New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Are Babies Bad for the Environment?

The best thing you can do for the planet might be having fewer children, a new study argues. David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

It's no secret that there are more and more of us every day. From fewer than a billion 200 years ago to more than 6.6 billion people on the planet today. And the U.N. expects more than nine billion by mid-century.

This kind of exponential population growth has consequences for the planet, from stretched natural resources, such as fresh water supplies, to burgeoning levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A new study by statistics professors at Oregon State University finds that the biggest impact a U.S. citizen can have on this climate change problem is perhaps not so much surprising as difficult to accept: have fewer children.

By their calculations, every American child born today will add roughly 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere under current conditions. For comparison, a Chinese child would add roughly one fifth that amount while a boy born in Bangladesh will add 1/160th.

Having one fewer child would reduce a family's climate burden 20 times more than driving a fuel-efficient car or using energy-saving appliances, according to this statistical analysis. That doesn't seem to be stopping anyone in developed countries like the U.S. New research published in Nature this week shows that birth rates in the most developed countries are rising again.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Of course, who can judge the right number for human population? But a little family planning might be the best measure of an environmentalist and another baby boom could be bad news for the planet.

—David Biello

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe