The Environmental Impact of One American Child

A new study out of Oregon State University suggests that limiting the number of children you have is a way more effective action you can take to reduce carbon emmissions than other more conventional actions such as recycling and cutting energy consumption.

In the article, published in Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) researchers Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax had this to say, in summary:

Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions.

Clearly, an individual’s reproductive choices can have a dramatic effect on the total carbon emissions ultimately attributable to his or her genetic lineage.

Murtaugh and Schlax make a strong case for smaller families, particularly in countries like the United States where one American child born in 2005 will likely produce close to 20 times more carbon emissions per capita than a child born in India.

An Appeal to Tone Down the Rhetoric

In a recent post on Jezebel.com titled Assholes Without Kids Challenge Assholes With Kids, Sadie remarked on the vitriolic language used by some writers engaged in the Kids or No Kids discourse and urged some measure of restraint. She writes:

Yes, the cult of motherhood is annoying, and no one should, in this day and age, be considered less of a woman for (sic—not?) having children. But biting back in the same key is hardly the way to exact revenge or encourage respect for different choices. Are people going to be defensive when you call pregnancy and childbirth parasitic, disgusting, germ-ridden? Um, yes. I don't have children, but I can see how goes beyond irreverence into insulting something fundamental. I can't comprehend the bond, physical and emotional, that a mother feels for her children - which is why I wouldn't presume to demean it, any more than I'd insult someone who'd chosen not to have children for any reason.

Though I might quibble about her use of “fundamental” in reference to parenthood, I understand Sadie’s concern. I’ve noticed how quickly discourse on the issues faced by stay-at-home moms and working moms degenerated into the Mommy Wars and I wonder if the same thing is happening with parents and non parents.

Do I care how many kids the Duggars have? Not really. I’m hoping the growing number of childless people will balance them out. I would be upset if the children were being neglected or abused in some way. They don’t appear to be—exploited perhaps but not harmed. I’m still trying to figure out how I feel about the Jon and Kate debacle. However I was pleased to learn Nadya Suleman’s recent reality TV deal stipulated fair payment and a trust fund for the kids. I suspect the previous exploitation of Nadya’s infants, and the subsequent outrage from both parents and non parents and California child labor law enforcers, ensured that this TV deal was fairer to the children.

I believe we all have a right to express outrage when we see unfairness, abuse, or exploitation but we can do so by pointing to specific cases and not by disparaging or belittling parents, or nonparents, in general. As the Mommy Wars have shown, not much productive comes out of the vitriolic lobbying back and forth, which is why I question the use of “Assholes” in the title of Sadie’s post.

Flickr photo by BrittneyBush (cc)

Working Wives, Unemployed Husbands

In the current recession, two things are happening which we need to address politically and individually. One, women are increasingly becoming the breadwinners in their families and two, when the breadwinner loses their job the whole family is at risk of losing their health insurance.

A fascinating and timely article titled Women Breadwinners, Men Unemployed written by Heather Boushey, the Senior Economist at the Center for American Progress examines these current realities and their impact on our lives. Boushey notes:

The reason that more married couples now boast women as the primary breadwinners is because men have experienced greater job losses than women over the course of this recession, losing three-out-of-every-four jobs lost. This puts a real strain on family budgets since women typically earn only 78 cents for every dollar men earn.

What’s equally worrisome is that most families receive health insurance through the employers of their husbands. So when husbands lose their jobs, families are left struggling to find ways to pay for health insurance at the same time they are living on just a third of their prior income.

Worrisome, indeed. Even though my husband and I are married and have been for over twenty years we have a “single + one” health insurance plan through his work that, if he were to lose his job, would be very expensive to replace, even though we are only insuring two relatively healthy people with no life threatening pre-existing conditions.

My income as a writer would not come close to covering this cost. Which is why I’m tempted to contact my representatives in government during their summer break and encourage them to move fast to make sure we pass some kind of health care reform bill.

Families of all incomes and sizes need to be protected, recession-proofed, so that even more people do not become uninsured.

Flickr Photo by keltickelton (cc)

How old is too old to have kids?

The recent news about the death of Maria del Carmen Bousada, the Spanish woman who gave birth to twins at 66 years old, made me very sad. She lived only a handful of years after she did what many thought was crazy—sold her house to pay for in vitro fertilization and delivered twins at an age when most women are happy to be empty nesters , grandparents, or childfree. She did this as a single woman, after having lied about her age to the doctors at a Los Angeles fertility clinic, where she was not asked for proof of age.

When I read the article about Bousada, written by Associated Press writer Daniel Woolls, I mourned for her and for her two small children who where only two years old at the time of her death and will likely have no memories of their mother, and it brought to mind a conversation I had with my husband when I was in my late twenties and happily childfree.

We talked about how some women hit thirty five and suddenly become desperate to have a child. I told him I was pretty sure that wouldn’t happen to me but he said, “If you decide you do want kids you have to tell me before I turn fifty because I don’t want to be an old dad.”

I took heed and made a mental note of that. He turned sixty last year and I’m forty seven and I have yet to report an incident of baby fever, and even if I did suddenly feel the grip of baby longing I would have to say that now it’s just too late.

I imagine, like Maria del Carmen Bousada did, that I will live into my nineties. But Bousada couldn’t anticipate the stomach cancer diagnosis a year after her twins were born and I can’t imagine chasing a kid around with gimpy knees and brittle bones at seventy. It would be crazy—it wouldn’t be fair to my husband and it wouldn’t be fair to the kid.

Old but Not Alone

Our friends worry about us. What are you going to do when you get old? Who’s going to take care of you?

Most us have some canned answers to these questions, usually staring with “With the money we’ve saved by not having kids, we can…

...afford in-home care” or

…stay at the Marriott Residence assisted living place” or

…buy some long-term health care insurance.”

Or stay at a Green House. I first heard about this new model of residential eldercare when my friend Linda gave me a copy of an article titled “Where to Live as We Age” written by Susan Fine for Parade magazine.

A Green House is the brainchild of geriatrician Dr. Bill Thomas who, with the help of a foundation and a non-profit organization, piloted this new type of residential living for the elderly. The Green House near Albany, NY shelters 12 “elders” and a multi-tasking staff who cook, clean, dispense medication, or organize activities such as dances and Nintendo Wii games.

The residents say the best thing about this model is the homey feel and intimacy and the fact that they can choose their meal times and live with their pets.

Sounds like a great place to be when it comes time…

Flickr Photo by Adwriter

(cc)

A Birth Control Shot for Men

I’ve been waiting for the day when some drug company would introduce a new birth control method for men. We’re not there yet but this day is getting closer with a Chinese study designed to test the effectiveness of a new formula birth control shot for guys.

I thought this was pretty exciting stuff so I did a bit of research into this development, a summary of which was published in this month’s edition of Unscripted. Here’s an excerpt:

In a recent study, 1,045 Chinese men between 20 and 45 years of age were given testosterone injections for over two years. All these men had fathered a child within the last two years and their partners did not report any fertility problems. Yet these shots where able to prevent pregnancy 99% of the time, coming close to the success rate of female hormonal contraceptives.

It been know for years that testosterone shots suppress sperm production but in most previous studies men were subjected to weekly shots instead of the monthly shot given to the men in the Chinese study. Previously researchers and marketers had doubted that men would sign up for a weekly shot so the testosterone shot never really got traction as a viable method for male birth control. And, even though the men taking these shots reported very few side effects (acne and higher sex drive are two), there remains some concern about the long-term effects of testosterone on the prostrate gland and heart, and on the behavioral effects of testosterone.

The main benefit of the testosterone shot is, like the birth control pill for women, this method is reversible. So for those guys who want to take responsibility for their own reproductive lives but aren’t ready to be snipped, this could prove to be the answer.

The question is: Are there enough men out there ready and willing to take a monthly shot?

You tell me…

Flickr photo by stevendepolo (cc)

Looking for the “No Children Guy”

Niaris emailed me from Puerto Rico to share her story. She apologized for her poor english but in fact it was very good—she communicated very genuinely what many women, and men, go through when they tell their partners they don’t want kids, either they are not believed or their partner believes things will change over time. I’ve heard too many stories like hers to believe that you can change someone’s mind on a commitment as huge as parenthood. It rarely works. Here’s a bit of what she had to say:

When I was little girl I dreamt of having a family, but as I grew older that changed. When I looked around me I saw that the responsibility of the children falls to the mother. I think it is not fair to women—it should be an equal responsibility.

My first marriage ended because I did not want any children, although I made it clear from the beginning. He thought he could change my mind.

As I was getting back to dating, one of the characteristics I was looking for was a ‘no children guy.’ I found him. We got married two years ago.

Niaris still gets the “When are you having a baby?” question, and she weathers the reaction “the look on their face when you say ‘never.’ But that does not bother me. My choice is to live without children. I do not hate children; I just don't want the responsibility.”

Niaris brought up a point I think is important. Though many of the men and the women I interviewed weighed the responsibility of parenthood in the course of their decision making, the women did make the assumption that the bulk of the childcare tasks would fall to them, whether they were working full-time or not. I’ve often wondered if this imbalance of responsibility is one of the reasons why these women resist motherhood. What do you think?

Flickr photo by Ruth L (cc)