Climate Anxiety Drives Young Americans to Reconsider Parenthood: The Environmental Impact of Having Children

Young Americans are increasingly citing climate change as a significant factor in their reluctance to have children.

Amanda Porretto, at 27, finds herself at the average age of new mothers in the United States according to CDC data. As an only child, she faces familial expectations—her father desires grandchildren and her late mother always insisted she would eventually want to become a parent.

"Some people perceive not having children as negative," explains Porretto, who works in advertising. "I simply don't believe I need to bring more individuals into a world with so many existing problems that require solutions."

Recent studies indicate that younger generations of Americans increasingly mention climate change as influencing their hesitancy toward parenthood. Their concerns are twofold: anxiety about introducing children into a world experiencing more frequent and severe weather events resulting from climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and worries about their potential offspring's environmental footprint.

A 2024 Lancet study examining individuals aged 16 to 25 revealed that most respondents expressed being "very" or "extremely" worried about climate change. The research further discovered that 52% reported hesitation about having children due to climate concerns. According to a Pew Research Center report from last year, childless adults under 50 were four times more likely than their counterparts over 50 to cite climate as influencing their reproductive decisions. Additionally, a study published this year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that more than half of participants answered "yes" or "maybe" when asked if climate change made them question having children.

The connection between parenthood and climate change stems not only from fears regarding a child's future well-being but also concerns about planetary health.

Compared to other carbon-generating decisions, "having a child has exponentially greater impact," says Nandita Bajaj, executive director of Population Balance, a nonprofit focused on humanity's environmental impact.

Travis Rieder, a bioethics professor at Johns Hopkins University, refers to this phenomenon as "carbon legacy."

"Beyond carbon-intensive activities like purchasing larger homes, vehicles, and products like diapers, you're creating an individual who will generate their own carbon footprint throughout their lifetime," Rieder explains.

This impact potentially extends across generations if that child produces offspring, who may in turn have children of their own. Rieder acknowledges that while minimizing environmental impact logically leads to having no children, he doesn't advocate this extreme position.

Quantifying a child's environmental impact proves challenging due to disagreement about parental responsibility percentages and the significant influence of parental lifestyle choices.

"Wealth remains one of the strongest predictors of carbon impact," notes Rieder.

For context, the United States emits 123 times more carbon than Ghana according to the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research. On a per-capita basis, the average American produces more than 12 times the emissions of the average Ghanaian.

Though reproduction may represent the largest climate impact, discussions about reducing personal contributions to global warming rarely address having fewer children.

Researchers studying climate change and family planning offer two explanations for this omission.

"When someone announces a pregnancy or expectation, the customary response involves offering congratulations or support," explains Trevor Hedbert, who teaches moral philosophy at the University of Arizona.

Additionally, Rieder points out that discussions about procreation's impact often intersect with overpopulation concerns. The environmental movement of the 1970s expressed fears about resource scarcity relative to population size, which unfortunately led to racist and eugenic ideologies that generated significant backlash.

Ash Sanders, 43, knew from a young age she didn't want children. Then she became pregnant.

"I was concerned about adding another person to an already environmentally stressed world with significant human impact," she explains.

Sanders, a freelance writer covering religion and environmental topics, wanted an abortion but felt pressured by her Mormon upbringing and the child's father to continue the pregnancy. She recalls being labeled a bad person for not wanting a child.

She ultimately chose open adoption and maintains regular contact with her child. Today, she experiences mixed feelings about her decision.

"I feel guilt for bringing her into this world. Although she enjoys life and is a happy, remarkable child whom I greatly admire, I still experience constant guilt," she admits.

Juan Jaramillo shares that environmental considerations influenced his parenthood decisions even as a teenager in the 1970s. He later pursued education in marine biology.

"While climate change wasn't yet prominent, all the other environmental problems we face today existed back then," he recalls.

Combined with a personal preference against having children, Jaramillo opted for a vasectomy—a decision he hasn't regretted. His personal choice aligned with his environmental concerns.

This isn't true for Rieder, who, despite extensively studying environmental impacts, still strongly desired fatherhood.

"Having children represents a deeply meaningful and important experience for many people, though it comes with significant carbon costs," he reflects. "How does one balance these considerations?"

For Rieder, the compromise meant having just one child.

Helplines: Vandrevala Foundation for Mental Health: 9999666555 or help@vandrevalafoundation.com; TISS iCall: 022-25521111 (Monday-Saturday: 8 am to 10 pm) (If you need support or know someone who does, please reach out to your nearest mental health specialist.)