America’s fertility crisis has arrived. The total fertility rate fell from 2.08 births per woman in 1990 to 1.62 in 2023, placing the U.S. 145th globally and well below the replacement level of 2.1.

The shift is stark: in 1990, women under 30 accounted for nearly 70 percent of births; by 2023, that figure dropped below half. Some delayed births are made up later, but many never materialize, leaving the country with a shrinking rising generation and mounting pressure on Social Security and Medicare.

Regional differences are striking too. States in the Midwest and South fare better than coastal states, but all are below replacement. Policy debates on child tax credits and parental leave have yet to reverse the trend.

Multiple factors drive this decline, from economic concerns to expanded educational opportunities. But emerging evidence points to another unexpected culprit: climate anxiety. Among U.S. adults under 50 who say they’re unlikely to ever have children, roughly one in four cite environmental concerns, including climate change, as a major reason, according to the Pew Research Center.

Groups calling themselves “Birthstrikers” and members of the “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement” have emerged, convinced that Earth faces imminent climate collapse and that bringing children into such a world would be irresponsible. This represents a profound cultural shift—one that contrasts sharply with America’s historic optimism and family-centered values.

>>> Climate Extremists Are Killing the Western Family

This fear isn’t new. From economist Thomas Malthus in 1798 to Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” in 1968 and the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” in 1972, predictions of population-growth apocalypse have been repeatedly debunked. Food availability rose, commodity prices stabilized and advanced economies improved air and water quality while growing richer—all contrary to their doomsday predictions.

Even so, the neo-Malthusian narrative persists, now repackaged as a climate emergency imperative, with activists claiming we have fewer than 10 years to save the planet from becoming unlivable.

What these forecasts miss is human adaptability. They treat resources as fixed, population as pressure, and innovation as negligible.

Reality operates differently. Economic development creates resources through technological advances, price-mediated substitution, and institutional reform. America has historically led these breakthroughs—from agricultural productivity to clean energy innovation—and continues to do so.

The empirical record bears this out. Many climate models have overpredicted warming, raising doubts about their use in guiding policy.

• The incidence of strong tornadoes has declined roughly 50 percent since the 1950s, with damage decreasing after adjusting for increased construction.
• Wildfire data on federal lands show no clear long-term upward trend over the century-scale record; recent spikes reflect human ignition patterns and development in fire-prone areas rather than a fundamentally altered climate.
• Moderate warming and elevated carbon dioxide levels can result in benefits such as reduced cold-related mortality, extended growing seasons, and better agricultural productivity.
• Rainfall is not linked to climate change.
• The evidence that climate change is linked to rising asthma rates or higher particulate matter-related deaths is weak.

Air quality improvements are equally striking. Since 1990, national average concentrations have fallen for all six major pollutants the EPA tracks: ozone is down 18 percent, sulfur dioxide down 92 percent, nitrogen dioxide down 62 percent, carbon monoxide down 79 percent, and fine particulate matter is down 37 percent since 2000. Lead is also down roughly 87 percent since 2010. These sustained reductions reflect technological improvements, cleaner fuels, and performance standards—the fruits of wealth and innovation.

>>> Reversing the EPA’s Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases

This pattern repeats across developed nations, where rising incomes correlate with environmental improvement, not degradation. Wealthier societies can afford cleaner technology, better infrastructure, and more effective disaster response. They substitute away from scarce resources, develop alternatives, and put in place regulations to reduce air and water pollution. America’s policy choices—investment in research and development, infrastructure, and energy innovation—will determine whether these gains continue.

The choice to have children remains deeply personal, shaped by individual circumstances and values. Previous generations had children despite real wars and threats: the Great Depression, two World Wars, Korea and Vietnam, inflation, and gas restrictions. Perhaps the increase in wealth is producing a generation more focused on self-care than child-rearing. America may be catching up with demographic trends in South Korea, Japan, and China.

But decisions about children should not rest on mistaken premises about environmental collapse. Measures of air quality and climate-related risks to human welfare have declined dramatically, not increased, over the past century. The world today is safer and cleaner than at any point in human history, with billions enjoying longer, healthier lives than their ancestors.

Rather than constrain economic growth to preserve pre-industrial temperatures, sound policy would accelerate the development that has made the world more livable. America’s next generation will inherit not a dying planet, but a nation with unmatched capacity for innovation and resilience.

Young Americans deciding whether to have children deserve an accurate picture of the world they are creating—not false prophecies that have failed repeatedly for two centuries. The real challenge is to ensure policies that foster prosperity and confidence in the future. The data are unambiguous: potential dangers from climate change should not prevent families from having children.