Eco-reproductive concerns in the age of climate change

Abstract

Media reports and public polls suggest that young people in many countries are increasingly factoring climate change into their reproductive choices, but empirical evidence about this phenomenon is lacking. This article reviews the scholarship on this subject and discusses the results of the first empirical study focused on it, a quantitative and qualitative survey of 607 US-Americans between the ages of 27 and 45. While 59.8% of respondents reported being “very” or “extremely concerned” about the carbon footprint of procreation, 96.5% of respondents were “very” or “extremely concerned” about the well-being of their existing, expected, or hypothetical children in a climate-changed world. This was largely due to an overwhelmingly negative expectation of the future with climate change. Younger respondents were more concerned about the climate impacts their children would experience than older respondents, and there was no statistically significant difference between the eco-reproductive concerns of male and female respondents. These and other results are situated within scholarship about growing climate concern in the USA, the concept of the carbon footprint, the carbon footprint of procreation, individual actions in response to climate change, temporal perceptions of climate change, and expectations about the future in the USA. Potential implications for future research in environmental psychology, environmental sociology, the sociology of reproduction, demography, and climate mitigation are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, the article publicizing the results of a 2018 BusinessInsider poll (Relman and Hickey 2018) claimed that the poll provided information about the number of Americans who are factoring climate change into their reproductive choices. In reality, it suggested a modest generational shift in applied ethics on the subject.

  2. 2.

    Calculated using data from the US Census Bureau 2018, US Census Bureau 2019, Monte and Knop 2019, and Morning Consult 2020. This calculation assumes that of the approximately 50 million Americans between the ages of 20 and 45 who did not have children in 2019, the Morning Consult 2020 figures about the percentage of Americans of childbearing age who did not have children at least partially because of climate change concerns were representative of the entire US population.

  3. 3.

    While digital surveys risk a bias toward those who have Internet access and, given this methodology, those who use social media, the youthfulness of the target population of this survey mitigates that risk. Approximately 98.5% of Americans between 18 and 49 have Internet access, and approximately 83% of those aged 18 to 49 use social media. See Smith and Anderson 2018; Anderson et al. 2019.

  4. 4.

    The survey utilized branching to present appropriately-worded questions to each respondent, but they are condensed here to apply to respondents in the categories parents, planning, and undecided. Respondents committed to being childfree were not presented with these quantitative questions. This was because their responses to this question would have been less reliable, since most of them had made the decision not to have children at some point in the past. As a result, they would either be reporting on something that had happened in the past, instead of describing their level of concern at the time of the survey, or reporting on a hypothetical concern in the present (how concerned they would be about their children’s futures if they had children).

  5. 5.

    Childfree, white, female, 42, abroad (Lebanon). All quotations are typical examples of the positions expressed by a number of survey respondents.

  6. 6.

    Parent, white, female, 38, Minnesota.

  7. 7.

    Undecided, Asian-American, female, 36, Illinois.

  8. 8.

    Parent, white, female, 36, New York.

  9. 9.

    Parent, white, male, 37, Massachusetts.

  10. 10.

    Undecided, white, male, 28, Massachusetts.

  11. 11.

    Childfree, white, female, 31, Washington.

  12. 12.

    Undecided, white, female, 27, Michigan.

  13. 13.

    Parent, white, female, 38, Florida.

  14. 14.

    These regrets were expressed across a range of responses to open-ended questions in the survey. The intercoder rating for regret was high (α = 1.0)

  15. 15.

    Parent, white, female, 40, Minnesota.

  16. 16.

    Childfree, Asian-American, female, 43, California.

  17. 17.

    Parent, white, male, 42, Vermont.

  18. 18.

    Undecided, white, gender fluid, 27, Pennsylvania.

  19. 19.

    Undecided, white, female, 31, California.

  20. 20.

    Childfree, white, female, 42, Washington.

  21. 21.

    Childfree, white, female, 29, California.

  22. 22.

    Parent, white, female, 44, California.

  23. 23.

    Undecided, white, male, 30, California.

  24. 24.

    Childfree, white, female, 32, Oregon.

  25. 25.

    Childfree, white, female, 30, Minnesota. “With a bullet” is a colloquial expression meaning that something is quickly rising to the top.

  26. 26.

    Childfree, white, female, 36, California.

  27. 27.

    This article is concerned with reproductive choices in the age of climate change, but not all people have the freedom or ability to choose whether to have children, or how many. That denial is an incredibly important topic, but it is not the focus of this article. Additionally, this article is focused on the question of biological reproduction, but one alternative to conceiving biological children, frequently cited by respondents, is adoption. This space does not permit an appropriately detailed discussion of how adoption fits into these considerations, though it is worth noting that adoption in the United States is often a difficult, lengthy, and often expensive process, and therefore was carried out less frequently than it was praised by survey respondents.

  28. 28.

    See, for example, Paterson and Stripple 2010; Turner 2014; Girvan 2017.

  29. 29.

    Though this article reported on the results of the study by Wynes and Nicholas 2017, Wynes and Nicholas utilized data from Murtaugh and Schlax 2009.

References

  1. Anderson M, Perrin A, Jiang J, and Kumar M (2019) 10% of Americans don’t use the internet. Who are they? Pew Research Center, 7

  2. Arnocky S, Dupuis D, Stroink ML (2012) Environmental concern and fertility intentions among Canadian university students. Popul Environ 34(2):279–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson R, Flint J (2001) Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball research strategies. Soc Res Update 33(1):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  4. Australian Conservation Foundation (2019) What do women think about climate change? Australian Conservation Foundation and 1 Million Women, https://www.acf.org.au/women_will_change_their_lives_and_votes_for_climate_action. Accessed 11 Nov 2020

  5. Ballew M, Marlon J, Rosenthal S, Gustafson A, Kotcher J, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A (2019) Do younger generations care more about global warming? Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

  6. Baltar F, Brunet I (2012) Social research 2.0: virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Res 22(1):57–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bielski Z (2019) 2019. The new ‘childfree.’ The Globe and Mail, October 9, 2019

  8. Blackstone A (2019) Childfree by choice: the movement redefining family and creating a new age of Independence. Dutton

  9. Blackstone A, Stewart MD (2012) Choosing to be childfree: research on the decision not to parent. Sociol Compass 6(9):718–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bongaarts J, O'Neill BC (2018) Global warming policy: is population left out in the cold? Science 361(6403):650–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brainerd E (2007) The baby decision amid turmoil: understanding the fertility decline in Russia of the 1990s. National Council for Eurasian and East European Research

  12. Brook A (2011) Ecological footprint feedback: motivating or discouraging? Soc Influ 6(2):113–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Carmichael GA, Whittaker A (2007) Choice and circumstance: qualitative insights into contemporary childlessness in Australia. Eur J Population 23:111–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carrington D Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children. The Guardian, July 12, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children. Accessed 11 Nov 2020

  15. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications, London

  16. Chryst B, Marlon J, van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C (2018) Global warming’s “Six Americas Short Survey”: audience segmentation of climate change views using a four-question instrument. Environ Commun 12(8):1109–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Conly S (2016) One child: do we have a right to more? Oxford University Press

  18. Coole D (2013) Too many bodies? The return and disavowal of the population question. Environ Polit 22(2):195–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Darby L (2019) What is eco-fascism, the ideology behind attacks in El Paso and Christchurch? GQ, August 7, 2019

  20. Davenport L (2017) Emotional resiliency in the era of climate change: a clinician’s guide. Jessica Kingsley Publishers

  21. De Rose A, and Testa MR (2015) Climate change and reproductive intentions in Europe. In Italy in a European Context: Research in Business, Economics, and the Environment, Donatella Strangio and Giuseppe Sancetta (eds), 194–212. Palgrave Macmillan UK

  22. Deeg K, Lyon E, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, & Marlon J (2019) Who is changing their mind about global warming and why? Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

  23. Evans JR, Mathur A (2005) The value of online surveys. Internet Res 15(2):195–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gerlagh R, Lupi V and Galeotti M (2018) Family planning and climate change. CESifo Working Paper, No. 7421

  25. Gifford E, Gifford R (2016) The largely unacknowledged impact of climate change on mental health. Bull At Sci 72(5):292–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Girvan A (2017) Carbon footprints as cultural-ecological metaphors. Routledge

  27. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (2017) Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Goldberg M, Gustafson A, Rosenthal S, Kotcher J, Maibach E, and Leiserowitz A (2020) For the first time, the alarmed are now the largest of global warming’s six Americas. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

  29. Gore T (2015) Extreme carbon inequality: why the Paris climate deal must put the poorest, lowest emitting and most vulnerable people first. Oxfam

  30. Halstead J, and Ackva J (2020) Climate and lifestyle report. Founders pledge, founderspledge.com/stories/climate-and-lifestyle-report. Accessed 11 Nov 2020

  31. Haraway DJ (2016) Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press

  32. Hawken P (2017) Drawdown: the Most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming. Penguin Books

  33. Houseknecht SK (1987) Voluntary childlessness. In handbook of marriage and the family, edited by Sussman, M.B., Steinmetz, S.K. and Peterson, G.W. Springer Science & Business Media

  34. Irfan U (2019) We need to talk about the ethics of having children in a warming world. Vox, March 11, 2019

  35. Langdridge D, Sheeran P, Connolly K (2007) Understanding the reasons for parenthood. J Reprod Infant Psychol 23(2):121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Maki A, Carrico AR, Raimi KT, Truelove HB, Araujo B, Yeung KL (2019) Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover. Nat Sustain 2(4):307–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mann Michael E, and Brockopp J (2019) You can't save the climate by going vegan. Corporate polluters must be held accountable USA Today, June 3, 2019

  38. Miller CC (2018) Americans are having fewer babies. They told us why. The New York Times

  39. Mills CW (1940) Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. Am Sociol Rev 5(6):904–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Monte LM, Knop B (2019) Men’s fertility and fatherhood: 2014. US Census Bureau Curr Popul Rep:70–162

  41. Morgan SP, King RB (2001) Why have children in the 21st century? Biological predisposition, social coercion, rational choice. Eur J Population 17(1):3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Morning Consult (2020) National Tracking Poll #200926. https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2020/09/28065126/200926_crosstabs_MILLENIAL_FINANCE_Adults_v4_RG.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2020

  43. Murphy M (2017) The economization of life. Duke University Press

  44. Murtaugh PA, Schlax MG (2009) Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Glob Environ Chang 19(1):14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. O’Neill BC, Liddle B, Jiang L, Smith KR, Pachauri S, Dalton M, Fuchs R (2012) Demographic change and carbon dioxide emissions. Lancet 380(9837):157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. “Ocasio-Cortez Latest Rant” (2019) YouTube, February 25, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIoK5cJx6lw. Accessed 13 Aug 2019

  47. Overall C (2012) Why have children? MIT Press, The Ethical Debate

    Google Scholar 

  48. Park K (2005) Choosing childlessness: Weber's typology of action and motives of the voluntarily childless. Sociol Inq 75(3):372–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Parker R, Alexander M (2004) Factors influencing men's and women’s decisions about having children. Fam Matters 69:24

    Google Scholar 

  50. Paterson M, Stripple J (2010) My Space: governing individuals’ carbon emissions. Environ Plan D Soc Space 28(2):341–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pew Research Center (2019) “Looking to the future, public sees an America in decline on many fronts.” March 20119. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/03/21/public-sees-an-america-in-decline-on-many-fronts/. Accessed 11 Nov 2020

  52. Piketty T, and Chancel L (2015) “Carbon and inequality: from Kyoto to Paris.” Trends in the global inequality of carbon emissions (1998–2013) and prospects for an equitable adaptation fund. Paris: Paris School of Economics

  53. Relman E and Hickey W (2018) More than a third of millennials share rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s worry about having kids while the threat of climate change looms. BusinessInsider US

  54. Ricke KL, Caldeira K (2014) Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission. Environ Res Lett 9(12):124002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rieder T (2016) Toward a small family ethic: how overpopulation and climate change are affecting the morality of procreation. Springerbriefs in Public Health

  56. Roberts D (2017) I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why. Vox

  57. Robertson T (2012) The Malthusian moment: global population growth and the birth of American environmentalism. Rutgers University Press

  58. Schneider-Mayerson M (2017) Climate change fiction. In: Smith RG (ed) American Literature in Transition: 2000–2010. Cambridge University press, pp 309–321

  59. Smith A and Anderson M (2018) Social media use in 2018. Pew Research Center, 1

  60. Snow D (2019) The big factor stopping thousands of women from starting a family. The Sydney Morning Herald February 11, 2019

  61. Spence A, Pidgeon N (2010) Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob Environ Chang 20(4):656–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sullivan L, Meschede T, Dietrich L, and Shapiro T (2015) The racial wealth gap: why policy matters. Institue for assets and social policy, Brandeis University. DEMOS

  63. Sussman AL (2019) The end of babies. The New York Times, November 16, 2019

  64. Testa MR, Cavalli L, Rosina A (2014) The effect of couple disagreement about child-timing intentions: a parity-specific approach. Popul Dev Rev 40(1):31–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Thiede B (2019) Climate change will likely influence fertility rates. New Security Beat, www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/09/climate-change-influence-fertility-rates. Accessed 27 Feb 2020

  66. Tiefenbeck V, Staake, Roth K, Sachs O (2013) For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy 57:160–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Toner K, Gan M, Leary MR (2014) The impact of individual and group feedback on environmental intentions and self-beliefs. Environ Behav 46(1):24–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Truelove HB, Carrico AR, Weber EU, Raimi KT, Vandenbergh MP (2014) Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob Environ Chang 29:127–138

  69. Turner JM (2014) Counting carbon: the politics of carbon footprints and climate governance from the individual to the global. Glob Environ Polit 14(1):59–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. US Census Bureau (2018) Annual estimates of the resident population by single year of age and sex for the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017

  71. US Census Bureau (2019) Fertility of women in the United States: 2018

  72. Wallace-Wells D (2019) The uninhabitable earth: life after warming. Tim Duggan Books

  73. Willis R (2018) The use of composite narratives to present interview findings. Qual Res 19(4):471–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Wynes S, Nicholas KA (2017) The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ Res Lett 12(7):074024

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the generous assistance of Josephine Ferorelli, Cameron Leader-Picone, Dylan Leong, Michael Maniates, Marvin Joseph Montefrio, Valentina Zuin, and the anonymous referees.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Schneider-Mayerson.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(PDF 119 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schneider-Mayerson, M., Leong, K.L. Eco-reproductive concerns in the age of climate change. Climatic Change 163, 1007–1023 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02923-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Climate change
  • Climate concern
  • Carbon footprint
  • Reproduction
  • Fertility
  • Mitigation