1. Climate emergency: The ecological impact of a child
Give up having children for the good of the planet? In any case, this would be the most relevant solution to reduce your carbon footprint according to a study published in 2017. According to researchers’ calculations, it would in fact be much more effective than stopping gasoline-powered cars, adopting a vegan diet or even recycling. If the infographic revealed by theAFP made some people cringe, notably on Twitter where Internet users did not hide their indignation, she on the other hand gave credit to the movements No Kids (No child), GINKS (Green Inclination, No Kids for Green Engagement, Pas of children), Childfree (No children by choice) and other SEnVol (Without voluntary children).
Behind these schools of thought, men and women who advocate life without children, most often for ecological reasons. “The question of ecology has always touched me and I asked myself quite young if I really wanted to have children. Having a somewhat pessimistic view of the evolution of society, particularly the state of the planet, I do not think it is wise to have children in our time”, explains Louisa, 30, French teacher. It must be said that the climate challenges are significant. In November 2022, the milestone of 8 billion human beings was crossed. While it was estimated at nearly 2.6 billion in 1950, the world population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, according to theUN. In this demographic context, planetary resources are struggling. According to the calculation of the American NGO Global Footprint Networkwe are in a situation of ecological deficit, that is to say that we consume more than what natural resources can offer us.
“We concluded that there are four actions that can significantly reduce the individual carbon footprint: a vegetarian diet, avoiding air travel, not having a car and having fewer children.”, summarized Seth Wynes of Lund University in Sweden in 2017, co-author of the study relayed by AFP. Indeed, according to researchers’ calculations, giving up having children would reduce CO2 emissions by 58.6 tonnes per year, while not having a car allows a reduction of 2.4 tonnes per year. . “An American family that chooses to have fewer children contributes the same level of reduction in CO2 emissions as 684 teenagers who decide to systematically recycle their waste for the rest of their lives”they compared.
To respond to this problem, some activists are proposing solutions that aim to slow down the number of births, like the members of the association Responsible demographics. Founded in 2008, it fights for the self-limitation of the birth rate, an approach which is part of a logic of “stabilization of the human population and its decrease in the long term”, through strong measures such as capping family allowances from the second child. But also clear personal choices, such as surgical sterilization. Questioned by AFP, Alice Rallier, member of the association, explains the reasons which pushed her to take the plunge: “I don’t want to feel the guilt of having given birth to a child in this mess.”
Although this decision may seem radical, it in any case illustrates a certain unease that part of the population, particularly young people, feels in the face of these environmental issues. Indeed, according to a survey published in 2021 by The Lancet conducted with 10,000 people from 10 countries on all continents, 39% of young people aged 16 to 25 “hesitate to have children”concerned about climate change. “I knew I didn’t want to have children around 25remembers Linda, 29 years old, school teacher. The older I get, the more I realize the abominable world we live in and it worries me a lot. I don’t know what it will look like tomorrow, where the energy will be, if we will have water. Will we have found solutions by then? It’s a total blur.”
2. Fatalism and proof of love, they give up motherhood to save the planet
It is through the prism of demographic growth that engineer Emmanuel Pont attempts to respond to the challenge of global warming. Author of the book Should we stop having children to save the planet?he places the notions of guilt and responsibility at the heart of this dilemma. “Generally, people who give up or hesitate to have children wonder what world they could live in. This is a concern that everyone is free to respond to. There is no absolute truth”, he recalls. For Linda, giving up motherhood is also a proof of love shown to these children whom she does not yet know and will probably never know. “I already love them so much that I don’t want to impose that on them. I find that life is hard enough as it is”, she explains. A burden from which Laura, 27, a ready-to-wear saleswoman, also wants to free herself: “Global warming and generally the future on this planet worries me. I don’t want my child to suffer the consequences of our mistakes. I consider that in our time, it is imprudent and selfish to procreate while knowing the probable catastrophes to come, the surely miserable living conditions that the child will face. Being born to survive is not a life”.
If ecological issues question our responsibility as future parents, they also highlight a desire to get rid of certain diktats, such as the injunction to parenthood. According to the results of a Ifop survey conducted among 2000 women of childbearing age, becoming a mother would be far from being a goal to achieve. While 98% of them expressed a desire for motherhood in 2006, today 30% refuse to have a child one day. Among them, 54% mention their ecological commitment and 50% highlight their feminist convictions. “If the lack of desire to have a child is a multi-causal phenomenon, this survey shows that political reasons (eco-anxiety, feminism, insecurity, etc.) come far behind much more individualistic logic”observes François Kraus, director of the Politics/News division of Ifop.
Louisa considers herself an ecofeminist. Theorized in 1974 by the writer Françoise d’Eaubonne in her book Feminism or death, the concept of ecofeminism refers to the idea that the environment and women suffer a whole range of violence which results from our oppressive system, dominated by capitalism and patriarchy. “When I was younger, I never felt what we call ‘the maternal instinct’ and all this daydreaming linked to an imagination around the couple, marriage, children”, confides Louisa. A feeling which has grown stronger over the years and which has sometimes complicated his love life, having to justify his choices to his partners but also to strangers. “I’m often asked about the fact that I don’t want to have children, even though I never ask for explanations from those who want them. And yet, the question is just as legitimate”she believes.
“It’s true that we have inherited a rather pronatalist tradition where we consider, particularly for women, that to be fulfilled is to have children, analyzes Emmanuel Pont. It’s a very heavy weight to carry for people who refuse to bear it”. Although considered, the choice not to have children is not easy to accept for Linda who also suffers the judgment of her family, especially that of her father. “He absolutely wants grandchildren. I never told him outright but I already implied that I wasn’t very excited about motherhood. It worried him a lot, even irritated him”she regrets.
3. Not having children, the ultimate solution to save the planet?
If having few or no children was presented as the most committed action for the planet, the Swedish researchers behind the study ended up adding some nuances to their results. Following the numerous reactions generated by this research, scientists were keen to point out that the real problem does not lie in the number of people who populate the planet but in our consumption habits. “Even with one-child policies imposed around the world and catastrophic mortality events, there would still likely be between 5 and 10 billion human beings in 2100.”had also already specified two Australian researchers in 2014.
A nuance that Emmanuel Pont also defends. In his book, he attempts to take another look at these issues, believing that the figures “gigantic” advanced in the study are “cans” and are “the result of a very very long term calculation of all the hypothetical emissions of future and uncertain descendants”. To measure the ecological impact of a child, it instead suggests a calculation taking into account other criteria, such as whether or not they were born into an ecological family. “I arrive at a reduction of one ton of CO2 per year for a family that makes an effort”he affirms, considering education and pedagogy around this problem as decisive in responding to it.
So, how should we approach becoming a parent in such a critical context? Is it really relevant to refuse to do so in order to preserve the planet? Who is right, who is wrong ? “We could wish that everyone would make their choices freely, summarizes the writer. This is a question that cannot be entirely reduced to an individual choice because to give birth to a child is to impose this world on him but also to impose him on the world. We can clearly see that these two points go beyond a purely individual choice and that they relate to social questions and therefore debates. […] On the other hand, each position is legitimate”he assures.
⋙ Tubal ligation: operation, side effects and consequences on periods
⋙ Solastalgia: what is eco-anxiety or climate anxiety?
⋙ Global warming: who are the women who preserve the forests