient family cars or disposable diapers. It’s about visiting the emissions of the children on the fathers, ultimately convicting parents of the crime of perpetuating human civilization.

Comparing a year’s worth of road trips and beef jerky to the anticipated carbon output of your descendants in perpetuity is just silly on its face. That doesn’t even resemble an apples-to-apples comparison. Now, let’s engage in a little more armchair reflection. Quite recently, our friends on the left were beside themselves over the Paris accords and the Right’s refusal to get serious about climate change. We heard about echo chambers, false prophets, and the infamous conservative fact-aversion. Is there a chance that studies like this play some role in widespread skepticism about scientific claims? Perhaps what we have on our hands is a “crisis of scientific authority.”

Liberals love personal narratives that begin with bad Sunday-school experiences and the rejection of religious authority. That story can be told another way, however.

Think about it like this. Liberals love personal narratives that begin with bad Sunday-school experiences and the rejection of religious authority. That story can be told another way, however.

My own personal memories may be representative. As a kid in science class I was bombarded with Malthusian lifeboat scenarios. I recall one project that required us to generate “creative solutions” for fitting 8 gazillion people into a square mile. We sat drawing pictures of people standing in pyramid formations, passing shrink-wrapped meals up from conveyor belts, while our science teacher thundered on about how this was not science fiction, people, this was math. We heard endless dirges about the dying rainforest, and when I take my kids to science museums today I feel like I’ve walked into a time warp, because the appeals don’t seem to have changed a bit. Climate change (née global warming) already has a pretty lengthy string of bloopers to its name. Believe it or not, this stuff wears away at the credibility of the scientific community, at least among those who don’t already view the white lab coat as a quasi-sacerdotal garment.

Maybe there’s a good explanation for the undying-rainforest crisis. Maybe carbon emissions really are pushing us into a climate crisis. And maybe you have an immortal soul that will suffer eternal torment unless you repent, but it’s hard to convince people of that when you’ve already torched your credibility by stamping obvious absurdities with the authoritative seal. People mistrust politicized science for reasons that any principled empiricist ought to respect: Personal experience suggests to them that it’s unreliable.

The Lund study is very obviously politicized science. Wynes and Nicholas want schools and other state institutions to modify their textbooks and lesson plans, spending less time on “lower-impact actions” (such as recycling and changing light bulbs) and instead pushing the more dramatic changes that have much greater potential to affect carbon output. Wisely noting that “adolescents poised to establish lifelong patterns are an important target group” for environmentalists, Wynes and Nicholas want schools to attack the real problem: children having children, or planning to have them at some future time

The discussion reads like the brainlessly “logical” musings of a sci-fi robot. “Mr. Data, what lifestyle adjustments might help to reduce our carbon footprints?”

“Sir, long-term projections indicate that reduced fertility could reduce CO2-equivalent emissions by approximately 58.6 tons per child, per year.”

That’s the point where a real human is supposed to step forward and explain that human children are not properly classified as “lifestyle adjustments.” Most likely no one in the authors’ own milieu will do that, though, because climate scientists are used to this sort of thing: the weirdly gerrymandered parameters, the childlike faith in awareness-raising, and the shared presumption that religious traditionalists must be violating some ethical principle with their unseemly fecundity. (If Malthus didn’t pan out, perhaps Mann will.) That’s why they won’t bat an eyelash at a study that throws “perpetuating the human race” onto a laundry list of lifestyle choices, along with diet, transportation, and methods of waste disposal.

Do you really want my attention, climate scientists? Commission a study on the climate impact of a liberal-environmentalist suicide pact. Then we’ll talk. If you really want to reduce your footprint, it’s worth recalling that conservation begins at home.

— Rachel Lu is a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow.

Hillary's 2016 flat-out merge with Bernie's Socialist agenda "outs" an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard and unbending stand on abortion, as declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.

The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

With "Progressive regressive cultists," isn't this the choice we must make--a path to tyranny or a possible path back to freedom in America?
When the role of the "Creator" and the ongoing "hand of Divine Providence" and "Supreme Judge of the world," as understood by America's Founders and Framers of its Constitution, is diminished and eliminated by those foolish cultists, what will America have left?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.