[someone321]

[dead]

[_Algernon_]

Not having kids is doing something. It removes a lifetime of future carbon emissions, and that is ignoring any further ancestors.

You may disagree that that is the right path to take for personal reasons and that's fine, but an average middle class person who doesn't have kids has likely saved more carbon emissions than any other realistic action (eg. not flying, vegetarian/vegan diet, using paper straws). Don't discredit that.

[ChatGTP]

Not having kids and not using all the excess money to fly around the globe, drive cars, consume hardcore isn’t an improvement.

I’d say most childless adults I know are way more carbon intensive the me simply because they can do more.

Kids are actually economical. They’re light, don’t eat much, can be entertained by pretty simple means and because they constantly grow and everything needs to be changed over, second hand goods are so accessible, nearly everything we buy for them is secondhand, bikes, skateboards, clothes.

I honestly ride my bike with my kids everywhere and we have not used the aircon once this summer. I’d say my kid uses 1/20th the emissions of an average adult with no children.

[goatlover]

I discredit all such talk as unrealistic and meaningless. People will have kids if they want kids, and if they don't want kids, they'll use that to say they're saving the environment. Same with eating meat, going on vacations, etc.

None of that is going to solve the problem anyway.

[truculent]

If I’m responsible for my kids’ emissions, then my parents are responsible for mine. Emissions are no longer my problem!