Climate Change Kills the Mood: Economists Warn of Less Sex on a Warmer Planet And fewer babies would be bad news. November 2, 2015 — 5:51 PM EST
Climate change has been blamed for many things over the years. Never, until now, has anyone thought it was possible to see it as a kind of contraceptive.
Hot weather leads to diminished “coital frequency," according to a new working paper put out by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Three economists studied 80 years of U.S. fertility and temperature data and found that when it’s hotter than 80 degrees F, a large decline in births follows within 10 months. Would-be parents tend not to make up for lost time in subsequent, cooler months.
An extra "hot day" (the economists use quotation marks with the phrase) leads to a 0.4 percent drop in birth rates nine months later, or 1,165 fewer deliveries across the U.S. A rebound in subsequent months makes up just 32 percent of the gap.
The researchers, who hail from Tulane University, the University of California-Santa Barbara, and the University of Central Florida, believe that their findings give policymakers three major things to think about.
1. Birth rates do not bounce back completely after heat waves.
That's a problem. As summers heat up, developed countries may see already low birth rates sink even lower. Plunging birth rates can play havoc with an economy. China's leaders recently acknowledged this by ditching the longtime one-child policy and doubling the number of children couples are allowed to have. A sub-replacement U.S. birthrate means fewer workers to pay Social Security benefits for retirees, among other consequences.
2. More autumn conceptions means more more deliveries in summer.
Infants experience a higher rate of poor health with summer births, "though the reasons for worse health in the summer are not well-established," the authors write. One possibility may be "third-trimester exposure to high temperatures."
3. Air conditioning might prove to be an aphrodisiac.
Control over the climate at home might make a difference. The researchers suggest that the rise of air conditioning may have helped offset some heat-related fertility losses in the U.S. since the 1970s.
The paper's title is about as lascivious as the National Bureau of Economic Research gets: "Maybe Next Month? Temperature Shocks, Climate Change, and Dynamic Adjustments in Birth Rates." The researchers assume that climate change will proceed according to the most severe scenarios, with no substantial efforts to reduce emissions. The scenario they use projects that from 2070 to 2099, the U.S. may have 64 more days above 80F than in the baseline period from 1990 to 2002, which had 31. The result? The U.S. may see a 2.6 percent decline in its birth rate, or 107,000 fewer deliveries a year.
"3. Air conditioning might prove to be an aphrodisiac.
Control over the climate at home might make a difference. The researchers suggest that the rise of air conditioning may have helped offset some heat-related fertility losses in the U.S. since the 1970s."
Dang!!!
They're getting pretty deep into this!!!
I wonder who paid for this study and how much they paid?
I don't think I'd want to enroll in this study though. It'd negatively affect my ability to give blood. "How?" you ask? Well, they ask this question, "Have you ever been paid for sex?"
and so far I've been able to say "No".
[although this would have been my first opportunity]
******* The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil ... but by those who watch them and do nothing. -- Albert Einstein
ZitatI wonder who paid for this study and how much they paid?
ZitatFunding
Between 1985 and 2001, the organization received $9,963,301 in 73 grants from only four foundations: John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife) Smith Richardson Foundation
A December 1, 2002, news story in the New York Times [1] on the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., of Cambridge, MA, called the institution non-partisan but failed to identify a penny of the $10 million it receives in conservative philanthropic underwriting.
Zitat"Reporter David Leonhardt found time to report that the bureau, headed by Martin S. Feldstein, guru to Bush-economics, is the 'nation's premier economic research organization,' but couldn't do a simple Google search to determine where it gets its money.
"But reporter Leonhardt 'does' have some interesting things to say about Harvard University: "Still, Ec10, as it is known at Harvard, is hardly neutral -- in its readings or its lectures -- and its point of view contributes a good deal to his importance. Over the last two decades, thousands of Harvard undergraduates have received a decidedly anti-tax, free-market-leaning introduction to economics. "And there's this gem about Feldstein's partisanship and his crappy economic analysis, 'driven' by partisanship: "For his part, Mr. Feldstein has shown little taste since the 1980's for straying from the Republican Party line. In 1992, he predicted that the Clinton administration's tax increase would stifle economic growth and do little to erase the deficit...In 2001, when President Bush was forming his cabinet, Mr. Feldstein and his wife began a Boston Globe article by writing, 'Paul O'Neill was an inspired choice for secretary of the Treasury.' Mr. Feldstein is also on the board of Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company with strong Republican ties. "And the next time you hear someone refer to Feldstein as from Harvard, remember that, according to Feldstein, "I have a Harvard office, but I hardly ever use it..."