People will not read this comment, but this chart is problematic.
OP refers to the source, 'With the original data coming from research papers by Seth Wynes and Kimberly A Nicholas:'.The supplemental materials for this paper cite one source for the calculation of the carbon impact of having one child in developed nations, a 2009 paper by Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax entitled “Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals.” The Wynnes paper cites the Murtaugh paper as its only source for the carbon impacts of child rearing, and give the annualized carbon impacts of having one child in the developed world as falling into a range between 23,700 kg CO2e (Russia) and 117,700 kg CO2e (US) per year.However**, none of the number used by Wynne actually appear in the Murtaugh paper!**!! The important thing to understand about the Murtaugh and Schlax paper is that it does not just calculate the carbon impacts of that one child’s lifetime — rather it looks at the carbon impacts of that child, plus the impacts of that child’s child, plus the impacts of that child’s grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc, out for almost a millenium, with a diminishing share - since the share of DNA goes down, for each generation that passes by- attributed to that irresponsible 21st century ancestor.The goal is to start from a particular DNA, and evaluate the total Carbon legacy. So Wynnes, et al, come up with their “annual” CO2 impacts of having “one” child by taking the cumulative attributable impacts of all your children until the end of time and acting as if those impacts occur on an annualized basis during the parent’s lifetime. This is highly misleading, at least.
EDIT: I copy paste one of my replies here, since I saw different people questioning a reasoning:
It appears that Wynne has taken the genetic carbon legacy, and divided thatby average life expectancy to come up with the “annualized numbers” – the numbers don't match 100%, but it’s pretty close. That means, that Wynne takes the cumulative effect of CO2 production caused by your DNA (all your children, all your grandchildren), and divides that by the years that you are alive.But then claims it is the effect per child???? That last part is a clear error. The real dramatic conclusion would become 'kill yourself now, that's the best for the climate'. Somehow that gains less traction. One one hand, you have the categories with emissions per year, that add up to the amount of CO2 that is being emitted.On the other hand, you have a legacy effect. An interesting concept, which definitely holds a truth to it, but it is not to be compared with that first category of emissions. You have a carbon load at this moment. You are producing an amount of CO2 by being alive. Statistically, you will have x children (with a distribution), that all will produce CO2.BUT, 50% of their CO2 production, has been counted as your CO2 production. The other 50% is counted as the emission of your partner. Same for your grandchildren, their CO2 production is then 0, since 25% of their emission is attributed to you, 75% to the other 3 grandparents.So while the analysis has a value, it implies that your children/grandchildren/... have no CO2 emission anymore.That's why you can not compare it directly to the other parameters. The Murtaugh numbers used by Wynne are based on the assumption that current per capita carbon emissions in each country will continue at the same rate until the end of time. There is not enough fossil fuels on the planet for that assumption to be remotely plausible. To use an analogy: a plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 4 liters of fuel (about 1 gallon) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 150 000 liters (36 000 gallons). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).When a plane flies across the Atlantic ocean, it consumes 150 000 litres of kerosine. 12 liters per km roughly. For each liter of kerosine, there is more or less 2.5 kg of CO2 that is produced. That means one flight produces 375 tonnes of CO2.With a capacity of ± 400 people, that is .75 tonnes of CO2; per person or 750 kg per person. Going back and forth, from Paris to New York is producing 1 500 kg of CO2 per person.Would you disagree with the last part? I do not, it seems the correct way to do.I would call it problematic if I someone were to say , 'the plane is flying, so your single flight produces 375 tonnes of CO2, meaning your carbon impact is 375 tonnes. Especially if you then come to the conclusion that the 400 people each produce 375 tonnes of CO2, and the total amount is 375 x 400 tonnes.
![image showing [OC] Environmental impact of having fewer children](4d4d250a-3e93-5169-82f0-790916af462f.jpg)
kruptcyx on August 12nd, 2020 at 05:02 UTC »
Now do one on how much CO2 you save by becoming a serial killer!
sparky_1985 on August 12nd, 2020 at 05:08 UTC »
Suicide is the ultimate env. impact to.reduce CO2 emissions
WaNeKet on August 12nd, 2020 at 08:13 UTC »
People will not read this comment, but this chart is problematic.
OP refers to the source, 'With the original data coming from research papers by Seth Wynes and Kimberly A Nicholas:'.The supplemental materials for this paper cite one source for the calculation of the carbon impact of having one child in developed nations, a 2009 paper by Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax entitled “Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals.” The Wynnes paper cites the Murtaugh paper as its only source for the carbon impacts of child rearing, and give the annualized carbon impacts of having one child in the developed world as falling into a range between 23,700 kg CO2e (Russia) and 117,700 kg CO2e (US) per year.However**, none of the number used by Wynne actually appear in the Murtaugh paper!**!! The important thing to understand about the Murtaugh and Schlax paper is that it does not just calculate the carbon impacts of that one child’s lifetime — rather it looks at the carbon impacts of that child, plus the impacts of that child’s child, plus the impacts of that child’s grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc, out for almost a millenium, with a diminishing share - since the share of DNA goes down, for each generation that passes by- attributed to that irresponsible 21st century ancestor.The goal is to start from a particular DNA, and evaluate the total Carbon legacy. So Wynnes, et al, come up with their “annual” CO2 impacts of having “one” child by taking the cumulative attributable impacts of all your children until the end of time and acting as if those impacts occur on an annualized basis during the parent’s lifetime. This is highly misleading, at least.
EDIT: I copy paste one of my replies here, since I saw different people questioning a reasoning:
It appears that Wynne has taken the genetic carbon legacy, and divided thatby average life expectancy to come up with the “annualized numbers” – the numbers don't match 100%, but it’s pretty close. That means, that Wynne takes the cumulative effect of CO2 production caused by your DNA (all your children, all your grandchildren), and divides that by the years that you are alive.But then claims it is the effect per child???? That last part is a clear error. The real dramatic conclusion would become 'kill yourself now, that's the best for the climate'. Somehow that gains less traction. One one hand, you have the categories with emissions per year, that add up to the amount of CO2 that is being emitted.On the other hand, you have a legacy effect. An interesting concept, which definitely holds a truth to it, but it is not to be compared with that first category of emissions. You have a carbon load at this moment. You are producing an amount of CO2 by being alive. Statistically, you will have x children (with a distribution), that all will produce CO2.BUT, 50% of their CO2 production, has been counted as your CO2 production. The other 50% is counted as the emission of your partner. Same for your grandchildren, their CO2 production is then 0, since 25% of their emission is attributed to you, 75% to the other 3 grandparents.So while the analysis has a value, it implies that your children/grandchildren/... have no CO2 emission anymore.That's why you can not compare it directly to the other parameters. The Murtaugh numbers used by Wynne are based on the assumption that current per capita carbon emissions in each country will continue at the same rate until the end of time. There is not enough fossil fuels on the planet for that assumption to be remotely plausible. To use an analogy: a plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 4 liters of fuel (about 1 gallon) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 150 000 liters (36 000 gallons). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).When a plane flies across the Atlantic ocean, it consumes 150 000 litres of kerosine. 12 liters per km roughly. For each liter of kerosine, there is more or less 2.5 kg of CO2 that is produced. That means one flight produces 375 tonnes of CO2.With a capacity of ± 400 people, that is .75 tonnes of CO2; per person or 750 kg per person. Going back and forth, from Paris to New York is producing 1 500 kg of CO2 per person.Would you disagree with the last part? I do not, it seems the correct way to do.I would call it problematic if I someone were to say , 'the plane is flying, so your single flight produces 375 tonnes of CO2, meaning your carbon impact is 375 tonnes. Especially if you then come to the conclusion that the 400 people each produce 375 tonnes of CO2, and the total amount is 375 x 400 tonnes.