The link between fertility

rate and CO2 emissions per

capita in the USA
Umair Zia
Dataset(s)
The following dataset was utilised for this project:

- World Development Indicators Dataset (or WDI Dataset for short)

Motivation
Reducing CO2 emissions and curbing the proliferation of greenhouses gases has become a major concern of the US
government in the past few decades. Various strategies and numerous policies have been suggested by scholars and
think-tanks to help limit the carbon footprint of the population, but according to researchers Murtaugh and Schlax,
not much attention has been given to the effect of one’s reproductive choices on the environment (14). Murtaugh and
Shclax investigated the relationship between an individual’s reproductive choices and their overall impact on the
environment (using CO2 emissions as a proxy for environmental impact) and concluded that “an individual’s
reproductive choices can have a dramatic effect on the total carbon emissions” and that “ignoring the consequences
of reproduction” can have deleterious repercussions on the environment (18).

If childrearing generates unpredictable “externalities” and the carbon footprint of an individual can extend past their
lifetime via their offspring, then researchers, policy-makers and environmentalists would find it useful to assess the
impact that fertility rate may have on carbon emissions (1). The purpose of this presentation is to use the data at hand
(WDI) to evaluate whether or not exists a relationship between CO2 emissions per capita and the total fertility rate
(births per woman) in the US.

If findings demonstrate that fertility rate does impact CO2 emissions in a meaningful manner, it could communicate
to concerned parties the effectiveness of family-planning based initiatives in helping combat climate change, or in
the case that no significant relationship can be established, then it could indicate that other factors are more salient in
determining the carbon footprint of an individual and hence resources should be re-directed to investigating those
instead.
Research Question(s)
Did there exist a significant relationship between total fertility rates (births
per woman) and CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) for the US in the
time period 1960 to 2011, according to the WDI dataset?
Findings
Fig 1.

Fig 1 above illustrates the TFR (total fertility rate) in the US and how it changes from 1960 to 2011.
From 1960 to late 1970's, total fertility rate drops precipitously (becomes briefly steady around 1970 but
keeps falling afterward) and then from 1980 to 1990 it climbs slowly to an above replacement level rate
of around 2.08 births per woman. It starts experiencing small fluctuations from the period of 1990 to
2010. But from 2010 onwards, there is definitely a trend towards lower fertility rate overall.
Fig 2. Fig 3.

Figure 2 tells us that during most years in the US, the fertility rate was between 1.75 and 2.125.
Fig 3 helps us compare the US fertility rate to that of other countries in the year 2011. From Fig
3 we can easily deduce that vast majority of countries have a fertility between around 1.1 and 3
births per woman. In 2011 the US had a total fertility of 1.895 births per woman, hence it is
certainly not an outlier and actually resembles most of the other countries in terms of births per
woman (for 2011).
Fig 4.

Fig 4 illustrates the changes in CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) over the specified time period. From
1960 to 1970, there was a considerable spike in CO2 emissions per capita. But in the subsequent decade
(1970-1980) it fluctuated considerably until there was a significant drop from approximately 1980 to 1982. From
1982 to 2000, there was generally a slow upward trend accompanied by oscillations (a considerable peak was
noticeable in late 1980s). Then from 2000 to 2011 one can observe a overall decrease in CO2 emissions per
capita, again with some flux along the way.
Fig 5. Fig 5. puts CO2 emissions and TFR together in
the same graph so that we can more easily
compare how the two measurements changed
over time simultaneously and assess whether or
not they demonstrate some kind of positive or
negative relationship. For CO2 emissions we
can see broadly that the indicator expressed
more variability throughout the period.
However between 1960 and 1970 we can
observe that the two indicators were negatively
related (as CO2 emissions rose, TFR fell and
vice versa).
TFR overall showed a more clear downward trend over the decades and fluctuations were much less
severe 1970's onward. Notice the birth rate in 2011 (1.895) is much lower than in 1960 (3.654)
whereas with respect to CO2 emissions per capita, we can see value in 1960 (16 metric tons) does not
appear to differ substantially from the value in 2011 (16.977 metric tons). Upon visual inspection of
Fig 5, it seems for the majority of the period the variables don’t seem to track one another or display a
consistent relationship. This might lead some to believe there might be no strong correlation between
CO2 emissions per capita and TFR. We can use the scatter plot and correlation coefficient to check
that intuition.
Fig 6. There appears to exist a negative correlation
between TFR and CO2 emissions per capita,
which also contains some outliers. We already
know there was a discernable negative
correlation in 1960-1970 timeframe but from
1970 to 2011, CO2 emissions were exhibiting
more tumultuous behavior when compared to
TFR, so the negative relationship was not as
clear.

The correlation coefficient between the two metrics comes out to be -0.684, which indicates a strong
negative correlation. This value indicates that between the period 1960-2011, CO2 emissions and fertility
rate were inversely related, as one increased the other fell and vice versa. Hence for the sake of the
research question, we have at least established that a strong negative correlation existed between TFR and
CO2 emissions in the given time period. However this result does necessarily imply that if US policy
makers increased fertility rates, then CO2 emissions would fall? Correlation does not imply causation and
many other variables are being ignored in this analysis. For policy implications it is important to
investigate the impact of other variables on CO2 emissions.
Conclusion
We found that there exists a strong negative correlation between TFR and CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) for the
time period 1960-2011. However there is still much to speculate about what underlying causal mechanism could be
driving the negative relationship between TFR and CO2 emissions. According to the research by Murtaugh and Schlax,
we would expect a positive correlation between fertility rates and CO2 emissions, since they state that each additional
child born to a woman from the US will raise “her carbon legacy by an amount (9441 metric tons)” and this effect will
accumulate throughout the generations (18).

However the authors do point out the importance of lifestyle in determining the net carbon contribution and that
“lifestyle changes must propagate through future generations in order to be fully effective” at combating climate change
(18). One possible explanation as to how lower fertility rates can correlate with higher CO2 emissions could be that
Americans, despite having less children, are actually living very carbon intensive lifestyles and they have probably
increased and diversified their consumption of goods and services over the generations.

It is possible that by having less kids, individuals can focus more on other types of consumption (e.g. cinema, video
games, computer technology, cosmetics, entertainment etc), which increases the demand for such goods and services,
and hence gives producers a signal to increase production and hence increase their carbon footprint. There are likely
many other factors which could explain how low fertility can correlate with higher carbon emissions; thus, giving
researchers and policy makers the incentive to focus on tactics such as changes in consumption pattern, diet and fuel
usage as opposed to relying only on family-planning as the primary tool against CO2 emissions.
Acknowledgements
This research is entirely my own effort and no advice or guidance was sought
out by me from anyone else for the duration of this project.
 References (MLA 7 format)
Murtaugh, Paul A. and Schlax, Micheal G. “Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals”. Global
Environmental Change 19 (2009): 14–20. Web. 2nd May 2020. https://
www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

Kaggle. World Development Indicators. (Version 2). World Bank, 2017. Web. 2nd May 2020. https://
www.kaggle.com/worldbank/world-development-indicators