The dynamic between individual freedom and collective responsibility is at the center of contemporary debates about reproductive choice and environmental sustainability. In the face of an accelerating and human-caused climate crisis, prominent environmental ethicists increasingly argue that individual reproductive freedom should be constrained by collective agents such as governments (Philip Cafaro 2012, 2021; Sarah Conly 2016; Elizabeth Cripps 2017, 2021; Trevor Hedberg 2020; Travis Rieder 2016). Though some proposed policy interventions are meant to enhance individual autonomy through universal access to contraception and improved sex education, other policies directly aim to lower fertility rates though “semi-coercive” measures that financially incentivize adults to have fewer children, or financially penalize them for having more than one or two (Conly 2016, Hedberg 2020, Rieder 2016). These population policy advocates reason that governments have a responsibility to reduce collective harms, including the harm caused by climate change, which is exacerbated by growing human populations in high-consuming contexts such as the U.S.
However, a prominent voice of dissent against population policies comes from reproductive justice (RJ) scholars and advocates, who have long held that governments should never constrain individual reproductive freedom (Loretta J. Ross 2016; Ross and Rickie Solinger 2017; Laura Jiménez, Kierra Johnson, and Cara Page 2017). Their reservations are grounded in histories and current manifestations of reproductive violence on behalf of the state, which disproportionately impact women of color and women who live in poverty. RJ advocates also remain skeptical that human population growth is a factor that meaningfully contributes to climate change. For example, Ross and Solinger contest the idea that women should remain childless because of population concerns, claiming that “the number of people on Earth is far less problematic than the irresponsible consumption patterns of people, corporations, and the military-industrial complex” (2017, 235). Ross and Solinger thus contend that “each individual has the human right to determine if and when to become a parent and that no one has the responsibility to remain childless based on concern for the ‘environmental good’” (2017, 235).
In this paper, I trace the differences between environmentalists and reproductive justice advocates on issues of individual freedom and collective responsibility, aiming to create a middle path between some of these diverging perspectives. Following decades of climate science research, I agree with many environmentalists that population growth is one contributing factor to climate change – especially in high-consuming contexts like the U.S. (IPCC 2023). This puts me at odds with many RJ scholars. However, unlike many contemporary environmental ethicists, I disagree that governments should regulate individual fertility through population-specific policies. Following RJ advocates, I am skeptical that governments will enforce population polices equally across lines of race, class, and gender, and worry that environmentalists who support such policies have not seriously contended with the reservations that RJ advocates express. What’s more, I find that population policies do not hold governments accountable for using their power to advance collective, systemic change. Such policies constrain individual freedom by requiring adults to manage their own fertility, but do not require collective agents – including governments and corporations – to change the carbon-costly contexts into which new children are born.
Rather than advocating for population-specific policies, I argue that collective agents are responsible for improving the environmental conditions in which reproductive choices are made. Like many environmentalists, I maintain that governments are responsible for addressing the collective threat of climate change but find that they can do so without enacting laws that directly constrain individual reproductive freedom. Though these arguments, I seek to affirm many environmentalists’ concerns about the carbon impacts associated with population growth, while also recognizing an insight from RJ advocates: that governments and corporations play an outsized role in shaping the conditions in which reproduction takes place. More specifically, governments can reduce the carbon costliness of reproduction by changing the infrastructures that we rely upon for everyday energy needs – including heating, cooling, electricity, and transportation. This means reducing our reliance upon the most carbon-intensive energy sources, namely fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. However, rather than facilitating transitions to renewable energy sources, federal and local U.S. governments continue do something of the opposite: they remain heavily influenced by fossil fuel lobbies, and even financially support (already profoundly profitable) fossil fuel companies through hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of subsidies each year (Black et al. 2023; Basseches et al. 2022).
Recognizing that fossil fuel subsidies and industry lobbies make it difficult to advance more sustainable reproductive futures, I conclude this paper with lessons from dozens of Christian environmentalists who have participated in anti-fossil fuel activism and other forms of collective organizing. I highlight two promising tactics of resistance that emerge from their work: institutional divestment and intergenerational organizing. My analysis attends to the important role that religious communities often play in facilitating or leading these organizing efforts, a point that is also affirmed by social science researchers (Cheon and Urpelainen 2018). Some of these tactics of resistance work within existing systems of government to advance new legislation or tighter environmental regulation, whereas others aim to target the financial and political influence of fossil fuel companies more directly. My central goal is not to identify the most effective strategy – I see merits in each of these approaches. Rather, my aim is to showcase how individuals can work to hold collective agents accountable for addressing climate threats. This includes attending to the conditions that make reproductive choices more carbon costly than they otherwise could be.
This paper focuses on contemporary debates about the dynamic between individual reproductive freedom and collective environmental sustainability. I examine two competing views: 1) population policy advocates, who argue that reproductive freedom should be constrained by governments because of global climate threats, and 2) reproductive justice advocates, who reject the notion that governments should constrain reproductive freedom for any reason. While environmentalists are correct that population growth exacerbates climate threats, RJ advocates are also right to direct our attention to the systemic conditions that situate reproductive choices. As such, I argue that governments are responsible for improving the environmental contexts in which reproduction takes place, namely by reducing our reliance upon the most carbon-costly energy sources. Because massive fossil fuel subsidies and the influence of industry lobbies make this difficult, I conclude with lessons from religious environmentalists who participate in anti-fossil fuel activism through institutional divestment campaigns and intergenerational organizing.