Read on Twitter
I've seen this graphic doing the rounds and how bad having a child is for the climate - 60 tonnes of carbon a year - is really startling. The thing is, there's a pretty massive assumption hiding away in there, and it's distorting the debate. [Thread 1/8]
![I've seen this graphic doing the rounds and how bad having a child is for the climate - 60 tonnes of carbon a year - is really startling. The thing is, there's a pretty massive assumption hiding away in there, and it's distorting the debate. [Thread 1/8]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzaOsm3XEAAtDUa.jpg "I've seen this graphic doing the rounds and how bad having a child is for the climate - 60 tonnes of carbon a year - is really startling. The thing is, there's a pretty massive assumption hiding away in there, and it's distorting the debate. [Thread 1/8]")
How is the number calculated? It takes your child's lifetime emissions, plus 50% of their children's emissions, plus 25% of their children's etc. Once this is added up, it's divided across the parent's remaining lifetime to get a per year figure. So far, so sensible [2/8]
But here's the kicker - the 60 tonnes per year figure assumes that *today's* levels of emissions continue across *all future generations*. If that happens, it really doesn't matter if we have one fewer child, because we're going to be toast anyway [3/8]
However, if (big if!) we hit net zero in 2050, a child born today will have - roughly speaking - half the net emissions of their parents over the next 30 years. A grandchild in 2050 will have an average net emissions of... zero [4/8]
![However, if (big if!) we hit net zero in 2050, a child born today will have - roughly speaking - half the net emissions of their parents over the next 30 years. A grandchild in 2050 will have an average net emissions of... zero [4/8]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzaPNY8UYAQXcfY.jpg "However, if (big if!) we hit net zero in 2050, a child born today will have - roughly speaking - half the net emissions of their parents over the next 30 years. A grandchild in 2050 will have an average net emissions of... zero [4/8]")
Accounting for this, the per year figure would be currently 10-15 times smaller (and decreasing over time) though it depends on which country you live in and when decarbonisation happens [5/8] https://founderspledge.com/stories/climate-and-lifestyle-report
It's not that children are irrelevant: more people = more demand for energy and consumption, increasing the challenge to create only from zero carbon sources. Helpful measures include better education and access to family planning [6/8] https://drawdown.org/solutions/health-and-education
But when the figure is reported uncritically in the media, it gives a feeling of legitimacy to those who - consciously or not - would prefer to shift the conversation away from consumption of richer countries to the population of poorer ones (often driven by racism) [7/8]
![But when the figure is reported uncritically in the media, it gives a feeling of legitimacy to those who - consciously or not - would prefer to shift the conversation away from consumption of richer countries to the population of poorer ones (often driven by racism) [7/8]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzaPyHhVIAUBZxt.jpg "But when the figure is reported uncritically in the media, it gives a feeling of legitimacy to those who - consciously or not - would prefer to shift the conversation away from consumption of richer countries to the population of poorer ones (often driven by racism) [7/8]")
![But when the figure is reported uncritically in the media, it gives a feeling of legitimacy to those who - consciously or not - would prefer to shift the conversation away from consumption of richer countries to the population of poorer ones (often driven by racism) [7/8]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzaPzOpVgAYL2MD.jpg "But when the figure is reported uncritically in the media, it gives a feeling of legitimacy to those who - consciously or not - would prefer to shift the conversation away from consumption of richer countries to the population of poorer ones (often driven by racism) [7/8]")
![But when the figure is reported uncritically in the media, it gives a feeling of legitimacy to those who - consciously or not - would prefer to shift the conversation away from consumption of richer countries to the population of poorer ones (often driven by racism) [7/8]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzaPzPaVkAk9Bok.jpg "But when the figure is reported uncritically in the media, it gives a feeling of legitimacy to those who - consciously or not - would prefer to shift the conversation away from consumption of richer countries to the population of poorer ones (often driven by racism) [7/8]")
The reality is we can't get away from consumption and how we currently cater for it - the world's richest 15% (myself included) emit over 2.5 times the world's poorest *60%*. It's not hard to spot where we need to start. [8/8]
![The reality is we can't get away from consumption and how we currently cater for it - the world's richest 15% (myself included) emit over 2.5 times the world's poorest *60%*. It's not hard to spot where we need to start. [8/8]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzaS4rdUUAg_tQ-.jpg "The reality is we can't get away from consumption and how we currently cater for it - the world's richest 15% (myself included) emit over 2.5 times the world's poorest *60%*. It's not hard to spot where we need to start. [8/8]")
