Why I Still Had Kids Despite the Climate Apocalypse 

This is the only channel where I have to watch with speed 0.75 instead of 1.5 to digest all the data :D

why have kids when you can have BOLTS

I really loved this perspective and this is such an important topic!!

Thanks for this one

Great video. I’d like to see more of your views on how to preserve the environment on a larger, industrial scale.

This guy is a cool dude.

Kids providing motivation is a really good point. Moms and parents, in general, are some of the most important people to have in a movement.

tl:dr one can argue the true cost of an average baby is closer to 1.2-1.5t, and for a baby raised to be incredibly green, who knows what their carbon footprint would be (negative?) There are serious flaws (imho) with the stats presented at the beginning (58.6t per baby) ; the academics’ model ultimately adds about 5-6 adults worth of annual emissions to the parent’s annual emissions for each baby. How is each baby worth 5-6 adults of emissions? The way the baby CO2 emission figure was calculated was by adding the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of their grandchildren’s emissions and so on. As an illustrative example of their calculation, imagine the fertility rate is 2. So for each extra baby you have you get 2 grandkids, 4 great-grand kids, 8 great-great-grand kids and over a million “twenty-great”-kids (they’re really great). Let’s say lifetime emissions per capita are 10t in your country. You take 50% of your kids emissions (so 5t of emissions) and 1/40,000th of 1% of your “twenty-great” kids ; but because you have so many “twenty-great” kids, the CO2 emissions added are the same, 5t of emissions again. And in the academic’s assumptions, the CO2 generated by your kid in the years 2020-2100, are worth the same as CO2 generated in the year 2400. Because there is no discounting, for this not to sum to infinity you have to assume fertility rate of below 2 (otherwise in their model, a single baby’s CO2 emission contribution to YOU, the parent, would be infinite). The authors use UN “medium variant” projections, which are above 2 today, and fall eventually to 1.85 in 2050. The authors as far as I can tell are also summing your descendants to infinity. Their graphs go up to 2400 but from their language I think they sum CO2 to infinite years out. So basically (to me) very silly assumptions and consequently a very silly conclusion. CO2 emissions even in 2300 don’t seem too relevant to my CO2 footprint calculation today as by then we will have made it or broken it, and the world is going to look unimaginably different, so I wouldn’t count CO2 from infinite years out. Also if we are going to get out of this mess, it won't be because Earth's population fell thanks to well-meaning people choosing celibacy, it will be because we managed to lower CO2 emissions per person to a very low level by fully embracing green techs. Ie your kids footprint will be smaller than yours, and your grandkids even more so ; this is what will swing whether we survive. So imho it’s silly for the model to assume your descendants in year 2400 have similar CO2 per capita emissions to us today. If they did, it won’t matter whether the population is 6bn or 12bn, we’ll be toast. So you have to assume in our generation we get our act together if you want to discuss repercussions of an extra kid. Ie the impact of an extra kid in which we are toast anyway, is only the speed at which we become toast, which isn’t very interesting. It’s worth noting the academics did an “optimistic scenario” in which the CO2 emissions impact per US baby ended up being 1/20th of the “constant emissions scenario”. I guesstimate the 58.6t would actually be 5.86t in an “optimistic scenario” (1/10th for average of developed countries); and if you only counted 3 generations of kids instead of infinite you’d probably end up with about 1.2-1.5t per baby. Also, worth noting that’s the “base cost” of a baby (and their kids and grandkids) ; IF (big if) these kids took action to sequester CO2 then they can have a negative footprint, albeit sequestering CO2 seems to be an imperfect solution and we couldn’t do enough of it to offset all babies, but you could educate YOUR baby. Anyway, those are my two cents in this conversation, maybe it’s too optimistic to use the optimistic scenario, maybe something in between is more realistic, but I do personally think it is ridiculous to count CO2 too many generations out. This is a giant comment, it just bothered me that some ppl seem to be using this (imho) very flawed study in their “should I baby?” decision, and as a parent myself, it baited me :/ Love the channel.

how is your kid being grown up compared with other "average" estonian kids? What are the main differences?

....... Everything thing in this video ignores that not only do you not need your own kids to care about any of this but why do you have to make more kids if there are already tens of thousands of children that already exist without a family or home???

SCAM