Seattle Times: Childlessness and Climate Change

Image: Jennifer Luxton/The Seattle Times

When I first learned of J.D. Vance’s derisive comments about the “childless cat ladies” who are ruling the country without a stake in its future, I had to chuckle: surely, he must have been joking—and what about us childless dog ladies; don’t we deserve equal billing? Alas, this was no joke, and Vance’s dangerous remarks picked at a scab for me and millions of others. So when I recently read an op-ed on this topic in The Seattle Times, I seized the opportunity to add my two cents. My LTE was published online last week, and in print on Sunday.

“We love our childless dog ladies!”

As any letter writer knows, we are given a strict word limit—in the case of the Times, exactly 200. I chose my words carefully to distill my primary message: in this era of climate change, a decision to not have children is an investment in our future.

…researchers have calculated that having one less child equates to the reduction of 58 tons of CO2 emissions for each year of a parent’s life — more than being car-free, avoiding airplane travel and eating a plant-based diet combined.

I appreciate that the newspaper gave me this forum, and I hope my letter provided at least a few readers with comfort or food for thought. But had I been offered, say, 400 words, I would have shared a bit more about my own story and view. For example, that…

…I love children and would have loved to have been a mother, in a different world.

…deciding to be, or not to be, a mother is a deeply personal choice that belongs to women.

…every other species, too, has a stake in our future, and many of them are threatened by the fact that 8 billion-plus of us are suffocating the planet.

…to the extent that I’m “miserable,” it’s because I worry about the plight of all beings, including children.

So I hope you’ll read my letter in the spirit with which it was intended, whether you’ve chosen children, cats, dogs, or any other life-affirming path.