Save Trees, Make Babies
To Be Pro-Natalist, Fight Climate Change
There’s been a lot of buzz lately about pro-natalism—the desire for society to have more children. The Trump Administration has leaned hard into pro-natalism, even soliciting policy proposals about how to raise the nation’s birthrate. At the same time, the Administration is gleefully dismantling virtually every government program to fight climate change. And this is a problem for their pro-natalist goals, because climate anxiety is a significant reason why Americans are turning their back on having children. According to a July 2024 Pew Research poll, 26 percent of childless adults who are unlikely to have children cited “concern for the environment” as a major reason why, while 38 percent cited “concern for the state of the world.”
Eschewing children because of climate anxiety is an understandable (though tragic) impulse. First, climate anxiety itself is understandable in a world where rising temperatures are causing increasing havoc, and such anxiety is not conducive to baby-making or confident parenthood. Second, climate-minded adults may be swayed by publications stating that the best way to reduce one’s carbon footprint is to not have children. These publications are wrong, but they pack a big emotional punch. Thus, a world of ever-hotter temperatures is likely to be a world of ever-falling fertility, and the Trump Administration is working at cross-purposes by embracing pro-natalism on the one hand while dismantling climate programs on the other.
A cynical observer might accept all these points but say there’s no solution for it. Pro-natalists are on the political right, the political right doesn’t care about climate, and thus pro-natalists will inevitably resist climate action even if doing so hurts their pro-natal goals.
But the closer you look, the less true this caricature becomes. Many pro-natalists are concerned about climate, and they have the opportunity to nudge the Administration towards a more sensible climate policy as one plank in a broader pro-natal platform.
The most prominent example, of course, is the vocal pro-natalist Elon Musk. Before he became a Trump supporter, Musk was known for caring deeply about climate change, and it’s unlikely that his climate impulses have completely vanished. Even today, every internal-combustion car replaced with a Tesla is a climate win, and Musk-funded organizations continue to give prizes for the most innovative breakthroughs to reduce CO2 levels.
But Musk is not the only pro-natalist with climate bona fides. The list is actually quite long. Lyman Stone, head of the Pronatalism Initiative at the right-leaning Institute for Family Studies, has advocated for a carbon tax. Tim Carney, the conservative scholar who wrote a recent book calling for more children, spent an entire chapter promoting walkable, car-light neighborhoods and lifestyles.
The Catholic right is stacked with writers who’ve taken pro-climate positions, including Adrian Vermeule, Sohrab Ahmari, and Patrick Deneen. This should not be a huge surprise, given that the last two Popes (Benedict and Francis) were both known for promoting natalism and environmental causes. The more-liberal Francis may currently dominate public memory on climate and the environment, but the conservative Benedict was known as “The Green Pope” before Francis entered the scene.
This creates some obvious opportunities. The Trump Administration is unlikely to listen to environmental groups on climate policy, but might it listen to a Musk, a Stone, a Vermeule, an Ahmari, a Deneen? Particularly if these individuals pitch climate action as part of a broader pro-natal platform. Stranger things have happened—especially when the Administration’s crown prince (J.D. Vance) is a post-liberal Catholic whose political philosophy is often grouped with Vermeule’s, Deneen’s, and Ahmari’s. (Musk is a more mercurial case, and his status in the Administration seems to be changing by the day).
From the pro-natalist perspective, there are at least three reasons to endorse climate action. First, doing so could create a more optimistic, child-friendly society. A world where emissions and CO2 levels were falling rather than rising would be a world with more confidence about creating and nurturing the next generation. As Stone put it, effective climate policies would “address a major form of long-run uncertainty as people think about whether to have children.”
And while Stone wrote in the bland words of an economist, the anxiety that climate change causes in many parents and would-be parents is anything but bland. We’ve recently seen entire communities wiped off the map by massive wildfires fueled by ever-hotter weather. There have been multiple days when my own young children could not safely play outside, the air was so foul from wildfire smoke. Winter sports, Fall apple picking, the outdoor rhythms and traditions of family life—all of it at risk from ever-hotter temperatures. Thoughtful pro-natalists should be trying hard to combat the menace that climate change causes for families and would-be families.
Second, the pro-natalist movement is widely associated with the far-right, which may cause liberals and centrists to tune them out entirely. Endorsing climate action—a cause generally associated with the left—could give the pro-natalist movement more credibility among left-leaning America.
Finally, there are plenty of logrolling policies that could directly promote pro-natalist and pro-climate ends. Consider, for example, generous child subsidies funded dollar-for-dollar by strong carbon taxes. Or to give it a Trumpian flair, replace “carbon taxes” with “carbon tariffs,” such as those recently proposed by Republican Senator Bill Cassidy.
We do need more children, we also need to fight climate change, and the two causes are linked. Climate action should be part of the pro-natalist policy platform.
Joshua L. Sohn is an attorney and author who has written extensively on the intersection of climate change, social conservatism, and family policy. His writings have appeared in America (The Jesuit Review), Public Discourse, Commonplace, the Washington Examiner, Plough, on the website of the Institute for Family Studies, and in numerous law reviews.
 | A guest post by
|
The only Party that would line up with this solid take would be the American Solidarity Party. So apart from someone with connections selling this good idea to the big names floated here, people could join the ASP to build a fledgling party gain a voice.
I am all for solid pro-environmental policies, but.... people saying that the environmental decline is the reason they don't want to have kids, is usually the equivalent of "we just weren't a good fit" when a second date doesn't happen. It is a socially acceptable milk toast answer, which prevents us from incurring social judgement by stating the "real" reasons.