Readers respond to recent Guardian articles on environmental issues
John Vidal hit the nail on the head by linking Meghan and Harry’s choice to limit their family size for the sake of the climate to the lack of access many women globally have to services that would enable them to make the same choice (Having kids is bad for the planet. So are the royal jets, 1 August). Vidal highlighted that “many in areas of high growth want fewer children but cannot access contraception”, and as CEO of a global organisation providing women and girls with access to family planning, I agree. More than 214 million women and girls worldwide are unable to access contraception. Yet we know that when they have access to contraception and safe abortion, they often choose, like Meghan, to have smaller families.
Women are increasingly and disproportionately bearing the burden of the climate crisis. It often falls on women to care for growing families in worsening conditions. Droughts mean limited access to food and water. Rising sea levels lead to floods. Humans and animals are competing for dwindling resources, especially in countries that contribute least to global carbon emissions.