By CALEIGH WELLS, Associated Press

Amanda Porretto isn’t sure she’ll ever have children.

At 27, she is the average age of new mothers in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She’s feeling the pressure as an only child. Her father wants to be a grandfather and her mother, before she died, always told Porretto that she would eventually want to be a mom.

“Some people think it’s a bad thing” not to have a child, said Porretto, who works in advertising. “I just don’t think I need to bring more people into (the world) when there’s so much here currently that we need to fix.”

Younger generations of Americans are increasingly citing climate change as making them reticent to have children, according to several studies. They are worried about bringing children into a world with increasing and more intense extreme weather events, a result of climate change, which is caused by the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide when oil, gas coal are burned. And they are concerned about the impact their offspring will have on the planet.

In a 2024 Lancet study of people 16 to 25 years old, the majority of respondents were “very” or “extremely” worried about climate change. The study also found that 52% said they were hesitant to have children because of climate change. Adults under 50 years old without children were four times more likely than adults over 50 without children to say that climate plays a factor in their decision, according to a Pew Research Center report published last year. And a study published this year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found more than half of respondents said “yes” or “maybe” to whether climate change made them question having children.

Climate impact of children

Parenthood and climate change are related not just because of fears for a child’s well-being, but also by concern for the planet’s well-being.

Compared to the carbon emissions of all the other decisions, “having a child is by far, by orders of magnitude, larger,” said Nandita Bajaj, executive director of Population Balance, which is a nonprofit focused on humans’ environmental impact.

Unlike other choices, procreation comes with something that bioethics professor Travis Rieder of Johns Hopkins University calls “carbon legacy.”

“You’re not only doing carbon expensive activities like buying a larger house and a larger car and diapers and all that,” said Rieder. “You’re also creating someone who is going to have their own carbon footprint for the rest of their lives.”

That child might have children, and those children might have children, creating an impact that lasts generations, Rieder added. Of course, the logical extreme of minimizing an environmental footprint means having no children, Rieder said, which he is not advocating.

It’s tricky to quantify the impact of a child. That’s because there’s no consensus on what percentage of their impact is the parent’s responsibility, and partly because the impact of that child depends on their parents’ lifestyle.

“One of the best predictors of how carbon-expensive they’ll be is how wealthy you are,” Rieder said.

For example, the U.S. emits 123 times more carbon emissions than Ghana, according to the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research. Adjusted for population size, that means the average American emits more than 12 times as much as the average Ghanan.

Why is it taboo to talk about?

Procreation might have the largest climate impact, but when it comes to actions people can take to reduce their personal contribution to global warming, having fewer children often isn’t discussed.

Researchers who study climate change and family planning give two reasons.

“If a person tells you that they’re expecting or that they are pregnant, the immediate response is to offer some kind of support, congratulate them, that sort of thing,” said Trevor Hedbert, who teaches moral philosophy at the University of Arizona.

The other factor, said Rieder: the impact of procreation sometimes is tied to conversations about overpopulation. The environmental movement in the 1970s expressed fears that there were too many people for the planet’s resources, which led to racism and eugenics, which garnered severe backlash.

Taboo or not, climate is factoring into people’s choices

Ash Sanders, 43, knew when she was young that she didn’t want to have a baby. Then she got pregnant.

“I didn’t want to add another person to the world and have them have more of an impact on a world that was already overstressed and strained by the number of humans that were here,” she said.

Sanders, a freelance writer who covers religion and environment, wanted an abortion but felt pressure by her Mormon upbringing and by the father to have the baby. She said she was called a bad person for not wanting a kid.

She placed her child in an open adoption and sees her regularly. Today she feels conflicted about her decision.

“I feel guilt for bringing her into the world. I mean she likes the world, she’s a happy kid, she’s very cool. I’m a big fan. But I feel guilt all the time,” she said.

Related Articles

Bill Gates calls for climate fight to shift focus from curbing emissions to reducing human suffering

What to know about uncontacted Indigenous peoples and efforts to protect them

Hurricane Melissa’s wind speeds doubled in less than a day

Blood tests show highest levels of forever chemicals in those living near New Mexico plume

In a California farming region, researchers are mapping rural heat to protect farmworkers

Juan Jaramillo said the environment was always a factor in his parenthood calculus, even when he was a teenager in the 1970s. He later went to school to become a marine biologist.

“Pollution and climate change was not an issue just yet, but all of the rest of the problems that we have now were there back then,” he said.

Plus, he just didn’t want kids. So he got a vasectomy and hasn’t regretted the decision. His decision not to have children and his environmental concerns lined up.

That’s not the case for Rieder, the bioethics professor, who has spent years studying that impact, and still very much wanted to be a dad.

“Having children is a deeply meaningful and important activity to people. It’s also carbon expensive,” he said. “So how do you weigh these things out?”

For Rieder, finding that balance meant having just one child.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

By CLAIRE RUSH, Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon has blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from pulling sexual education funding over curricula mentioning diverse gender identities.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken issued the preliminary injunction Monday as part of a lawsuit filed against the Health and Human Services Department by 16 states and the District of Columbia, which argued that pulling such money violated the separation of powers and federal law.

The complaint, filed last month, says the department is attempting to force the states to “rewrite sexual health curricula to erase entire categories of students.” It describes the action as “the latest attempt from the current administration to target and harm transgender and gender-diverse youth.” The administration said in court filings that Health and Human Services has the authority to impose conditions for receiving funding grants.

Aiken wrote that the department “provides no evidence that it made factual findings or considered the statutory objectives and express requirements, the relevant data, the applicable anti-sex-discrimination statutes and its own regulations.” The judge added that the department also “fails to show that the new grant conditions are reasonable.”

The department did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment, but said in a previous statement after the complaint was filed that it was “committed to its mission of removing radical gender and DEI ideology from federal programs,” referring to initiatives focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, whose state co-led the lawsuit with Oregon and Washington, welcomed the ruling and said he was “pleased to have protected funding for important health education programs.”

Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, his administration has sought to recognize people as only male or female.

Health Department went after 2 programs

The health department wants to prohibit the inclusion of what it describes as “gender ideology” in lessons funded by the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and the Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education program. The federal grants are used to teach about abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

The plaintiff states said the grant conditions the department is seeking to impose violate federal law, the separation of powers and Congress’ spending power. They also argued that losing the money would harm state programs by making them less effective in providing sex ed, including to youth at high risk of becoming pregnant or contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

The termination of money under the two federal grant programs could result in a loss of at least $35 million to the plaintiff states, according to the complaint.

In court filings, the administration said agencies have the authority to impose grant terms and argued that claims against the federal government over contracts, including grants, should be heard by a different court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

In April, the health department asked the plaintiff states to share curricula and materials used for lessons funded by the PREP grant, according to the complaint. In a letter, the department said it was conducting a “medical accuracy review.”

Related Articles

US and China seek to strike a deal over rare earths, tariffs, soybeans

How Mike Waltz is leading the Trump administration’s ‘a la carte’ approach to UN funding

What to know as federal food help and preschool aid will run dry Saturday if shutdown persists

A federal judge in Tennessee warns Trump officials over statements about Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Chicago’s children are getting caught in the chaos of immigration crackdowns

In August, the department issued new conditions prohibiting grant recipients from “including gender ideology in any program or service that is funded with this award.” That month, it warned states that they had 60 days to change lessons or lose their PREP grants; California was warned previously, and its $12 million grant was stripped Aug. 21.

At the heart of some of the legal debate in the case is the definition of “medically accurate.” Under federal law, curricula under the two programs must be “medically accurate and complete.”

“The agency’s restriction on ‘gender ideology’ ensures that federal funds support curricula rooted in biological and medical science rather than in contested sociopolitical theories regarding gender identity,” the administration said in court filings.

The plaintiff states argued their programs are medically accurate and submitted written declarations from health experts such as Kate Millington, a pediatric endocrinologist and associate professor of pediatrics at Brown University.

“Stating that gender is binary and that other non-binary gender identities do not exist is not consistent with the medical and scientific understanding of gender identity,” Millington said.

In court filings, Minnesota officials shared examples of materials that Health and Human Services flagged for removal, such as curricula mentioning different pronouns and how some people identify with a gender that is different than their biological sex.

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown previously said the department threatened to cancel PREP grants if his state didn’t remove wording from a high school curriculum that says: “People of all sexual orientations and gender identities need to know how to prevent pregnancy and STIs, either for themselves or to help a friend.”

The other plaintiffs are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. All plaintiff states have Democratic governors.

Libraries built more than a century ago with funds from steel magnate Andrew Carnegie will each get $10,000 to help celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The Carnegie Corporation of New York announced the gifts last week.

Carnegie, an industrialist who led the expansion of the steel industry in the late 1800s, provided the money to build 1,681 libraries in the United States between 1886 and 1917. Minnesota got 66 of them. Of those, 48 are standing, and 25 are still in use as public libraries.

Among the originals: the Stillwater Public Library and the Riverview and St. Anthony Park libraries in St. Paul.

The $10,000 library gifts are part of a $20 million special initiative created to celebrate next year’s 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence “by supporting America’s civic institutions and organizations that foster civic participation and bring people together,” Carnegie Corporation of New York officials said in a statement.

The Stillwater Public Library was built in 1902 using funds from steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. (Courtesy of the Stillwater Public Library)

Carnegie “described libraries as ‘cradles of democracy’ that ‘strengthen the democratic idea, the equality of the citizen, and the royalty of man,’” said Louise Richardson, president of Carnegie and former head of the University of Oxford. “We still believe this and are delighted to celebrate our connection to the libraries he founded.”

About 1,280 Carnegie libraries still operate and acknowledge their link to Carnegie, making them eligible for the gift, officials said.

The gift recipients can expect to receive a check in January. They may use the funds “however they wish to celebrate the 250th anniversary, further their mission, and benefit their community,” officials said.

“We’re thrilled, surprised and honored to be among the libraries recognized with this gift,” Stillwater Public Library Director Mark Troendle said Tuesday. “We’re so grateful for the initial gift from Andrew Carnegie of $27,500 in the early 1900s to build this library, and for this latest gift … for helping us continue to serve our community in meaningful ways.”

Related Articles

Crisis situation closed down U.S. 61 in Forest Lake late Sunday

Scandia moving ahead on Gateway Trail extension over objections

As Stillwater wrestles with cannabis shop locations, what are other east metro cities seeing?

Afton, Wild River, William O’Brien state parks to close for weekend deer hunts

Voters to decide school levy referendums in Ramsey, Dakota, Washington counties

Troendle said library officials had not yet decided how the money will be spent.

St. Paul Public Library officials plan to use the funds toward technology upgrades at Riverview Library and updates to the “play-and-learn” space for children and families at the St. Anthony Park location, said Library Director Maureen Hartman

“This funding will help us continue to welcome all people to connect, learn, participate and grow,” Hartman said. “It’s a testament to the continued power of libraries as essential community spaces that was part of Carnegie’s original vision.”