Iād guess that (for many readers of the book) less air travel outweighs ābuying moreā furniture and kids toys, at least. But the larger point isnāt that the change is literally zero, but that it doesnāt make a sufficiently noticeable change to near-term emissions to be an effective strategy. It would be crazy to recommend a DINK lifestyle specifically in order to reduce emissions in the next 25 years. Like boycotting plastic straws or chatgpt.
Updated to add the figure from this paper, which shows no noticeable difference by 2050 (and little difference even after that):
There have been a couple of studies showing that families with kids emit more than those without. Including this one from Sweden, where they emit 25 percent more.
That graph just shows that IF we manage to get emissions to plummet late in the century then a difference of 15 percent in population by 2100 might not make much of a difference to climate change. Thatās fine but there are many assumptions there.
I donāt think having a few less people changes the game in climate change, but nor do I think itās very bad in other ways either.
Iām not sure that empirical data point about families is as telling as you think it is. Emissions are tied to total economic production. If total economic production doesnāt go up, its hard to see how emissions go up much. The story by which an extra baby causes more economic production has to run through something like a demand-constrained economy (eg weāre in a recession where more demand really does translate to more production).
In reality my best guess is that total production is ~unchanged when a new baby is born (or maybe even falls a bit, if a parent pulls back from the labor force), which means the additional purchases of a household with a baby are offset by slightly fewer purchases elsewhere in the economy. (Obviously once that baby is old enough to themselves work, that does increase production and emissions).
Iād guess that (for many readers of the book) less air travel outweighs ābuying moreā furniture and kids toys, at least. But the larger point isnāt that the change is literally zero, but that it doesnāt make a sufficiently noticeable change to near-term emissions to be an effective strategy. It would be crazy to recommend a DINK lifestyle specifically in order to reduce emissions in the next 25 years. Like boycotting plastic straws or chatgpt.
Updated to add the figure from this paper, which shows no noticeable difference by 2050 (and little difference even after that):
There have been a couple of studies showing that families with kids emit more than those without. Including this one from Sweden, where they emit 25 percent more.
https://āāwww.sciencedaily.com/āāreleases/āā2020/āā04/āā200415152921.htm
That graph just shows that IF we manage to get emissions to plummet late in the century then a difference of 15 percent in population by 2100 might not make much of a difference to climate change. Thatās fine but there are many assumptions there.
I donāt think having a few less people changes the game in climate change, but nor do I think itās very bad in other ways either.
Iām not sure that empirical data point about families is as telling as you think it is. Emissions are tied to total economic production. If total economic production doesnāt go up, its hard to see how emissions go up much. The story by which an extra baby causes more economic production has to run through something like a demand-constrained economy (eg weāre in a recession where more demand really does translate to more production).
In reality my best guess is that total production is ~unchanged when a new baby is born (or maybe even falls a bit, if a parent pulls back from the labor force), which means the additional purchases of a household with a baby are offset by slightly fewer purchases elsewhere in the economy. (Obviously once that baby is old enough to themselves work, that does increase production and emissions).