Why Assign the Future Carbon Emmissions of Children to their Parents?

[Sanitary Stache]

I have three kids and am interested in reducing my carbon impact.  All the research and discussion and articles I read assign an estimation of yearly carbon emissions per child to the parents decision to have the children.

I want to know how much carbon I actually emit on a yearly basis and I want to reduce that amount.  I am happy to take responsibility for my child, while they are my responsibility, but I don't want to include in my calculations the yearly impact of half of all of my child's lifetime emissions based on the per person emissions of the previous century.  I find that to be an inflation that may be useful when trying to scare people into action, but an insult when trying to quantify how much carbon my actions are actually responsible for.  If this is the metric, then I am not responsible for any of my own emissions because they were already divided up between my parents.
Obviously, I carry a higher burden than someone without kids, but I am not taking lifetime emissions responsibility for my kids.   

Here is how it is described in the paper I was reading this morning,
"For the action ‘have one fewer child,’ we relied on a study which quantified future emissions of descendants based on historical rates, based on heredity (Murtaugh and Schlax 2009). In this approach, half of a child’s emissions are assigned to each parent, as well as one quarter of that child’s offspring (the grandchildren) and so forth. This is consistent with our use of research employing the fullest possible life cycle approach in order to capture the magnitude of emissions decisions."

This Murtaugh and Schlax paper seems to be more of a thought exercise than a useful metric. So I'll leave it at that.

Every time I go down this path I give up with the thought that I'll just have to keep track of all the GHG emissions my families actual actions result in.  Drove to the grocery store (x ghg) for a pint of B&Js (x ghg) and a package of Kozy Shack rice pudding (x ghg).  Spent $8.98 on the SNAP EBT card (x ghg).  Watched one episode of Alone on Netflix (x ghg). Slept with the ceiling fan on three rooms (x ghg).  Kids flushed the toilet twice in the night (x ghg). Et Cetera.

[GuitarStv]

A modest proposal to solve any guilt related to children and carbon emissions would be to murder several extremely wealthy people for each child you have.  The wealthy typically hold a significantly larger environmental footprint, so even elimination of a middle aged extremely wealthy person would likely negate the lifetime impact of your own child.  Of course, to me most environmentally conscious you would want to butcher and eat the murdered rich folks - not only does this aid in body disposal, but will save on grocery bills while also providing a source of cheap guilt-free, free-range meat.

[wageslave23]

You can do whatever you want.  There isn't a law about having children or being responible for their carbon emmisions.  If you are uber worried about carbon emmissions then I'd suggest looking at the range of estimated carbon emmissions over the lifetime of Americans.  Aim to teach your kid to grow up to be on the lower end of that spectrum and then decide whether its worth having them to you.  There's a tradeoff for everything.  Killing myself is probably the best thing I could do for the environment, but I care about myself more than the environment.

[JupiterGreen]

Cut down (or eliminate) meat consumption (unless you shoot your own), buy local, cut down on air travel, be aware of all travel and try to cut down/bike, plant trees. Vote for candidates who are for regulations on emission (especially coal plants). @GuitarStv may have been joking, but everything they wrote is true. Big corporations and the Uber wealthy have done and will do the majority of damage to the environment while at the same time they have been excellent at creating a marketing campaign to make the common person believe that recycling will fix the problem. Having children is very bad for the environment, but they’re here no sense in lamenting it. Look at how you (and maybe your children) can influence anti-environmental legislation. Sierra Club is doing good work in coal country, Mountain Justice fights against mountain top removal, Clean Air Task Force, Carbon 180 are self explanatory, etc. There are many more organizations doing great work. Get involved, teach your children well, and vote.

[sixwings]

Cut down (or eliminate) meat consumption (unless you shoot your own), buy local, cut down on air travel, be aware of all travel and try to cut down/bike, plant trees. Vote for candidates who are for regulations on emission (especially coal plants). @GuitarStv may have been joking, but everything they wrote is true. Big corporations and the Uber wealthy have done and will do the majority of damage to the environment while at the same time they have been excellent at creating a marketing campaign to make the common person believe that recycling will fix the problem. Having children is very bad for the environment, but they’re here no sense in lamenting it. Look at how you (and maybe your children) can influence anti-environmental legislation. Sierra Club is doing good work in coal country, Mountain Justice fights against mountain top removal, Clean Air Task Force, Carbon 180 are self explanatory, etc. There are many more organizations doing great work. Get involved, teach your children well, and vote.

also try to buy/use less plastic, especially single use plastic like bags, straws, etc. I'm relatively optimistic that climate change can be mostly contained (things like carbon capture and storage, cultured meat, vertical farming (while returning the land that was used for these things to forests), and rapid adoption of renewable energy) but micro-plastics cannot without some sort of god-tier nano technology.

[baconschteam]

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham

Start by recognizing that the phrase "carbon footprint" was itself created as a greenwashing campaign by BP Oil Co. Don't feel guilt or shame, feel anger (not that guilt and shame are inherently bad feelings to have; just examine these feelings closely and with inquisition). I'm not saying that individuals are powerless to affect change --- I'm saying that counting your watts will do way less for the future of our planet and our children than spending that time getting involved in grassroots activism to kick these fuckers out of our local and national politics. Teach your children to do the same. Get them familiar with speaking at city council meetings and things like that. Obviously, they will make their own paths in life, but you can give them a foundation that could help them to have a net benefit if they are active in their communities. I volunteer and organize with some local activist campaigns --- oil company reps and big developers are basically on the clock when they attend city council meetings and public hearings. This puts community members who can only do this in their spare time at a huge disadvantage. Oil companies pay millions, billions, for their misinformation and greenwashing ad campaigns, getting bills and ordinances passed by very slim margins because those that seek to stop them do not have such deep pockets to fight back with. From my experience in local activism, there is a serious lack of lawyers helping out with the cause. If you can convince any of them to pursue this route, that would make up for many lifetimes of consumption! Even simply encouraging them to be skilled at public speaking will do wonders.

Anecdotally: some activists that I know stopped an overnight coal delivery to a power plant by chaining themselves to the road and forced it to shut down for a few hours. Apparently shutting it down for one hour is equivalent to mitigating the carbon footprint of an average American over something like 25 years. This is one possible route if you're really feeling the weight of your carbon footprint on your shoulders; I think becoming an expert in environmental law would be a much more effective and safe route to achieve these goals. We work with what we've got. I have a visual arts degree and work in fabrication, but I plan to soon be training to install solar panels or heat pumps (another area where the amount of trained professionals is the bottleneck).

All that said, you can count your watts and plastics if you still have time to after all of that grassroots activism. It's good to practice what you preach if you can afford to, and to lead by example, and having an electric car and solar panels and things like that seem to be at least slightly contagious (keeping up with the Joneses in the best way possible).

<3

[AccidentialMustache]

This Murtaugh and Schlax paper seems to be more of a thought exercise than a useful metric. So I'll leave it at that.

Or it could be that actions like having kids (now or in the recent past) have much more influence on how bad climate change gets, than any reduction-actions you (or they) can take in the go-forward. This metric seems to model that situation pretty well.

Kinda like saving for retirement in your 20s works a lot better than in your 60s?

It also implies to me that a good way to fight climate change is fighting anti-abortion laws and improving access to contraception. Everything else may basically be a drop in the bucket.

Late add: I've been watching a fair bit of Not Just Bikes or Climate Town on YT while laid up in bed with covid (thanks, asshole who sent their sick kid to camp so mine could bring it home!) and it meshes pretty well with baconschteam. Also, I want to move to the Netherlands for that level of bike-friendlyness, but will never be able to convince DW.

[Kris]

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham

Start by recognizing that the phrase "carbon footprint" was itself created as a greenwashing campaign by BP Oil Co. Don't feel guilt or shame, feel anger (not that guilt and shame are inherently bad feelings to have; just examine these feelings closely and with inquisition). I'm not saying that individuals are powerless to affect change --- I'm saying that counting your watts will do way less for the future of our planet and our children than spending that time getting involved in grassroots activism to kick these fuckers out of our local and national politics.

Exactly this. That conversation is designed to keep individual people on both sides of the political fence bickering with each other and guilting each other. It's a distraction technique.

[AccidentialMustache]

I didn't spot the citation. It is probably in one of the linked books, but if you believe climate town's stats, 51% of your carbon footprint is out of your control. You can go be a vegan hermit in the mountains who buys nothing and never drives (or rides) in a car, but the US is going to keep building roads, running services (police, fire, military), etc no matter if you're on or off grid.

[Sanitary Stache]

Great perspective on carbon footprint.  I was getting frustrated in the discussion on how to approach personal decisions in this field.  I do believe that political leadership is required to make the big changes that we all can't bring ourselves to make for various reasons.  I believe those laws have to happen and there has to be corresponding laws that help people out when the necessary changes make their lives harder.

I also think that I am in a position to make the hard changes and deal with the negative consequences even without the legislation that makes it easier for me.  Maybe not as effectively as I could if the machinery of society and governance were on my side, but some amount.  I may not be able to stop the construction of multi lane super highway debacles or end the subsidization of petroleum fueled extractive agriculture.  But I can reduce my driving and stop using products that require transportation by trucks and I can buy my food locally. I may not be able to build nuclear reactors or implement a carbon tax, but I can at least understand the climate cost of the energy I choose and the externalities I don't pay for.

I subscribe to the do as little harm as possible and try to make up for the rest theory I learned from Yvon Chouinard.  And it is iterative. And cumulative. And political action is absolutely necessary because it is the decisions politicians make with our resources that cause the most harmful results.  So I am not trying guilt myself for how I live or the choices I make.  Just trying to do better and identify where I can be radical.

So the perspective to not take the guilt and the perspective on the nefarious motivation of "carbon footprint" is much appreciated.  I am really mostly concerned with how to respond to people who disregard any statements I make about the climate benefits of eating hyper locally because I chose to have three kids.  The having kids choice being perceived as ignorance of what really matters when it comes to food policy.

[baconschteam]

I also think that I am in a position to make the hard changes and deal with the negative consequences even without the legislation that makes it easier for me.  Maybe not as effectively as I could if the machinery of society and governance were on my side, but some amount.  I may not be able to stop the construction of multi lane super highway debacles or end the subsidization of petroleum fueled extractive agriculture.  But I can reduce my driving and stop using products that require transportation by trucks and I can buy my food locally. I may not be able to build nuclear reactors or implement a carbon tax, but I can at least understand the climate cost of the energy I choose and the externalities I don't pay for.

Funny you mentioned Chouinard, he showed up at a rally that I helped to organize recently in my local park in CA! I felt honored. I totally appreciate the thoughtful effort to do better where you can. I would push back a little and argue that you can change these things that you feel powerless about. Oil companies have spent unthinkable amounts of money to make you feel that you can't. No idea where you are located but if you choose to speak up at a city council meeting, speaking out against that newly planned superhighway, advocating for LED streetlights and solar programs, advocating for more bike lanes, the city council may not hear it, but somebody else might, and then there will be two, and then three, to speak out, and so on. Hopefully, at least, your children will hear it.

This is honestly one of the main reasons I want to FIRE—among other activities like farming and art making and family, I'd like to spend as much time/energy as I can in this fight for the future.

I am really mostly concerned with how to respond to people who disregard any statements I make about the climate benefits of eating hyper locally because I chose to have three kids.  The having kids choice being perceived as ignorance of what really matters when it comes to food policy.

No disrespect but it sounds like these people are snobs! A huge part of life is about family for most people. I think most of what I'm trying to say is that doing all of this math about exactly how our personal lives and families are responsible for the impending climate apocalypse is sort of irrelevant and self-defeating. Like, by that logic you should just go and commit a bunch of homicide and then they'll give you a pat on the back for your great carbon footprint math. People need to organize. Find out when your town/city's general plan is up for renewal and invite these people (the people you're trying to respond to) to join you in flooding the planning committee with your requests/demands for complete building electrification, solar microgrids, and an active transportation plan. You can help change of the infrastructure of your entire town! And then neighboring towns will be wanting to keep up with the Joneses..

[Michael in ABQ]

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham

Anecdotally: some activists that I know stopped an overnight coal delivery to a power plant by chaining themselves to the road and forced it to shut down for a few hours. Apparently shutting it down for one hour is equivalent to mitigating the carbon footprint of an average American over something like 25 years.

Pretty sure that effectively did nothing as some other power plant elsewhere on the grid just ramped up to make up for the temporary loss of power. Probably a natural gas fired plant as those can ramp up and down more easily than coal fired. I'm not sure if a less efficient natural gas fired plant produces more or less CO2 than coal to make up for the difference. But the end result is basically the same.


Build more nuclear if you want to get rid of coal. That's the only realistic zero/low-carbon base load power generation system (solar and wind can't replace that function anytime soon without massive battery storage).

[YttriumNitrate]

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-shamAnecdotally: some activists that I know stopped an overnight coal delivery to a power plant by chaining themselves to the road and forced it to shut down for a few hours. Apparently shutting it down for one hour is equivalent to mitigating the carbon footprint of an average American over something like 25 years.

Pretty sure that effectively did nothing as some other power plant elsewhere on the grid just ramped up to make up for the temporary loss of power. Probably a natural gas fired plant as those can ramp up and down more easily than coal fired. I'm not sure if a less efficient natural gas fired plant produces more or less CO2 than coal to make up for the difference. But the end result is basically the same.

Also, it seems like the power plant would have to be poorly designed and have a ridiculously tight supply chain if a disrupting a few truckloads of coal would cause the plant to shut down. At least around me, our roads sometimes have snow on them and trucks sometimes break down, and yet the coal plants kept working just fine.

[PDXTabs]

A modest proposal to solve any guilt related to children and carbon emissions would be to murder several extremely wealthy people for each child you have.

My kids aren't going to be wildly successful, on average. I think that a 1:1 murder ratio will work fine.

[lutorm]

What if the kids you never had were the ones who were going to invent the new renewable energy source or carbon sequestration method?

One way of stopping carbon emissions would be to kill everyone. At least for me, however, the sole largest reason we should solve climate change is because we want humanity to be able to live on. A solution to climate change that gets rid of humanity kind of misses the point.

I think the concept of a carbon footprint is useful in a proximate sense in that it can inform me about the immediate consequences of my lifestyle. The key, however, is immediate. Assigning the actions of my progeny to my carbon footprint seems pointless, it just serves to make it seem like my industrialized lifestyle is even worse than it is. It doesn't give any actionable information. The number of children in most western countries is already below replacement rate, and if we all stopped having children it would indeed rapidly lower our emissions but it would also practically guarantee that research and development of solutions would grind to a halt. Would the outcome be better? I don't think anyone can say. It's a very different question than "what is the impact of a long-haul flight" where there is a much closer connection between my choice and the emission-generating result.

[Sanitary Stache]

I think the concept of a carbon footprint is useful in a proximate sense in that it can inform me about the immediate consequences of my lifestyle. The key, however, is immediate. Assigning the actions of my progeny to my carbon footprint seems pointless, it just serves to make it seem like my industrialized lifestyle is even worse than it is. It doesn't give any actionable information.

I agree with this and it seems to capture some of the other responses.  I am really concerned about how much carbon pollution can be prevented by promoting hyper local agriculture over the next 8-10 years.  How much pollution my children might contribute over their lifetime is a deflecting argument. It occurs to me that if, through political and social action and by example, I can change the carbon emissions per unit of food consumed in my town, then that benefit will also apply to my children.

Every improvement we make in our lifestyle applies to the next generation.

[wageslave23]

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-shamAnecdotally: some activists that I know stopped an overnight coal delivery to a power plant by chaining themselves to the road and forced it to shut down for a few hours. Apparently shutting it down for one hour is equivalent to mitigating the carbon footprint of an average American over something like 25 years.

Pretty sure that effectively did nothing as some other power plant elsewhere on the grid just ramped up to make up for the temporary loss of power. Probably a natural gas fired plant as those can ramp up and down more easily than coal fired. I'm not sure if a less efficient natural gas fired plant produces more or less CO2 than coal to make up for the difference. But the end result is basically the same.

Also, it seems like the power plant would have to be poorly designed and have a ridiculously tight supply chain if a disrupting a few truckloads of coal would cause the plant to shut down. At least around me, our roads sometimes have snow on them and trucks sometimes break down, and yet the coal plants kept working just fine.

Yeah its best not to give attention to the crazies.  Its like when they run on to the football field naked and the tv networks don't give them air time.  Meanwhile, in the real world, the grownups are busy figuring out actual solutions.

[JupiterGreen]

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-shamAnecdotally: some activists that I know stopped an overnight coal delivery to a power plant by chaining themselves to the road and forced it to shut down for a few hours. Apparently shutting it down for one hour is equivalent to mitigating the carbon footprint of an average American over something like 25 years.

Pretty sure that effectively did nothing as some other power plant elsewhere on the grid just ramped up to make up for the temporary loss of power. Probably a natural gas fired plant as those can ramp up and down more easily than coal fired. I'm not sure if a less efficient natural gas fired plant produces more or less CO2 than coal to make up for the difference. But the end result is basically the same.

Also, it seems like the power plant would have to be poorly designed and have a ridiculously tight supply chain if a disrupting a few truckloads of coal would cause the plant to shut down. At least around me, our roads sometimes have snow on them and trucks sometimes break down, and yet the coal plants kept working just fine.

Yeah its best not to give attention to the crazies.  Its like when they run on to the football field naked and the tv networks don't give them air time.  Meanwhile, in the real world, the grownups are busy figuring out actual solutions.

I understand the spirit of your post, but climate activists can also keep issues front and center (i.e. in the news). I'm not talking about violent activity, but shutting down the coal plant for a few hours likely did make the news. Unfortunately, the general public doesn't pay as much attention to "boring" science as they do unusual stories and memes. So I am all for "guerrilla type" schemes that bring an issue to light since corporations spend billions trying to suppress the facts. I live in such a place, it's frustrating how little people know about the  pollution even though there are clear markers in the poor health of people who live and are born here (especially children).

[baconschteam]

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-shamAnecdotally: some activists that I know stopped an overnight coal delivery to a power plant by chaining themselves to the road and forced it to shut down for a few hours. Apparently shutting it down for one hour is equivalent to mitigating the carbon footprint of an average American over something like 25 years.

Pretty sure that effectively did nothing as some other power plant elsewhere on the grid just ramped up to make up for the temporary loss of power. Probably a natural gas fired plant as those can ramp up and down more easily than coal fired. I'm not sure if a less efficient natural gas fired plant produces more or less CO2 than coal to make up for the difference. But the end result is basically the same.

Also, it seems like the power plant would have to be poorly designed and have a ridiculously tight supply chain if a disrupting a few truckloads of coal would cause the plant to shut down. At least around me, our roads sometimes have snow on them and trucks sometimes break down, and yet the coal plants kept working just fine.

Yeah its best not to give attention to the crazies.  Its like when they run on to the football field naked and the tv networks don't give them air time.  Meanwhile, in the real world, the grownups are busy figuring out actual solutions.

I understand the spirit of your post, but climate activists can also keep issues front and center (i.e. in the news). I'm not talking about violent activity, but shutting down the coal plant for a few hours likely did make the news. Unfortunately, the general public doesn't pay as much attention to "boring" science as they do unusual stories and memes. So I am all for "guerrilla type" schemes that bring an issue to light since corporations spend billions trying to suppress the facts. I live in such a place, it's frustrating how little people know about the  pollution even though there are clear markers in the poor health of people who live and are born here (especially children).

1. @YttriumNitrate They did indeed shut the plant down for a few hours. Sorry but I don't know all of the details of how exactly that worked.

2. @Michael in ABQ Yes, indeed, the emissions from coal is much worse, and sometimes these plants produce extra unused energy at night as their output is difficult to modulate. It's not my area of expertise. I do know that there are newer coal plants that are better at matching output to demand, but there are still many older, less adaptive, plants in operation that keep burning because they can't just be turned on and off.

3. @wageslave23 There have been many times in history when grownups and children alike have found their only option to be to do something "crazy" to bring attention to injustice. Nonviolent direct action has been a crucial and effective tactic in many of the most important social movements in modern history. You don't have to pay attention to it, but other people still will. True, the mainstream networks do not give the naked people on the field airtime, but you must admit that the clips still spread on social media like wildfire.

4. Anyway, really missing my point entirely---which was that if you want to be a useful part of the change that needs to happen, there are many ways to participate, and it is a personal choice that we make. I was explicitly not suggesting chaining oneself to a road would be the most useful thing to go and do. Though not explicitly discouraging it either..

[seattlecyclone]

I view an itemized carbon footprint as a way to inform people—who are already interested in contributing to positive change—about the relative impacts of different choices they might make. You can quibble over the exact amount of carbon your kid might emit, but the fact remains that "don't have a(nother) baby" is easily the most impactful choice most of us have any control over. Once they're born the kid is their own entity and "assigning" their future emissions back to you is not really useful in terms of guiding your future behavior.