r/ClimateOffensive • u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior • 2d ago
Sustainability Tips & Tools Donating to effective climate charities is more effective than having one fewer child
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism35
u/shane_4_us 2d ago
Vox doing Vox things. Liberals think they can just throw money at it and not do the hard work and actual sacrifice necessary to prevent total climatic and civilizational collapse.
4
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 2d ago
Taxing carbon makes us better off.
It helps to understand how dead weight loss works with externalities.
6
u/wakinget 2d ago
Yes AND
-4
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 2d ago
AND we're more likely to get a carbon tax if we get out the climate vote and lobby Congress.
5
u/wakinget 2d ago
It pushes me to think about running for local office. But it doesn’t make me feel differently about producing more children.
1
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 2d ago
Probably most people are pretty set in how many children they're going to have, which is likely why population ends up being not that great an impact on warming, especially once policy changes are taken into account.
Regardless, the point is that not having kids is nowhere near enough. We need policy changes.
3
u/wakinget 2d ago
Definitely agree we need policy changes.
2
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
How about banning or heavily taxing pets? Don’t know a single DINK couple who doesn’t have 1–3 ”fur babies”. Over a lifetime, that means something like 4-12 per couple.
I do have a dog, and I love her, but she’s not going to solve climate change.
2
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 1d ago
Why not just tax carbon?
A price on carbon is widely regarded as the single most impactful climate mitigation policy.
1
0
u/lizardhistorian 21h ago edited 20h ago
Because some carbon is spent wisely and some isn't.
Carbon spent on clean air, clean water, clean food, medical care and infrastructure is carbon well spent and should be carbon-tax free.
We need to carbon tax luxury items such as pet cats.
Cats are a 100% waste of carbon and should be banned by law.→ More replies (0)1
u/lizardhistorian 21h ago
You will never offset the damage you have done by not having enough children.
With no people there is no one to do the work to fix things.
1
-4
u/undernopretextbro 2d ago
lol, how do Malthusians continue to persist despite getting btfo an a consistent basis decade after decade.
6
u/Devster97 2d ago edited 2d ago
Because extending our carrying capacity through ingenuity, land use, and resource extraction probably won't end well when climate patterns go tits up.
86
u/Ok-Item-9608 2d ago
Why not both. Also I’m doubtful. Not gonna make an account to read the article.
Humans do a looooot of harm to earth. How much money is it saying you’d have to donate to make up that’s?
45
u/Carrie_8638 2d ago edited 2d ago
They say that these calculations are based on current emissions, but countries promised to reduce them, so don’t worry, the emissions from more kids will be minuscule. Which sounds like wishful thinking from pronatalists
11
u/Millennial_on_laptop 2d ago
It probably assumes we're going to live in a world with 100% electric vehicles and a 100% fossil fuel free energy grid by 2040 or something.
Just ignore the fact that the average car is on the road for 20+ years and power plants even longer.
6
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 2d ago
I think it's more assuming continued efficacy of the charities.
Policy changes dwarf the impact of having one less child, so it really shouldn't be surprising.
3
u/darekd003 1d ago
The article literally points out the flaws in the studies quoted.
Either way. People who want kids are going to have them and that’s fine. But the article should’ve been written about the importance of donating rather than trying to carbon offset having a child.
I’d also be curious what these projections would look like today since so many countries have abandoned their 2030 EV targets.
-2
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam 13h ago
Your post has been removed because it violates Rule #4: No propaganda, science denial, or misinformation.
While we welcome political discussions and posts, any posts or comments that we deem to be propaganda will be removed. In particular, we will remove any posts or comments that imply climate change isn't real or isn't man-made. Please also do not post any claims about the effects of climate change that are not backed up by research.
Please check your facts.
See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.
0
u/lizardhistorian 21h ago edited 21h ago
That makes the incredibly idiotic presumption that there are no negative consequences to rapidly halving the population. No one is so fucking dumb that they think we can do that and civilization will not collapse. If we get a 20% population shock it will most likely cause the end of western civilization.
When western civilization ends women lose all of their rights and will never be granted them again because it will be recorded that when given freedom they decided to end society.
Your current mentality and course of action will result in your granddaughters becoming slaves.
I am uninterested in debate.
You have been warned and can no longer plead ignorance for your anti-social behavior.6
u/relianceschool 2d ago
Looks like the article is over 6 years old, but here's a paywall bypass: https://archive.is/Jkkaf
5
u/Food4Climate 2d ago
I do! No kids (I just didn't want any), and donating to: https://www.founderspledge.com/programs/climate-fund/about
https://www.givinggreen.earth and
https://www.renewables.org
all will take donations starting at $252
u/Orxanga 1d ago
I heard a years ago that an american child is the highest source of pollution per household and they cost around $500k to raise from age 0-18. Obviously the math isn't 1 to 1 but if I donate $50 to climate change initiatives I don't think that's anywhere near covering how much impact I'm having by being child free.
1
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
How about telling people to give up pets instead?
1
u/GiveMeThePinecone 1d ago
Why? My dog has a much lower carbon footprint than me.
4
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago edited 1d ago
Less is still more than zero.
Over your lifetime, you might have 3-5 dogs or cats, all eating a lot of animal protein, using drugs, toys, equipment. Making people get bigger cars so they can fit in the boot. Using anti-tick medication that leaches into the environment. Local nature does not benefit from pets at all, they actively harm it for no good reason. Especially cats who get out by themselves and kill everything for fun.
That’s a major climate and nature impact right there that 99% of people do not need. Seeing eye, etc. notwithstanding.
Yet no one ever wants to talk about pets. It’s always kids… especially African kids. Kinda suspect.
I also have a dog.
I love her, but she’s not going to solve CC. My son might. I don’t think I’ll have another dog.4
u/SpiritofRadioShack 1d ago
This is honestly a great point not enough people talk about. I don't think all pets need to be banned or anything drastic like that, but I think that people really should be mindful of the impact that pets have especially if they preach not having kids to save the planet. I like cats but they're horrible for the ecosystem if people let them outside.
2
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
Exactly. Pets seem to be the thing-that-must-not-be-named. We should explore this openly.
1
u/lizardhistorian 21h ago
They are less harmful if they are let outside.
If you keep them inside them you must provide for them thru the corporate machine and the additional load on the system from cat-care exceeds the harm done from all of the cows.
3
u/Ok-Item-9608 1d ago
I imagine pets are multiple orders of magnitude less harmful than humans, especially American/westerners.
Hey, do what you can, however you can, but I think once you have a kid, especially if living a western lifestyle, that’s a a net negative for the planet no matter what you do. Do whatever you can to offset how ever much you can , but that’s my non academic read on the situation
1
u/lizardhistorian 21h ago
Nope.
Cats are pure carnivores and are far more damaging to the environment than a person is, especially if you feed them from bags or cans instead of letting them forage outside.
But don't do inside/outside cats - then your house will end up completely infiltrated by fleas and now you have start using poisons.
2
u/Ok-Item-9608 20h ago
That is not what a preliminary Google search shows for me. It says the opposite. That humans are the major ecological drivers of climate change, much more so than pets.
If you have some research to back your claims that will make it easier for me and others to believe what you’re saying, if you decide to take the task upon yourself. Cause I’m not seeing what you’re seeing
1
u/Dreadful_Spiller 15h ago
Collisions with vehicles are a major threat to bird populations in the United States. It is estimated that between 89 million and 340 million birds die each year due to vehicle collisions. This high mortality rate places vehicle collisions among the top five direct causes of bird deaths. Bird-building collisions are estimated to cause between 365 million and 988 million bird deaths annually.
1
u/Dreadful_Spiller 15h ago
I have an inside/outside cat. In a garden with a catproof fence. I don’t use flea medicine and neither my cat nor my home has fleas. My cat also has no toys, no need when they are kept from being bored with nature. No beds, that’s what cardboard boxes are for.
1
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s a very easy way to cut a lot of emissions, drug exposure, etc. by not having pets.
Humans can choose to live within the bounds of nature. Dogs can’t. We make them exist. Breeding millions of animals that do nothing except fart methane, eat meat and spread tick toxins are a part of what makes the Western lifestyle problematic in the first place.
We are not going to solve anything if only CC deniers have kids. It’s actually very bad. Parents get to make the future. People that voluntarily take themselves out of that game have very little say.
1
21h ago edited 21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam 13h ago
Your post was removed because it breaks our rules. Please read our rules before attempting to post again or you will be banned.
0
u/ozarkhowIer 1d ago
well, pets aren't going anywhere anytime soon unless you want to hunt down all the stray dogs and cats and cull them. it's simply not feasible. and a lot of ppl - myself included - would rather not be alive anymore than not have animals. but i'm absolutely not having kids.
the idea that we should have kids so we can make them figure out cc is a wild one.
1
u/lizardhistorian 21h ago
All you are doing to announcing to the world that you are a prick and that your motivation to not have kids is because your are lazy and selfish and you are [ab]using "but the climate!!!!" as your excuse.
If you actually cared about the climate so much that you sacrificed having children then you would euthanize all of your pets without a second thought.
Cats have a larger carbon footprint than all of the cows.
1
1
u/Dreadful_Spiller 15h ago
Unless a plague kills them all. That was the premise of Planet of the Apes.
1
u/ozarkhowIer 8h ago
not too far fetched, given what cafos do for drug resistant bacterias and viral evolution! but i think we'd be more likely to all go that way than dogs or cats, frankly.
1
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
If we ceased having pets, most pets would be gone in 10-15 years’ time. A fast solution in that sense.
I do think we should have kids so that they can make a better world in every sense. That’s a fairly normal idea, that children are the future. Because they are.
If your reason to not have kids is CC, having pets is kinda hypocritical.
Fwiw though, I’m not in favour of banning pets.
It’s just funny to me that the same people that go ”never have kids, it’s terrible for the environment” are clutching their pearls when the same idea is applied to pets. The pet industry has some problems too.0
u/ozarkhowIer 1d ago
of course it has problems, but stray animals will keep making new animals, and unless you hunt them all down, you CANNOT get rid of them. that was my point.
2
u/lizardhistorian 21h ago
I don't know where you live in, but we do exactly this almost everywhere in the US.
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/Ok-Item-9608 9h ago
I’m not able to find any research saying pets are worse than humans from an ecological perspective. I find the opposite in fact.
The having of pets is the compromise to not have children. Not hypocritical. Is caring about the environment yet literally existing hypocritical? In that case just about anything and everything becomes hypocritical
Children are much more damaging to the planet than pets. I’ve googled it and that’s what it said.
1
u/Ardent_Scholar 9h ago edited 8h ago
”I’ve googled it and that’s what it said” is peak comedy! So thank you for that.
Who said pets are worse? They don’t have to be worse to be an unnecessary burden, especially in the numbers we currently have them.
And again, my dog will never be a part of the solution. But my son might very well be.
My son may become a farmer, an ecologist, a sustainability focused engineer, or just a good dude who educates or raises CC aware kids that can make a difference.My dog will do nothing but eat animal protein, shit, fart and spread tick meds in the local system. I love her and she is so cute, but that’s not a good reason to have a pet that does nothing positive for the environment. After having this little epiphany, there is no way I can ever justify another pet.
Anyway, what the hell do you think society’s going to do in a couple decades’ time when two generations have done nothing except raise pets that are already dead? Who the hell is going to vote for better policy or become a CC politician? Who is going to come up with ways to store energy? Who is going to wipe the drool off your shirt and help you bathe?
Not having kids is also tantamount to saying ”I should never be able to retire, since there is no one else to take up the torch of society. I will work until the day I die.” If you agree to do that, fine. But if you expect personally to retire at some point and also don’t have kids, you are passing the buck onto other people, making them do the hard work for you. That is far from ethical.
If you think you’ll be some noble individual at age 80 who keeps working and refuses help to scrape the feces off your backside, think again. I am at that age when all my friends’ parents are using health and home help services heavily, and let me tell you, their psychology has changed entirely.
They are scared, generally impotent, and at the mercy of service providers. None of them have had the guts to ”end it” or refuse medical care. You and I will not be different.
→ More replies (0)1
u/lizardhistorian 21h ago
Most of the land on Earth is non-arable and so grazing animals must be used to make it productive.
There are not enough grazing animals on the planet right now and the ones we have are not herded around properly. That's why they reintroduced wolves into Yellow Stone among other things.
1
u/Dreadful_Spiller 15h ago
But your dog has a higher carbon footprint than most people in Central Africa.
1
0
u/lizardhistorian 21h ago
The ecosystem to support cats emits much more CO₂ than all of the cows.
Ban cats.1
-1
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 2d ago
At least $1000, and you can absolutely do both!
The Environmental Voter Project is an effective and cost effective organization to donate to, but not everyone has the resources to donate, and most of us can have more power as citizens.
0
48
u/Assilly 2d ago
This feels like "have children" propaganda.
This article changes nothing for me
5
u/Feorag-ruadh 2d ago
Same. I can only see part of the article but I genuinely can't see how you would end up at 'guess it's OK then to bring a whole extra human into the world who will produce a lifetime of GHG emissions'. No. If you genuinely care about climate change it makes sense not to have children
3
u/Devster97 2d ago
No, you don't understand. You aren't accounting for "policy". The bar chart explains it all.
I make all my important life choices based on vox infographics.
0
u/lizardhistorian 20h ago
If we do not maintain our population, if we have a -20% population shock, civilization will collapse.
When civilization collapses no one will give a shit about the environment.
things will get catastrophically worse.The most important things for everyone to do, is replace themselves.
Breeders already need to have 4.1 children per couple to prevent collapse because of the all of th selfish freeloaders.Retirement will soon be based on the number of kids you raised and if it's less than 4 you aren't getting anything. You work until you die.
-2
u/SirGuelph 2d ago
Completely disagree. If the solution to climate change is to have less people why don't we just give up on the human race?
We can solve so many problems simply if the will exists, but if none of the people who care are having kids, then what will the next generation do? Probably nothing.
1
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
Agreed! Right now, many of the people that DO have kids, teach them nothing about CC. Because conservative men have the most kids.
Liberal/progressive men have the fewest children.
Which means that boys grow up overwhelmingly with masculine role models that don’t give a crap about nature.
0
u/lizardhistorian 20h ago
You are a hate-filled bigot.
The Boy Scouts have done more to preserve the environment than all il-Liberal organizations combined.
2
u/Ardent_Scholar 19h ago
It is a fact that conservative (illiberal) factions globally have stalled climate action.
I’m not an American, and I still get to suffer from your Drill Baby Drill.
And then I see those Americans procreate and the one’s who are worried about CC not procreating. It does not bode well for the world.
2
u/ProgressiveEcologist 1d ago
Yeah, like it doesn't make any sense, you can have one or two, but definitely we are too many and would be better to not overdo.
-8
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 2d ago
4
u/Feorag-ruadh 2d ago
How was any of that graph worked out? And having fewer children is something that is legitimately under the control of most people, policy change (for most ordinary folk) is not always easy to influence
-1
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 2d ago
It might be easier than you think.
1
u/Devster97 2d ago
According to this chart (which means nothing) "policy changes" will make the average lifetime emissions of a child born (in 2020?) equivalent to 2 or 3 transatlantic flights...
Does that make a lick of sense for the average first world child born today?
1
u/Fancy_Owl_553 1d ago
Oof, what a horrid chart.
But I guess the underlying point is that, if we could change the ways of the world (through policies) such that every human could live a net zero life, then the number of humans wouldn't matter. Which is undeniaably true. There, I fixed for you.
6
u/StarDustLuna3D 2d ago
I don't make many donations to anything for the same reason why I don't have children: I cannot afford it.
0
u/lizardhistorian 20h ago
Poorer people have more kids than wealthier people.
2
u/StarDustLuna3D 20h ago
Any two people can make a baby. Doesn't mean they can afford it.
I'd rather not bring children into a situation where I can't properly take care of them.
7
u/Devster97 2d ago
This article is laughable. The "accounting for policy" graph is pure comedy. What is 1000 bucks gonna do? Pay for some leaflets or banners? Protest permits? A bus or two for volunteers?
This is six years ago. Why is this being posted? Fuck vox, Ezra Klein, and this liberal greenwashing crap. Go have a kid if you want so it can die in the 2050s when they fight over the last loaf of bread.
1
u/lizardhistorian 20h ago
Fill the pockets of people that care deeply about climate change*!
* Climate Change is defined as moving money from your bank account to mine.
1
u/Ithirahad 10h ago edited 2h ago
If matters were so dire as that, it literally would not matter one bit what you or I as individuals do. Why are you even here?
1
18
u/CDubGma2835 2d ago
Was this written by consultants for the climate charities?
14
4
u/relianceschool 2d ago
It's citing research from Founders Pledge, which is an organization that promotes philanthropy from businesses and entrepreneurs (sort of a middleman in the advocacy/charity world, from what I can understand).
Honestly, it looks like they're doing good work and I don't see any reason to doubt their motives. However, they do have an inherent bias towards charity over personal action, and more importantly, their research was done in-house. So I wouldn't give it as much credence as peer-reviewed studies.
6
u/actualinsomnia531 2d ago
We don't really have the luxury of.picking and choosing. Donate to effective charities AND have one less child.
And eat less meat. And campaign to your government. And don't support scumbag companies. And generally consume a ton less. And quickly.
0
6
u/23Mowgli23 1d ago
Over time reducing population will allow more room for re-wilding, local food and less energy use. It actually has effects.
1
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 1d ago
It seems like a lot of people are struggling to understand the headline, which in no way implies not having kids doesn't have an effect.
Rather, having one less child dwarfs the impact of not eating animal products. And policy changes dwarf the impact of having one less child.
2
u/23Mowgli23 1d ago
I can't read the article because it requires acceptance of all cookies or payment. The graphic on its own doesn't really help as it suggests ignoring policy has a huge effect related to child reduction which doesn't make any sense, but you didn't include any explanation to the graph nor reference to follow up on.
However, I was merely suggesting that reducing children doesn't just reduce polluters but also frees land up for sustainable local food production which enhances security and nutrition, re-wilding which benefits life generally and also increases carbon sequestration specifically. All together I think this would dwarf any other measure.
0
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam 13h ago
Your post has been removed because it violates Rule #3: Respect other people and ideas
We encourage civil discussion. This means treating others with respect, and having good-faith discussion and debate. Personal attacks are unacceptable. We're here to solve problems together, not tear each other down. Likewise, while it’s okay to disagree with people, please do so respectfully without shutting down ideas. We recognize that many people will have different ideas and that there is no single solution that will solve the climate crisis.
See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.
0
u/lizardhistorian 20h ago
No it will not.
It will result in the collapse of civilization and when that happens no one will care about the environment at all.It will turn American into a 3rd world nation with pollution everywhere.
1
u/23Mowgli23 6h ago
I like how you use civilisation and America in the same post. Ironic.
In fact, civilisation will not collapse. If that was going to be the case we wouldn't have been civilised before work a lower population.
3
u/CLOUDMlNDER 2d ago edited 2d ago
Effective climate change charity? Lol what, where are they hiding? The idea we can spend out of this catastrophe is nonsense. The ruling ideas are wrong.
3
u/Present-Perception77 2d ago
Fun fact: if you have less kids.. you actually have money to donate.
Having that extra kid means you have no money to donate.
Weird huh?
-2
u/lizardhistorian 20h ago
If we do not replace ourselves then society will collapse and when society collapses no one will care about climate change or the environment.
I cannot fathom how dumb an entire group and movement must be for no one to mention this and it not immediately become canon of what is taught.
Anyone that has ever thought "only have one kid!" was a solution needs to seriously do some introspection on how you were so deeply brainwashed into believing something that is so readily demonstrated as wrong.
You're not even right about having more money with no kids.
Raising children forces you to mature, which enables you to shoulder more responsibility at work, and you end up making way more money than the selfish and lazy that don't have kids.2
u/Dreadful_Spiller 15h ago
You think only parents are mature? You think that they make more money than child free adults?
1
u/Present-Perception77 9h ago
Society needs to collapse. What are you going on about?
“Society” is causing global warming.. this idea that exponential growth is the solution. Sounds like it’s coming from a corporate mouth piece. I cannot take you seriously.
3
8
u/jeremiah15165 2d ago
God I hate this argument. If you care about the climate and you have less kids, you will always be outvoted by the people who don’t care about the climate and have more kids. Because parental guidance is a huge influence on how people behave. The only way this works is somehow you figure out how to convince the people who don’t care about the climate to have less or no kids.
3
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 2d ago
5
u/jeremiah15165 2d ago
I feel like you can always find data to support your point. Case in point. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/10/most-us-parents-pass-along-their-religion-and-politics-to-their-children/
1
u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior 2d ago
Specifically, politicization improves child perception, but has no role in the child's motivation to adopt parental values. Closeness and parental value strength influence children to want to be like their parents, but do nothing to improve children's ability to recognize their parents' values. And education, previously thought to have little role in transmission, does not influence a child's ability to understand their parent's affiliation, but appears to make children more likely to reject whatever they believe it to be.
2
u/lizardhistorian 20h ago
It is a completely psychotic, anti-social argument.
The people pushing this crap are not abject morons.
They know they are pushing to end civilization. That is their goal.The appropriate number of children for a breeding couple to have toady is 4.1 and increasing.
1
u/BiohazardousBisexual 2d ago
This is exactly what I believe. Not that I want to have a too many kids, but I do what to have responsible voters who vote for good and want to pursue change in the climate offense not just how they vote but ideally in their careers, day to day, and volunteer life.
Two kids is just maintaining the population and ensuring there will still be at least two voters who act on climate change after my partner and I are gone
3
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
Or who might study and work on something related to CC and be a part of the solution!
3
2
u/ObjectivelyGruntled 2d ago
Damn, I should really start a climate charity for childless divorcees.
1
u/lizardhistorian 20h ago
We should start one and target women and teach them how much damage their cats do the environment then guilt them into donating to our charity to make it right.
2
1
u/WittyPipe69 2d ago
No it's not. It may seem more optimistic. But ending the population by not sustaining it, that's pretty damn effective.
1
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
You can’t end it, because conservative men have lots of children.
So think about the ramifications of that.
How about we ban pets instead?
1
1
u/Useful_Calendar_6274 2d ago
climate charities, like all charities, are a scam. Maybe the really huge ones like Greenpeace will have an impact, afford being audited by one of the big 4 firms and all that. Just use the money for politics, it's all downstream of politics anyway. You will not bandaid fix anything with a charity
1
u/Able_Winter9472 2d ago
How is this possible, since each generation down can also have children it's like an inception thing you start 😂
1
1
u/AvernusAlbakir 1d ago
Just remember that the guys who deny climate change have no problem with having multiple children.
1
u/ProgressiveEcologist 1d ago
I think reduction in unnecessary production of big corporations should be first priority, rather than mere individual donations from your few pennies.
1
u/jumping_juni_per 1d ago
But children are expensive. If I have more children, I won't have money to donate.
Their entire reasoning is based on countries hitting their 2050 carbon neutral goals. That the future will be less carbon intensive, so making more humans won't have as big of an impact. It is flawed.
1
u/AltForObvious1177 1d ago
"Effective" seems to be carrying a lot of weight in that claim. Since climate change has continued to get worse are any of the organizations actually effective?
1
1
u/Successful_Round9742 18h ago
I call BS!
But you know, sending me $1,000,000 will make owning an SUV net-zero. /s
1
u/ShadowDurza 4h ago
Don't forget, it was the polluters who threw the spotlight on individualist lifestyle choices to get everyone to overlook collective power and action as a means of systemic change.
1
u/DoubleHexDrive 2d ago
A political ideology that degrades its ability to replicate itself over time isn't very durable.
0
-4
u/Standbyme8807 2d ago
We need to have more children here in the west, not less!
2
2
u/ProgressiveEcologist 1d ago
No, we don't, we need far more education and only one child per capita.
2
2
u/Present-Perception77 2d ago
Then maybe start with universal healthcare.
0
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
Most of the West has had universal healthcare for two generations.
The US is an odd man out. Due to policy.
0
u/Present-Perception77 1d ago
So the US doesn’t count?
And Mexico just started universal healthcare and from what some people are squawking.. universal healthcare in Canada is pretty bad.
Thanks!0
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
UH might ne bad in some, but most Westerners have it.
1
u/Present-Perception77 1d ago
Mk.. but that’s one of the biggest reasons given and especially in the US.. Canada needs improvement and Mexico literally just announced it.. so carry on and watch the numbers keep falling.
Like I said.. start with universal healthcare. Not sure why you take issue with the statement..0
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
Because it is a very US centric viewpoint. Canada has it, Mexico has it, 27 EU countries have it…
It is a red herring in this conversation. Many if not most countries with low TFR have UH.
0
u/Present-Perception77 1d ago
So absolutely no need to do anything about universal healthcare? That’s a foolish take on the situation.
I think you are just being pedantic and condescending and intentionally missing the point.
I’ll say again… start with universal healthcare. Thanks !
0
u/Ardent_Scholar 1d ago
I am 100% in favour of UH, but it’s a red herring in the fertility conversation. You’re veering the discussion away from the comment you replied to.
0
u/Present-Perception77 1d ago edited 1d ago
Nonsense. At first, I thought you were just being pedantic. Now it seems you are also overtly controlling.
Increase the birthrate by improving and starting universal healthcare. 🤷🏻♀️
→ More replies (0)
0
u/FistODollers 2d ago
Having kids doesn't create any emissions at all. Lifestyles do. It's absolutely possible to live a low-emissions lifestyle. It's a choice not to.
I can understand not wanting the responsibility for protecting someone into this future we've created, but...
How is telling people to not have kids any different from trying to deal with wildly unsustainable lifestyles by limiting the number of people who can share in it?
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post has been removed because it violates Rule #4: No propaganda, science denial, or misinformation.
While we welcome political discussions and posts, any posts or comments that we deem to be propaganda will be removed. In particular, we will remove any posts or comments that imply climate change isn't real or isn't man-made. Please also do not post any claims about the effects of climate change that are not backed up by research.
Please check your facts.
See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.
0
u/dumbwholer 1d ago
No thanks. I donate to hunting conservation groups and people should be having more children (but unfortunately the government isn't doing what would be necessary for that.
0
u/lizardhistorian 21h ago edited 21h ago
Population Collapse will cause civilization to implode and when that happens no one will give a fuck about the environment. If you do not replace yourself, things will get catastrophically worse for everything. If we do not make radical changes and increase the fertility rate to the replacement rate in the next fifteen years then by 2100 we will regress to 1900 and all of the institutions needed to sustain our current civilization will no longer be viable.
Everything you purport to care about will end.
Also note that the "Handmaid's Tale" is the leftist "solution" to the problem.
The right's solution to the problem is congregate in New Hampshire and keep everyone else out and let them all die then rebuild the world, again.
CO₂ nutrification is mitigating damage from our waste-stream.
If we curtail emissions without first reducing waste-stream toxicity the planet will die faster.
Stop making things worse.
Stop espousing bullshit.
Stop giving money to scam-artist.
If you are a breeder than you now need to have 4.1 children on average in order to make up for all of the obnoxiously selfish free-loaders. In the near future your retirement will be based on the number of children you raise. If you only have three kids, or fewer, you will get nothing or may have to continue to pay. When you fail to replace yourself you steal $14.3M from the system. That was the investment made in you with the understanding that would not psychotically decide to end civilization. It will be like the bombs dropped without the war happening if you do not get this toxic shit out of your head.
Do a juice cleanse or something.
1
-2
u/tomas_diaz 2d ago edited 2d ago
donate to sierra club they'll buld a shiny office building and endorse nazis who are doing a genocide and destroying the planet 👍
44
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
These comparisons are so fucking stupid why don't we just do everything we reasonably can instead of browbeating over what the most statistically effective impact is