#[1]Vox

   [2]Skip to main content

   IFRAME: [3]https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-W8JKW6

   [4]Vox homepage

Follow Vox online:

     *
     *
     *
     *

   [5]Log in or sign up
     * [6]Log In
     * [7]Sign Up

Site search

   (BUTTON) Search Search

Vox main menu

     * [8]Open Sourced
     * [9]Recode
     * [10]The Goods
     * [11]Future Perfect
     * [12]The Highlight
     * [13]First Person
     * [14]Podcasts
     * [15]Video
     * [16]Explainers
     * [17]Politics & Policy
     * [18]Culture
     * [19]Science & Health
     * [20]World
     * [21]Identities
     * [22]Energy & Environment
     * [23]Technology
     * [24]Business & Finance
     * More

   ____________________ Search

     * [25]Open Sourced
     * [26]Recode
     * [27]The Goods
     * [28]Future Perfect
     * [29]The Highlight
     * [30]First Person
     * [31]Podcasts
     * [32]Video
     * [33]Explainers
     * [34]Politics & Policy
     * [35]Culture
     * [36]Science & Health
     * [37]World
     * [38]Identities
     * [39]Energy & Environment
     * [40]Technology
     * [41]Business & Finance (BUTTON) ✕

Having fewer kids will not save the climate

   Some say you shouldn’t have children in the era of climate change.
   Don’t buy it.
   By [42]Sigal Samuel Feb 13, 2020, 8:10am EST

Share this story

     * [43]Share this on Facebook
     * [44]Share this on Twitter
     * [45]Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Having fewer kids will not save the climate

     * [46]Reddit
     * [47]Pocket
     * [48]Flipboard
     * [49]Email

   A mother embracing her daughter holds a placard that says “It’s a
   child’s world” at the March through Edinburgh, part of the global
   climate strike movement. A mother and child take part in the March
   through Edinburgh, Scotland, as part of the global climate strike
   movement. Getty Images

This story is part of a group of stories called [50]Future Perfect

   Finding the best ways to do good.

   A growing contingent of young people are refusing to have kids — or are
   considering having fewer kids — because of climate change. Their voices
   have been growing louder over the past year. UK women set up a movement
   called [51]BirthStrike, announcing that they won’t procreate until the
   world gets its act together on climate, and high-profile US figures
   like [52]Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez amplified the question of whether
   childbearing is still morally acceptable.

   One of the main worries cited by this contingent is that having a child
   will make climate change worse. Their logic is that anytime you have a
   kid you’re doing something bad for the planet. You’re adding yet
   another person who’ll cause more carbon emissions, plus their children,
   plus their grandchildren ... and so on, in a never-ending cascade of
   procreative shame.

   Driving this logic are [53]studies claiming to show that having a child
   leads to a gargantuan amount of carbon emissions — way, way more than
   the emissions generated by other lifestyle choices, like driving a car
   or eating meat. [54]Media reports have trumpeted the takeaway that if
   you want to fight climate change, having fewer children is far and away
   the best thing you can do.

   But that’s just not true, according to [55]a new report by Founders
   Pledge, an organization that guides entrepreneurs committed to donating
   a portion of their proceeds to effective charities.

   The problem with most studies on the climate impact of various
   lifestyle decisions is that they don’t account for likely changes in
   government policy in the future. But climate policy will almost
   certainly get much stricter over the course of our children’s and
   grandchildren’s lifetimes, the Founders Pledge researchers say.

   That does seem likely, at least in some countries, as advances in clean
   tech are easing the transition to green energy and some governments are
   already jumping on board. For example, the UK is now [56]legally
   required to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, and the [57]sale of
   pollution-causing cars will be banned there as of 2035. These sorts of
   policies limit how much environmental damage our descendants can do.

   The Founders Pledge report used countries’ climate targets and
   projected policies to estimate how many metric tons of carbon can be
   saved by avoiding various lifestyle choices.

   “Once we take account of policy,” the report says, “some decisions,
   such as switching to an electric car, increase in impact; others, such
   as buying green electricity and flying within the EU, are much less
   impactful than they first appeared; and some are unaffected.”

   But the biggest surprise has to do with the impact of having kids.

Comparing the climate impacts of our lifestyle choices — with and without
accounting for policy

   The best way to see how much each of our lifestyle choices affects the
   climate is to look at a couple of charts.

   To start with, take a look at this chart, which shows how many metric
   tons of CO2 you can avert by making various decisions. This chart does
   not account for changes in government policy.
   Founders Pledge

   If you’re just looking at this sort of chart, the takeaway seems clear:
   Having one fewer child is far and away the best thing you can do to
   save the planet, right?

   Not so fast.

   These estimates assume that your descendants’ carbon emissions will
   continue at a constant rate into the future. That’s extremely
   unrealistic for two reasons.

   First, emissions per person are [58]trending downward in most rich
   countries. It might not seem that way given the failures of US climate
   policy, but it’s true; even in the US, per capita emissions have been
   [59]declining since 2005. (Note that this does not mean Americans are
   doing great. Although per capita emissions are inching down, they’re
   doing so from a very tall height because [60]the US is the world’s
   worst emitter per capita.)

   Second, many places now have legally binding climate targets and
   carbon-pricing schemes that compel them to decarbonize (at least in
   some sectors) in the next few decades. That includes the EU, the UK,
   Switzerland, California, and the 10 northeastern US states that make up
   the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
   Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
   Island, and Vermont.

   As more governments enact policies to protect the climate — like
   imposing carbon prices and including sectors like road transportation
   and home heating in carbon markets — they’ll mitigate the direct impact
   your children and grandchildren will have on the climate. As the
   Founders Pledge researchers explain:

     In a system with a firm binding cap on emissions, having a child who
     consumes polluting electricity would increase demand for emissions
     allowances, but this would necessarily lead to emissions reductions
     somewhere else, leaving overall emissions unaffected. This is known
     as the “waterbed effect” in the literature: if you push down
     emissions in one place, they pop up elsewhere, and vice versa.

   In the real world, things can get a bit messy, so the waterbed effect
   may not work out exactly as it does in a theoretical model. But the
   fact remains that government policy makes a huge difference. And when
   you take policy into account, the picture looks very different.

   Here’s the same chart as before, but this time with an extra bar
   showing how the estimates change when we account for changes in policy.
   Founders Pledge

   As you can see, having one fewer child still comes out looking like a
   solid way to reduce carbon emissions — but it’s absolutely nowhere near
   as effective as it first seemed. It no longer dwarfs the other options.

   On this model, instead of having one fewer kid, you can skip a couple
   of transatlantic flights and you’ll save the same amount of carbon.
   That seems like a way more manageable sacrifice if you’re a young
   person who longs to be a parent.

What’s better than having fewer kids? Donating to effective climate
charities.

   When considering the lifestyle changes we can make to help the climate,
   we typically think about things like flying less, driving less, and
   eating less meat. And to be clear, those are all great things to do.
   But there’s another great action that tends to get less play in these
   conversations: donating to effective climate charities.

   It’s important to remember that not all charities are created equal.
   Some claiming to do good for the climate may actually do nothing — or
   [61]worse than nothing. But a few climate charities have proven to be
   extraordinarily effective.

   In [62]a 2018 report, Founders Pledge highlighted two groups: the
   [63]Coalition for Rainforest Nations, an intergovernmental organization
   of rainforest nations that played a huge role in reducing emissions
   from deforestation, and the [64]Clean Air Task Force, a US-based
   nonprofit that’s helped reduce air pollution. According to Founders
   Pledge’s calculations, by donating to these groups, you can avert a
   metric ton of CO2 for somewhere between 12 cents and $1. (For
   comparison, most organizations can’t avert a metric ton for less than
   $2. The average American causes around [65]16 metric tons of emissions
   per year.)

   In the new report, the Founders Pledge researchers compare how many
   metric tons of CO2 you can avert by donating to these charities versus
   by making other lifestyle decisions.

   The findings are striking, as you can see in this chart.
   Founders Pledge

   It turns out the impact of donating $1,000 to effective climate
   charities totally dwarfs the impact of having one fewer child.

   “Personal donations are by far the biggest lever that individuals have
   on the climate, and should be a top priority for climate-conscious
   individuals,” says the report.

   Take all this with a grain of salt, though. This report is engaged in
   the tricky business of coming up with estimates based on projections
   about the future. It’s hard to project with certainty exactly what sort
   of policies will be in place a few decades from now because, well,
   governments don’t always keep their promises.

   The authors acknowledge that their estimates “should not be taken as
   exactly precise, as there are different assumptions and uncertainties
   flowing into the analysis.” Nevertheless, they offer a couple of
   reasons to think their conclusions are robust.

   “Firstly, jurisdictions that set themselves ambitious climate targets
   tend to achieve them or, if not, the failure to achieve interim targets
   at least creates strong political pressure to correct course,” they
   write. “Secondly, climate targets need to be missed very significantly
   to change our conclusions. Even when assuming the US will only
   decarbonize by 2080 ... the emissions of an additional child are still
   only by about 14 [metric tons] per year, equivalent to a yearly
   donation of $140.”

   Related

[66]Want to fight climate change effectively? Here’s where to donate your
money.

   This should not be misinterpreted as saying that you can emit as much
   as you want and then use donations to offset that. (No offset is
   guaranteed to avert as much CO2 as advertised; what is guaranteed to
   work is simply emitting less CO2 to begin with!) Instead of thinking of
   donation as a form of offsetting, think of it as a way to supercharge
   the positive impact you can have.

The other big reason some people don’t want to have kids in the era of
climate breakdown

   In addition to the concern that more children will make for a worse
   climate, there’s another fear driving some of the young people who’ve
   decided to forego childbearing. It’s the fear that having a kid in this
   day and age dooms that kid to a miserable life on a miserably hot
   planet.

   This comes down to a philosophical question about what parents owe
   their kids. For example, if you believe it’s a parent’s duty to give
   kids a life that’s reasonably likely to contain more happiness than
   suffering, you might ask whether you’ll be able to fulfill that
   responsibility in an era of climate breakdown.

   Some people look at the odds that major wildfires or floods will strike
   their region and just don’t feel confident that they’d be able to
   provide a secure enough future for a child. This is most salient for
   low-income people, people of color, and people who live in developing
   countries because they’ll be hardest hit by climate change.

   It’s important to note that such concerns should not be used as a way
   to pressure other people about their reproductive choices. One of the
   problems with the discourse about population and climate is that it can
   be easily distorted for unprogressive goals, like promoting population
   control in poor regions. Since most rich countries already have very
   low birthrates, the argument that people should have fewer kids may
   disproportionately affect people of color in the developing world.
   While some do want access to better family planning services and
   contraception, others want large families, and it’s ethically
   problematic to steer them away from that in order to address a climate
   crisis that rich countries created.
   Girls participating in a Global Climate Strike event in Bangkok. Getty
   Images

   It’s also worth noting that [67]this isn’t the first time in history
   that a generation has had to ask whether childbearing is morally
   acceptable. Many asked themselves the same question [68]during the Cold
   War, when the fear of nuclear annihilation reached fever pitch. And as
   the writer [69]Mary Annaïse Heglar has pointed out, black people in the
   United States asked it, too, knowing that to bear children would be to
   enter them into a violently racist system.

   One thing that has kept people having kids anyway is the idea that we
   can never quite see what’s around the bend. There’s hope in that.
   Perhaps nuclear war won’t break out. Perhaps racist laws will be struck
   down. Perhaps a few kids in the next generation — including your kid,
   maybe! — will be the ones to figure out how to use clean energy to save
   the planet.

   That brings us to the most significant point of all. The various
   lifestyle choices we make on an individual level are important because
   they do add up. But what’s going to be far more important than how many
   kids you choose to have is [70]how soon your country goes off fossil
   fuels. A mass transition to clean energy sources, which will come via
   changes in government policy, is the big win we need to concentrate on.

   Even if we were to dramatically cut birthrates — even if you and
   everyone you know were to have zero kids — our climate would still be
   doomed if we don’t move away from fossil fuels. That’s the absolutely
   crucial factor here, and it makes sense to focus on that rather than
   focusing our attention on an individual choice that yields less impact
   than advertised and constitutes an enormous sacrifice for many would-be
   parents.

   And there’s one more thing to consider here. It’s an obvious fact, but
   one that too often gets left out of conversations on climate and kids:
   Children aren’t just emitters of carbon. They’re also extraordinarily
   efficient emitters of joy and meaning and hope. Those sentiments are
   what will hopefully motivate us to keep pushing for the changes our
   world desperately needs.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [71]Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a
   roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest
   challenges — and how to get better at doing good.

Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect

   Get our newsletter in your inbox twice a week.
   Email (required)
   ____________________
   By signing up, you agree to our [72]Privacy Notice and European users
   agree to the data transfer policy. For more newsletters, check out our
   [73]newsletters page.
   (BUTTON) Subscribe

   Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants,
   and sponsorships. Learn more [74]here.

Next Up In [75]Future Perfect

     * [76]It’s 2020. Where are our self-driving cars?
     * [77]A radio signal is coming from space every 16 days. What the
       hell is it?
     * [78]The coronavirus cruise ship quarantine is a scary public health
       experiment
     * [79]Tech billionaires give away billions — but it’s just a small
       fraction of their staggering wealth
     * [80]The surprising strategy behind the Gates Foundation’s success
     * [81]Women in science are up against a lot of unconscious bias.
       Here’s how to fight it.

Most Read

    1. Bloomberg’s Instagram meme ad campaign is backfiring The Democratic
       candidate’s recent sponcon doesn’t seem to be convincing people
       he’s any more relatable, hip, or funny than he was before.
    2. A male lawmaker worries women will abuse a tax break to hoard
       tampons "That is what our elected representatives think of us," one
       menstrual equity advocate says.
    3. Why the coronavirus outbreak might be much bigger than we know What
       the situation in countries like Singapore and the US tells us about
       the risk of global spread.
    4. How the brow lift went mainstream Once you notice it, you won’t be
       able to stop.
    5. “This fundraiser is a slap in the face to all of us”: Oracle
       employees are furious over Larry Ellison’s support of Trump On
       Friday, Oracle employees took unexpected action and began
       circulating a petition calling for Ellison to cancel the event.

Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect

   Get our newsletter in your inbox twice a week.
   Email (required)
   ____________________
   By signing up, you agree to our [82]Privacy Notice and European users
   agree to the data transfer policy. For more newsletters, check out our
   [83]newsletters page.
   (BUTTON) Subscribe

The Latest

[84]Some Tea Party Republicans in South Carolina are voting for Bernie
Sanders

   By [85]Jane Coaston
   In this photo illustration, the Tinder logo is shown on a smartphone
   sticking out of the pocket of a pair of jeans. In this photo
   illustration, the Tinder logo is shown on a smartphone sticking out of
   the pocket of a pair of jeans.

[86]Tinder may not get you a date. It will get your data.

   By [87]Rebecca Heilweil
   2020 Vanity Fair Oscar Party Hosted By Radhika Jones - Roaming Arrivals
   2020 Vanity Fair Oscar Party Hosted By Radhika Jones - Roaming Arrivals

[88]Listen: Billie Eilish’s big 2020 continues with James Bond theme “No Time
to Die”

   By [89]Allegra Frank

[90]Trump just got bad news from Neil Gorsuch’s mentor in a big Medicaid case

   By [91]Ian Millhiser

[92]“This fundraiser is a slap in the face to all of us”: Oracle employees
are furious over Larry Ellison’s support of Trump

   By [93]Theodore Schleifer

[94]This photo triggered China’s Cultural Revolution

   By [95]Coleman Lowndes

   [96]Chorus
     * [97]Terms of Use
     * [98]Privacy Notice
     * [99]Cookie Policy
     * [100]Do not sell my info
     * [101]Communications Preferences
     * [102]Licensing FAQ
     * [103]Accessibility
     * [104]Platform Status

     * [105]Contact
     * [106]Send Us a Tip
     * [107]Masthead
     * [108]About Us
     * [109]Editorial Ethics and Guidelines

   [110]Vox Media Vox Media logo. [111]Advertise with us [112]Jobs @ Vox
   Media © 2020 [113]Vox Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Share this story

     * [114]Twitter
     * [115]Facebook

References

   Visible links
   1. https://www.vox.com/rss/index.xml
   2. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism#content
   3. https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-W8JKW6
   4. https://www.vox.com/
   5. https://auth.voxmedia.com/login?return_to=https://www.vox.com/
   6. https://auth.voxmedia.com/login?return_to=https://www.vox.com/
   7. https://auth.voxmedia.com/signup?return_to=https://www.vox.com/
   8. https://www.vox.com/open-sourced
   9. https://www.vox.com/recode
  10. https://www.vox.com/the-goods
  11. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect
  12. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight
  13. https://www.vox.com/first-person
  14. https://www.vox.com/pages/podcasts
  15. https://www.vox.com/videos
  16. https://www.vox.com/explainers
  17. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics
  18. https://www.vox.com/culture
  19. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health
  20. https://www.vox.com/world
  21. https://www.vox.com/identities
  22. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment
  23. https://www.vox.com/technology
  24. https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance
  25. https://www.vox.com/open-sourced
  26. https://www.vox.com/recode
  27. https://www.vox.com/the-goods
  28. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect
  29. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight
  30. https://www.vox.com/first-person
  31. https://www.vox.com/pages/podcasts
  32. https://www.vox.com/videos
  33. https://www.vox.com/explainers
  34. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics
  35. https://www.vox.com/culture
  36. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health
  37. https://www.vox.com/world
  38. https://www.vox.com/identities
  39. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment
  40. https://www.vox.com/technology
  41. https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance
  42. https://www.vox.com/authors/sigal-samuel
  43. https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?text=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&u=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
  44. https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?counturl=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism&text=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism&via=voxdotcom
  45. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
  46. https://reddit.com/submit?title=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
  47. https://getpocket.com/save?url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
  48. https://share.flipboard.com/bookmarklet/popout?title=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism&v=2
  49. mailto:?subject=Having fewer kids will not save the climate&body=Some say you shouldn’t have children in the era of climate change. Don’t buy it.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
  50. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect
  51. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/12/birthstrikers-meet-the-women-who-refuse-to-have-children-until-climate-change-ends
  52. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18256166/climate-change-having-kids
  53. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
  54. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children
  55. https://founderspledge.com/stories/climate-and-lifestyle-report
  56. https://www.vox.com/2019/5/4/18528526/climate-change-uk-net-zero-law
  57. https://www.ft.com/content/46bfd6e2-473a-11ea-aee2-9ddbdc86190d
  58. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#consumption-based-trade-adjusted-co2-emissions
  59. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?contextual=aggregate&end=2014&locations=XD-XM-XP-1W&name_desc=false&start=1960
  60. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/chart-of-the-day-these-countries-have-the-largest-carbon-footprints/
  61. https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/
  62. https://founderspledge.com/research/fp-climate-change
  63. https://www.rainforestcoalition.org/
  64. https://www.catf.us/
  65. https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2
  66. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/12/2/20976180/climate-change-best-charities-effective-philanthropy
  67. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/20/20802413/overpopulation-demographic-transition-population-explained
  68. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18256166/climate-change-having-kids
  69. https://medium.com/s/story/sorry-yall-but-climate-change-ain-t-the-first-existential-threat-b3c999267aa0
  70. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population
  71. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect-newsletter
  72. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/privacy-notice
  73. https://www.vox.com/newsletters
  74. https://www.vox.com/2020/1/7/21020439/support-future-perfect
  75. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect
  76. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/14/21063487/self-driving-cars-autonomous-vehicles-waymo-cruise-uber
  77. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21135200/fast-radio-bursts-astronomy-aliens
  78. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21132732/coronavirus-cruise-ship-quarantine-japan
  79. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/11/21133521/tech-billionaires-philanthropy-numbers-data
  80. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/11/21133298/bill-gates-melinda-gates-money-foundation
  81. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/28/20833505/women-science-unconscious-gender-implicit-bias-study
  82. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/privacy-notice
  83. https://www.vox.com/newsletters
  84. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21126962/crossover-voting-south-carolina-republicans-tea-party-bernie-sanders
  85. https://www.vox.com/authors/jane-coaston
  86. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/14/21137096/how-tinder-matches-work-algorithm-grindr-bumble-hinge-algorithms
  87. https://www.vox.com/authors/rebecca-heilweil
  88. https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/2/14/21137767/billie-eilish-no-time-to-die-james-bond-theme-song
  89. https://www.vox.com/authors/allegra-frank
  90. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21137865/trump-medicaid-work-requirement-arkansas-david-sentelle-neil-gorsuch
  91. https://www.vox.com/authors/ian-millhiser
  92. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21136577/larry-ellison-fundraiser-donald-trump-oracle-employees
  93. https://www.vox.com/authors/theodore-schleifer
  94. https://www.vox.com/videos/2020/2/14/21137797/china-cultural-revolution-mao-ze-dong-photo
  95. https://www.vox.com/authors/coleman-lowndes
  96. https://www.vox.com/
  97. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/terms-of-use
  98. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/privacy-notice
  99. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/cookie-policy
 100. https://www.vox.com/contact#donotsell
 101. https://www.voxmedia.com/communications-preferences
 102. https://www.voxmedia.com/pages/licensing
 103. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/accessibility
 104. https://status.voxmedia.com/
 105. https://www.vox.com/contact
 106. https://www.vox.com/contact#tip
 107. https://www.vox.com/masthead
 108. https://www.vox.com/pages/about-us
 109. https://www.vox.com/2018/12/7/18113237/ethics-and-guidelines-at-vox-com
 110. https://www.voxmedia.com/
 111. https://www.voxmedia.com/vox-advertising
 112. https://jobs.voxmedia.com/
 113. https://www.voxmedia.com/
 114. https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?counturl=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism&text=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism&via=voxdotcom
 115. https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?text=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&u=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism

   Hidden links:
 117. https://twitter.com/voxdotcom
 118. https://www.facebook.com/Vox
 119. http://bit.ly/voxyoutube
 120. https://www.vox.com/rss/index.xml
 121. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21137102/mike-bloomberg-instagram-meme-ad-campaign-backfiring
 122. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/13/21136212/tampon-tax-tennessee-period-menstrual-equity-menstruation
 123. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21134473/coronavirus-outbreak-singapore-us-symptoms-pandemic
 124. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/2/13/21125464/brow-lift-botox-bella-hadid-ariana-grande-kylie-jenner
 125. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21136577/larry-ellison-fundraiser-donald-trump-oracle-employees
 126. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21126962/crossover-voting-south-carolina-republicans-tea-party-bernie-sanders
 127. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/14/21137096/how-tinder-matches-work-algorithm-grindr-bumble-hinge-algorithms
 128. https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/2/14/21137767/billie-eilish-no-time-to-die-james-bond-theme-song
 129. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21137865/trump-medicaid-work-requirement-arkansas-david-sentelle-neil-gorsuch
 130. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21136577/larry-ellison-fundraiser-donald-trump-oracle-employees
 131. https://www.vox.com/videos/2020/2/14/21137797/china-cultural-revolution-mao-ze-dong-photo
 132. https://www.vox.com/