One of these choices has a sliiiiightly higher impact than the others 🤔
Sourced from Mastodon : https://mastodon.social/@Loukas@mastodon.nu/110548011121849945
Something about equating the choice to have kids with reducing the climate impact leaves me with an icky feeling. Not all humans have the same climate impact, so not all children would, either. Instead of telling Bob not to procreate, we really need to take a long hard look at Bezos and his many private flights.
Never forget that “carbon footprint” is propoganda by the fossil fuel industry to push the responsibility of climate change onto individuals rather than large corporations who are the ones truly responsible for the mess we’re in.
Something about equating the choice to have kids with reducing the climate impact leaves me with an icky feeling. Not all humans have the same climate impact, so not all children would, either
I’ve had friends with kids. Children absolutely have a climate impact.
Diapers - disposable and reusable - have an impact. Car seats have an impact, and an expiration date. Kids outgrow clothes and shoes quickly, so replacements have to be created. (Yes, thrifting and large families can minimize (but not eliminate) that impact). Children are literal additional mouths to feed. Depending on the childrens’ age and quantity, the parents may need larger vehicles and houses.
And that’s just the required stuff. Children’s toys, gadgets, and hobbies also have climate impacts.
They didn’t deny children have an impact, just that not all children have the same impact.
We know the super-rich cause incredibly larger amounts of emissions than the average joe, the same likely applies to the children of the rich.
To be fair it says “one fewer child”, not no children at all 😅 But yeah, person has 0 climate change impact when there is no person 👀
In a little bit more serious note, we should put more pressure on corporations and regulators regarding climate change, not on individuals.
