Miami, New Orleans, Venice, and a handful of other extremely low-lying cities could sink before 2100 unless strong measures are taken. If you live there, you should be extremely worried - but instead of giving up on having kids, consider moving somewhere else

how much money would it take to offset the carbon cost of your future child? That is, you can build machines that suck carbon out of the air - how much would it cost to use these machines to suck up exactly as much carbon as your future child will emit over their lifetime?

yes, climate change will probably mostly affect poor subsistence farmers - so not your own children. But isn’t it still immoral to have children, knowing that they’re making the problem worse for others? I think no.

Self Contradiction in next two

But so far, the droughts haven’t been bad enough that California stopped golf courses from watering their massive lawns to keep them perfectly green every day. But if anyone was actually dying of thirst, or even having enough trouble getting water that they might be motivated to vote out some politician over it, the government could redirect the golf course water, or any of a thousand other things like this, and everyone would have more than enough. You see this everywhere - lots of resources are being wasted for stupid political reasons. If the political calculus ever changed - as it will, if these problems ever start inconveniencing privileged First World citizens - then we can stop wasting the resources, and use them to address the symptoms of climate change instead.

Meanwhile, Republicans don’t care about this and have just as many children as ever. Since children tend to share their parents’ political beliefs, this skews elections in favor of the Republicans, who will prevent strong government action.

But if emissions decline at the same rate they’ve been declining recently, by the time your child is in their 20s that’ll be down to 7.5 tons.

Reading the article again will probably help, i think it’s self explanatory. I will try to briefly explain why i used “delusional” and "privileged’

Privileged

• The author is giving a privileged usa centric view, doesn’t seems to grasp the idea that a climate crisis in one country will affect others.( qoute1,qoute3)

Delusional

• Thinks that emissions are declining(qoute6)
• Believes that voting can bring systemic change(qoute4,qoute5)
• Believes in techno-copium like Carbon capture(qoute2)

There is probably more ridiculous takes in the article, but think this is suffice to prove my point. if you need any further clarification on these feel free to ask. but i’m a bit busy now so responses will be slow.