Home>Fertility in the context of climate change
17 April 2026
Fertility in the context of climate change
Fertility in the context of climate change. Should we all stop having babies?
Researchers Angela Greulich (Sciences Po - CRIS) & Jackie Dugard (Columbia University) set out to answer one question and discover it's far more complicated than expected, with arguments on both sides.
Global population and carbon emissions have grown exponentially, raising the question of whether it is still reasonable to have children in a warming world. Drawing on economic, demographic and philosophical research, the video shows that while population matters, the climate crisis is driven primarily by high‑consumption lifestyles in wealthy countries, where each additional child has a much larger environmental impact. It concludes that transforming production and consumption patterns in rich societies is crucial, but that reflecting on family size remains a legitimate concern in the Global North.
Read the full video transcript:
Should we stop having children?
Over the past two centuries, the global population has risen from 1 billion in 1800 to 8 billion in 2023 and carbon emissions have increased 20 fold. The exponential growth in both population size and carbon emissions suggests that population growth is an important driver of emissions. The dramatic increase in carbon emissions since the 1850s has led to climate change. Average global temperature have risen by 1.48° C above pre-industrial levels, and global sea levels are currently rising by approximately 4.5 mm per year, wich threatens all life on Earth. The additional 2 billion of people expected by 2100 may further exacerbate these pressures. Dies this mean that it is no longer reasonable to have children?
To explore this question, we take a closer look at research from different disciplines on the topic.
The fear that population growth threatens humankind, goes back to the Malthusian poverty trap. And this idea has been fromalized by Robert Solow in the 1950s in his exogenous growth model. Population growth can outpace food production and that would cause famine, disease and persistent poverty.
In the 1970s, scholars argued that population growth affects both the economy and the environment.Ehrlich and Hoden's IPAT equation links environmental impact to population,affluence, and technology. While population growth is fastest in low income countries, climate change is driven mainly by high consumption in wealthy nations in the global north, where resource use and lifestyles generates much larger carbon footprints.
Indeed, high income countries, which represent just 16% of the global population, have produced over 74% of cumulative CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution, whereas sub-Saharan Africa represents about 15% of the world's population bu accounts for only 3.3% of global CO2 emissions.
In the IPAT equation there is also T that stands for Technology. Technology can lessen the consumption's environmental impact. This quite optimistic idea was formalized in the 1980s by Lucas and Romer in their endogenous growth models. And these models suggest that population growth can drive innovation. Ester Boserup even called population pressure th "mother of innovation". And if we follow that logic, the 2 billion people that we expect by 2100 could encourage research in renewable energy. And this would help societies to adapt and to mitigate climate change.
Yes, but technological progress is not a cure and birth rates are again debated as a tool for mitigation, especially in the global North, where the impact of each additional child is significant because of the high levels of consumption.
Indeed, philosophers Hedberg and Conly argue that, in the context of the climate crisis, limiting procreation is morally necessary. From a justice perspective, Meijers stresses balancing reproductive rights with planetary boundaries, noting it is unjust to burden poorer nations and Ganivet promotes voluntary, rights-based fertility reduction.
So, is there a solution?
In the light of urgency of the climate crisis, consumption and production patterns in wealthy nations are most decisive. However, the question of how many children to have remains a valid consideration in the global North.