Is climate change a reason not to have kids?

Summary

Consider This: Is Climate Change a Reason Not to Have Kids?

Introduction

In the August 3, 2025 episode of NPR's Consider This, host Sarah McCammon delves into the pressing question: Is climate change a reason not to have kids? As global birth rates decline, many young couples grapple with the daunting decision of starting a family in an era marked by environmental uncertainty. Through insightful discussions and expert opinions, the episode explores the intricate relationship between population trends and environmental sustainability.

Declining Birth Rates and Climate Concerns

The episode begins by highlighting the global decline in birth rates. Couples like Annie Platt and Ryan Holly from South Carolina express their fears about the planet's future, questioning whether bringing children into a warming world is a responsible choice. Similarly, Emma Brennan and Lauren Wright from Maryland worry about the long-term habitability of their city, citing concerns such as Baltimore potentially becoming submerged due to rising sea levels. In Los Angeles, Sarah and Ben Brewington cite overpopulation and environmental disasters as significant factors influencing their decision not to have children.

Expert Insights: Dean Spears

Economist Dean Spears from the University of Texas, Austin, and co-author of the book After the Population: Progress and the Case for People, offers a critical perspective on the notion that declining birth rates could mitigate climate change. At [00:29], Spears states:

"If we're in a climate crisis that is only going to get worse, accelerate. And that's something that a child would have to deal with long after. Yeah, I don't have to deal with it. It's like, well, there's."

He elaborates that while having fewer children might intuitively seem beneficial for the environment, the reality is more complex. Spears argues that depopulation is a slow process and unlikely to align with the urgent climate action timelines necessary to address environmental challenges effectively. At [04:52], he emphasizes:

"Well, yes, humans pollute, destroy and cause environmental harm. But global depopulation starting in a few decades won't solve our important climate challenges or other environmental challenges because the timing is too slow and too late."

The Complexity of Population and Environment

Sarah McCammon introduces Melissa Carney from the University of Notre Dame, who studies population trends, to underscore the multifaceted consequences of declining birth rates. Carney explains that while a smaller population might reduce certain environmental pressures, it could also lead to adverse economic and societal outcomes. The discussion highlights that depopulation alone is not a panacea for environmental issues and that comprehensive strategies are required to address climate change effectively.

Examples: China's Environmental Progress

The episode examines China's environmental trajectory as a case study. Despite a growing population, China has made significant strides in reducing particulate air pollution through stringent regulations and technological advancements. At [06:32], Spears remarks:

"China is a story in progress... In fact, particle air pollution in China fell by half. Even population grew."

This example illustrates that population growth does not inherently doom environmental efforts. Instead, effective policies and innovation can lead to substantial environmental improvements, even in the face of increasing numbers.

Societal Implications of Depopulation

Spears further explores the societal ramifications of a declining population. He argues that a smaller population could hinder innovation, reduce the availability of public goods, and strain economic systems. For instance, at [07:53], he states:

"In a depopulating future, less public goods, innovation, healthcare will be feasible, and it'll be harder to continue to make progress against poverty and disease and towards better living standards."

The discussion also touches on the unequal distribution of parenting responsibilities, particularly the disproportionate burden placed on women. Spears suggests that societal changes to make parenting more equitable could encourage more couples to have children without relying on population decline as a solution to environmental problems.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a nuanced perspective on the interplay between population dynamics and environmental sustainability. While declining birth rates may offer some environmental relief, experts like Dean Spears argue that it is not a sufficient or timely solution to the climate crisis. Instead, the focus should be on reducing per capita emissions, implementing robust policies, and fostering technological innovation to address environmental challenges head-on.

Key Takeaways:

• Population Decline is Slow: Depopulation occurs over decades, which is too slow to address the urgent timelines required for climate action.
• Comprehensive Solutions Needed: Effective climate mitigation requires reducing emissions per person and adopting sustainable technologies, not just lowering population numbers.
• Societal Structures Matter: Equitable distribution of parenting responsibilities and support systems can influence family planning decisions without solely focusing on population control.
• Case Study - China: Demonstrates that with proper regulation and technology, environmental improvements are achievable even with a growing population.

Notable Quotes:

• Dean Spears at [00:29]: "If we're in a climate crisis that is only going to get worse, accelerate. And that's something that a child would have to deal with long after."
• Dean Spears at [04:52]: "Global depopulation starting in a few decades won't solve our important climate challenges or other environmental challenges because the timing is too slow and too late."
• Dean Spears at [07:53]: "In a depopulating future, less public goods, innovation, healthcare will be feasible, and it'll be harder to continue to make progress against poverty and disease and towards better living standards."

This episode of Consider This provides a comprehensive examination of the complexities surrounding population decline and environmental sustainability, offering listeners a well-rounded understanding of why the decision to have children is intertwined with, but not solely determined by, climate considerations.

Transcript

[Sarah McCammon]

The birth rate is declining across most of the world. But would fewer people mean a healthier planet? That's a question many young couples are asking as they think about having a family like Annie Platt and Ryan Holly in South Carolina. It's daunting.

[Dean Spears]

If we're in a climate crisis that is only going to get worse, accelerate. And that's something that a child would have to deal with long after. Yeah, I don't have to deal with it. It's like, well, there's.

[Sarah McCammon]

Yeah. And then their children would have to deal with it and their children after that. And in Maryland, Emma Brennan and Lauren Wright wonder if future generations would even be able to live in their city. I feel like that's the thing we talk about a lot, just because Baltimore will be underwater potentially. For Sarah and Ben Brewington in Los Angeles, talk of overpopulation and environmental disaster are two of the many reasons they're not having kids.

[Dean Spears]

It's the world we built. And I don't think that I fault people for making the decision to have less kids in that world. Right.

[Sarah McCammon]

Were we not just panicking about not having enough food? And now we're panicking about not having enough children. Like, did you have food to feed those children? But here's the thing. The consequences of having fewer people on the planet may be a bit more complicated. Melissa Carney studies population trends at the University of Notre Dame. We're actually really facing the question of depopulation. Typically, people say, well, isn't that good for the environment? So then we explain or I explain.

[Dean Spears]

Well, not really.

[Sarah McCammon]

But it also has a lot of other potential negative consequences for the economy and society. And XI isn't alone.

[Dean Spears]

Global depopulation won't solve our important climate challenges or other environmental challenges because the timing is too slow and too late.

[Sarah McCammon]

Consider A growing number of economists think a shrinking population might not help the climate all that much and it might create other problems. From NPR, I'm Sarah McCammon.

[NPR Sponsor]

This message comes from Carvana. Selling your car shouldn't take all day. With Carvana, it doesn't get a great offer in no time. Then choose to drop off or pick up and get paid on the spot. Sell your car today on Carvana.com pick up. Fees may apply. This message comes from ritual. What makes ritual vitamins different? Ritual vitamins are made with bioavailable, clinically studied key ingredients as well as the essence of Mint. Get 25% off your first purchase when you visit ritual.com NPR this message is from Synchrony Bank.

Who wants to Remind you to stay flexible. Not the yoga bending circus performing kind of flexible, financially flexible like with their high yield savings account. Stay [e-mail] NPR member FDIC.

[Sarah McCammon]

It'S consider this from NPR. Some environmentalists and climate scientists have argued that potential parents should consider smaller families to help take the pressure off the environment. But other researchers say depopulating the planet won't actually do much to solve those challenges. One of them is Dean Spears. He's an economist at the University of Texas, Austin, and the co author of the new book after the Population Progress and the Case for People. He says having fewer children isn't the solution to the climate crisis. And birth rates have been declining for years.

[Dean Spears]

All along, even when we were hearing these overpopulation stories, global birth rates were falling from a worldwide average around 5 in 1950 to 2.3 today. And in fact, 1968 was the year when the world population grew its fastest. The speed has been slowing since then. The basic reason why is that people are having fewer children. The number that matters is whether there's an average of two children in the next generation to replace two people in the last two thirds of people worldwide now live in a country where the birth rate is below this 2 for 2. That would stabilize the population. And the US is at 1.6. So pretty soon after the whole world crosses that 2 for 2 threshold, global depopulation will start. But it's a path we've been on for not just decades, but centuries, as birth rates have been falling.

[Sarah McCammon]

Now, you and your co author argue that, quote, falling birth rates are not the answer to our world's problems, including what experts agree is the biggest environmental problem of our time, which is climate change. Why not? I mean, doesn't fewer people mean fewer carbon emissions?

[Dean Spears]

Well, yes, humans pollute, destroy and cause environmental harm. But global depopulation starting in a few decades won't solve our important climate challenges or other environmental challenges because the timing is too slow and too late. The population is a large ship, slow to turn. The UN doesn't expect depopulation to begin until the 2000-80s, and that's long after urgent climate deadlines. No matter what changes in near term birth rates, the size of the population over the coming few decades is unlikely to deviate much from this most likely course. So we shouldn't really hope for depopulation starting six decades from now to get us off the hook for decarbonization or to let it distract us from the environmental progress we need to make today. There's no serious option Other than confronting and reducing per person environmental harms, emitting less carbon per person, implementing the technologies and policy changes that will continue progress against our environmental challenges. And we need to do that long before the peak in the size of the world population.

[Sarah McCammon]

On that note about technology and finding solutions, finding ways to pollute less and emit less, you've pointed to China as an example of a place where the population has grown. And some solutions have still been found to environmental problems like air pollution. But even with cleaner technology and regulation, carbon production in China continues to rise. And the country still faces some really significant environmental problems, like industrial contamination of drinking water. Is China a success story?

[Dean Spears]

China is a story in progress. The climate challenge and environmental challenges for the world is a story in progress. Progress, but in China. In 2013, China had terrible particulate air pollution. It was known around the world as the airpocalypse. On a 700 on a scale of air pollution from 0 to 500, the US embassy reported. And over the decade after 2013, the size of the Chinese population grew by 50 million people. And so if more people were always worse for the environment, you might think that particle air pollution in China would have gotten worse. But in fact, particle air pollution in China fell by half. Even population grew. And for the world as a whole, particulate air pollution has been falling even as the population grew. Not everywhere, not for example, in India, but importantly in China. And you know, how did it do it? Well, by enforcing regulation, by implementing new technologies and shutting down coal plants, by deciding to clear the air, by changing what people do.

[Sarah McCammon]

But don't more people arguably also mean, to put it sort of crassly, more potential problems? I mean, you have more brilliant thinkers, but also more consumers of resources and more people producing pollution. Explain why more people necessarily equals a net gain when it comes to solving big problems.

[Dean Spears]

A surprising part of this, just as you ask, is that other people are good for us, even when they're wanting and needing things, even when they're on the demand side of the economy. Because other people wanting and needing what you want and need is part of how and why you get it. That's why rare diseases are less likely to have good medical treatments, for example. No one can. It's not feasible to do this sort of research to find cures if there aren't enough people who need it. And that's why something like public radio has important scale effects. So public radio, like new vaccine recipes or like cures for new diseases, has this important property where once you have something many, many can use it. But if there aren't enough people who need it or want it or demand it, then it might never exist in the first place. So in a depopulating future, less public goods, innovation, healthcare will be feasible, and it'll be harder to continue to make progress against poverty and disease and towards better living standards.

[Sarah McCammon]

And I just feel like I need to say that we did not put you up to using that example. I feel like I hear in some of your comments almost a worry that we have collectively become too negative about children and about the future. Is that fair?

[Dean Spears]

Well, one of the things that we definitely done is haven't done a good enough job sharing the burdens and costs of creating the next generation. We've created a society where some people do important work and some people do care work. And frankly, we put a lot of the burden of parenting on women. And so it's no surprise when a lot of people choose not to do it. We're not here to say I'm not here to say that anybody's making a mistake when they look at the world as it is and decide not to or decide to have children. But we might all be making a mistake together if we're not looking ahead to building a future where parenting is fairer and more feasible, and so more people who want to be parents can choose to be.

[Sarah McCammon]

Dean Spears is an economist at the University of Texas, Austin, and the co author of the new book after the Population, Progress and the Case for People. This episode was produced by Megan Lim, Henry Larson and Michael Levitt. Thanks also to NPR correspondent Brian Mann. It was edited by Megan Pratz and Tinbit Ermias. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigun. And a message to our Consider this plus listeners. Thank you for supporting the work of NPR journalists and helping keep public radio strong. Supporters also hear every episode without messages from sponsors. Learn [e-mail] It's Consider this from NPR. I'm Sarah McCammon.

[NPR Sponsor]

This message comes from BetterHelp. With so much advice about mental health and wellness, it can be hard to know what actually works for you. BetterHelp and their licensed therapists can help figure out what's best for your life. Visit betterhelp.com NPR Federal funding for public.

[Dean Spears]

Media has been eliminated. That means decades of bipartisan support for public radio and television is ending. To be clear, NPR isn't going anywhere, but we do need your support. Please give today to help keep rigorous, independent and irreplaceable news coverage available to everybody free of charge. You can make your [e-mail] and thank you.

[NPR Sponsor]

Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon prime members can listen to Consider this sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get consider this [e-mail] that's plus NPR.

[Dean Spears]

Org.