[2]Skip to main content

#[1]Vox

[2]Skip to main content

IFRAME: [3]https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-W8JKW6

[4]Vox homepage

Follow Vox online:

*
*
*
*

[5]Log in or sign up
* [6]Log In
* [7]Sign Up

Site search

(BUTTON) Search Search

Vox main menu

* [8]Open Sourced
* [9]Recode
* [10]The Goods
* [11]Future Perfect
* [12]The Highlight
* [13]First Person
* [14]Podcasts
* [15]Video
* [16]Explainers
* [17]Politics & Policy
* [18]Culture
* [19]Science & Health
* [20]World
* [21]Identities
* [22]Energy & Environment
* [23]Technology
* [24]Business & Finance
* More

____________________ Search

* [25]Open Sourced
* [26]Recode
* [27]The Goods
* [28]Future Perfect
* [29]The Highlight
* [30]First Person
* [31]Podcasts
* [32]Video
* [33]Explainers
* [34]Politics & Policy
* [35]Culture
* [36]Science & Health
* [37]World
* [38]Identities
* [39]Energy & Environment
* [40]Technology
* [41]Business & Finance (BUTTON) ✕

Having fewer kids will not save the climate

Some say you shouldn’t have children in the era of climate change.
Don’t buy it.
By [42]Sigal Samuel Feb 13, 2020, 8:10am EST

Share this story

* [43]Share this on Facebook
* [44]Share this on Twitter
* [45]Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Having fewer kids will not save the climate

* [46]Reddit
* [47]Pocket
* [48]Flipboard
* [49]Email

A mother embracing her daughter holds a placard that says “It’s a
child’s world” at the March through Edinburgh, part of the global
climate strike movement. A mother and child take part in the March
through Edinburgh, Scotland, as part of the global climate strike
movement. Getty Images

This story is part of a group of stories called [50]Future Perfect

Finding the best ways to do good.

A growing contingent of young people are refusing to have kids — or are
considering having fewer kids — because of climate change. Their voices
have been growing louder over the past year. UK women set up a movement
called [51]BirthStrike, announcing that they won’t procreate until the
world gets its act together on climate, and high-profile US figures
like [52]Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez amplified the question of whether
childbearing is still morally acceptable.

One of the main worries cited by this contingent is that having a child
will make climate change worse. Their logic is that anytime you have a
kid you’re doing something bad for the planet. You’re adding yet
another person who’ll cause more carbon emissions, plus their children,
plus their grandchildren ... and so on, in a never-ending cascade of
procreative shame.

Driving this logic are [53]studies claiming to show that having a child
leads to a gargantuan amount of carbon emissions — way, way more than
the emissions generated by other lifestyle choices, like driving a car
or eating meat. [54]Media reports have trumpeted the takeaway that if
you want to fight climate change, having fewer children is far and away
the best thing you can do.

But that’s just not true, according to [55]a new report by Founders
Pledge, an organization that guides entrepreneurs committed to donating
a portion of their proceeds to effective charities.

The problem with most studies on the climate impact of various
lifestyle decisions is that they don’t account for likely changes in
government policy in the future. But climate policy will almost
certainly get much stricter over the course of our children’s and
grandchildren’s lifetimes, the Founders Pledge researchers say.

That does seem likely, at least in some countries, as advances in clean
tech are easing the transition to green energy and some governments are
already jumping on board. For example, the UK is now [56]legally
required to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, and the [57]sale of
pollution-causing cars will be banned there as of 2035. These sorts of
policies limit how much environmental damage our descendants can do.

The Founders Pledge report used countries’ climate targets and
projected policies to estimate how many metric tons of carbon can be
saved by avoiding various lifestyle choices.

“Once we take account of policy,” the report says, “some decisions,
such as switching to an electric car, increase in impact; others, such
as buying green electricity and flying within the EU, are much less
impactful than they first appeared; and some are unaffected.”

But the biggest surprise has to do with the impact of having kids.

Comparing the climate impacts of our lifestyle choices — with and without
accounting for policy

The best way to see how much each of our lifestyle choices affects the
climate is to look at a couple of charts.

To start with, take a look at this chart, which shows how many metric
tons of CO2 you can avert by making various decisions. This chart does
not account for changes in government policy.
Founders Pledge

If you’re just looking at this sort of chart, the takeaway seems clear:
Having one fewer child is far and away the best thing you can do to
save the planet, right?

Not so fast.

These estimates assume that your descendants’ carbon emissions will
continue at a constant rate into the future. That’s extremely
unrealistic for two reasons.

First, emissions per person are [58]trending downward in most rich
countries. It might not seem that way given the failures of US climate
policy, but it’s true; even in the US, per capita emissions have been
[59]declining since 2005. (Note that this does not mean Americans are
doing great. Although per capita emissions are inching down, they’re
doing so from a very tall height because [60]the US is the world’s
worst emitter per capita.)

Second, many places now have legally binding climate targets and
carbon-pricing schemes that compel them to decarbonize (at least in
some sectors) in the next few decades. That includes the EU, the UK,
Switzerland, California, and the 10 northeastern US states that make up
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island, and Vermont.

As more governments enact policies to protect the climate — like
imposing carbon prices and including sectors like road transportation
and home heating in carbon markets — they’ll mitigate the direct impact
your children and grandchildren will have on the climate. As the
Founders Pledge researchers explain:

In a system with a firm binding cap on emissions, having a child who
consumes polluting electricity would increase demand for emissions
allowances, but this would necessarily lead to emissions reductions
somewhere else, leaving overall emissions unaffected. This is known
as the “waterbed effect” in the literature: if you push down
emissions in one place, they pop up elsewhere, and vice versa.

In the real world, things can get a bit messy, so the waterbed effect
may not work out exactly as it does in a theoretical model. But the
fact remains that government policy makes a huge difference. And when
you take policy into account, the picture looks very different.

Here’s the same chart as before, but this time with an extra bar
showing how the estimates change when we account for changes in policy.
Founders Pledge

As you can see, having one fewer child still comes out looking like a
solid way to reduce carbon emissions — but it’s absolutely nowhere near
as effective as it first seemed. It no longer dwarfs the other options.

On this model, instead of having one fewer kid, you can skip a couple
of transatlantic flights and you’ll save the same amount of carbon.
That seems like a way more manageable sacrifice if you’re a young
person who longs to be a parent.

What’s better than having fewer kids? Donating to effective climate
charities.

When considering the lifestyle changes we can make to help the climate,
we typically think about things like flying less, driving less, and
eating less meat. And to be clear, those are all great things to do.
But there’s another great action that tends to get less play in these
conversations: donating to effective climate charities.

It’s important to remember that not all charities are created equal.
Some claiming to do good for the climate may actually do nothing — or
[61]worse than nothing. But a few climate charities have proven to be
extraordinarily effective.

In [62]a 2018 report, Founders Pledge highlighted two groups: the
[63]Coalition for Rainforest Nations, an intergovernmental organization
of rainforest nations that played a huge role in reducing emissions
from deforestation, and the [64]Clean Air Task Force, a US-based
nonprofit that’s helped reduce air pollution. According to Founders
Pledge’s calculations, by donating to these groups, you can avert a
metric ton of CO2 for somewhere between 12 cents and $1. (For
comparison, most organizations can’t avert a metric ton for less than
$2. The average American causes around [65]16 metric tons of emissions
per year.)

In the new report, the Founders Pledge researchers compare how many
metric tons of CO2 you can avert by donating to these charities versus
by making other lifestyle decisions.

The findings are striking, as you can see in this chart.
Founders Pledge

It turns out the impact of donating $1,000 to effective climate
charities totally dwarfs the impact of having one fewer child.

“Personal donations are by far the biggest lever that individuals have
on the climate, and should be a top priority for climate-conscious
individuals,” says the report.

Take all this with a grain of salt, though. This report is engaged in
the tricky business of coming up with estimates based on projections
about the future. It’s hard to project with certainty exactly what sort
of policies will be in place a few decades from now because, well,
governments don’t always keep their promises.

The authors acknowledge that their estimates “should not be taken as
exactly precise, as there are different assumptions and uncertainties
flowing into the analysis.” Nevertheless, they offer a couple of
reasons to think their conclusions are robust.

“Firstly, jurisdictions that set themselves ambitious climate targets
tend to achieve them or, if not, the failure to achieve interim targets
at least creates strong political pressure to correct course,” they
write. “Secondly, climate targets need to be missed very significantly
to change our conclusions. Even when assuming the US will only
decarbonize by 2080 ... the emissions of an additional child are still
only by about 14 [metric tons] per year, equivalent to a yearly
donation of $140.”

Related

[66]Want to fight climate change effectively? Here’s where to donate your
money.

This should not be misinterpreted as saying that you can emit as much
as you want and then use donations to offset that. (No offset is
guaranteed to avert as much CO2 as advertised; what is guaranteed to
work is simply emitting less CO2 to begin with!) Instead of thinking of
donation as a form of offsetting, think of it as a way to supercharge
the positive impact you can have.

The other big reason some people don’t want to have kids in the era of
climate breakdown

In addition to the concern that more children will make for a worse
climate, there’s another fear driving some of the young people who’ve
decided to forego childbearing. It’s the fear that having a kid in this
day and age dooms that kid to a miserable life on a miserably hot
planet.

This comes down to a philosophical question about what parents owe
their kids. For example, if you believe it’s a parent’s duty to give
kids a life that’s reasonably likely to contain more happiness than
suffering, you might ask whether you’ll be able to fulfill that
responsibility in an era of climate breakdown.

Some people look at the odds that major wildfires or floods will strike
their region and just don’t feel confident that they’d be able to
provide a secure enough future for a child. This is most salient for
low-income people, people of color, and people who live in developing
countries because they’ll be hardest hit by climate change.

It’s important to note that such concerns should not be used as a way
to pressure other people about their reproductive choices. One of the
problems with the discourse about population and climate is that it can
be easily distorted for unprogressive goals, like promoting population
control in poor regions. Since most rich countries already have very
low birthrates, the argument that people should have fewer kids may
disproportionately affect people of color in the developing world.
While some do want access to better family planning services and
contraception, others want large families, and it’s ethically
problematic to steer them away from that in order to address a climate
crisis that rich countries created.
Girls participating in a Global Climate Strike event in Bangkok. Getty
Images

It’s also worth noting that [67]this isn’t the first time in history
that a generation has had to ask whether childbearing is morally
acceptable. Many asked themselves the same question [68]during the Cold
War, when the fear of nuclear annihilation reached fever pitch. And as
the writer [69]Mary Annaïse Heglar has pointed out, black people in the
United States asked it, too, knowing that to bear children would be to
enter them into a violently racist system.

One thing that has kept people having kids anyway is the idea that we
can never quite see what’s around the bend. There’s hope in that.
Perhaps nuclear war won’t break out. Perhaps racist laws will be struck
down. Perhaps a few kids in the next generation — including your kid,
maybe! — will be the ones to figure out how to use clean energy to save
the planet.

That brings us to the most significant point of all. The various
lifestyle choices we make on an individual level are important because
they do add up. But what’s going to be far more important than how many
kids you choose to have is [70]how soon your country goes off fossil
fuels. A mass transition to clean energy sources, which will come via
changes in government policy, is the big win we need to concentrate on.

Even if we were to dramatically cut birthrates — even if you and
everyone you know were to have zero kids — our climate would still be
doomed if we don’t move away from fossil fuels. That’s the absolutely
crucial factor here, and it makes sense to focus on that rather than
focusing our attention on an individual choice that yields less impact
than advertised and constitutes an enormous sacrifice for many would-be
parents.

And there’s one more thing to consider here. It’s an obvious fact, but
one that too often gets left out of conversations on climate and kids:
Children aren’t just emitters of carbon. They’re also extraordinarily
efficient emitters of joy and meaning and hope. Those sentiments are
what will hopefully motivate us to keep pushing for the changes our
world desperately needs.
__________________________________________________________________

[71]Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a
roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest
challenges — and how to get better at doing good.

Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect

Get our newsletter in your inbox twice a week.
Email (required)
____________________
By signing up, you agree to our [72]Privacy Notice and European users
agree to the data transfer policy. For more newsletters, check out our
[73]newsletters page.
(BUTTON) Subscribe

Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants,
and sponsorships. Learn more [74]here.

Next Up In [75]Future Perfect

* [76]It’s 2020. Where are our self-driving cars?
* [77]A radio signal is coming from space every 16 days. What the
hell is it?
* [78]The coronavirus cruise ship quarantine is a scary public health
experiment
* [79]Tech billionaires give away billions — but it’s just a small
fraction of their staggering wealth
* [80]The surprising strategy behind the Gates Foundation’s success
* [81]Women in science are up against a lot of unconscious bias.
Here’s how to fight it.

Most Read

1. Bloomberg’s Instagram meme ad campaign is backfiring The Democratic
candidate’s recent sponcon doesn’t seem to be convincing people
he’s any more relatable, hip, or funny than he was before.
2. A male lawmaker worries women will abuse a tax break to hoard
tampons "That is what our elected representatives think of us," one
menstrual equity advocate says.
3. Why the coronavirus outbreak might be much bigger than we know What
the situation in countries like Singapore and the US tells us about
the risk of global spread.
4. How the brow lift went mainstream Once you notice it, you won’t be
able to stop.
5. “This fundraiser is a slap in the face to all of us”: Oracle
employees are furious over Larry Ellison’s support of Trump On
Friday, Oracle employees took unexpected action and began
circulating a petition calling for Ellison to cancel the event.

Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect

Get our newsletter in your inbox twice a week.
Email (required)
____________________
By signing up, you agree to our [82]Privacy Notice and European users
agree to the data transfer policy. For more newsletters, check out our
[83]newsletters page.
(BUTTON) Subscribe

The Latest

[84]Some Tea Party Republicans in South Carolina are voting for Bernie
Sanders

By [85]Jane Coaston
In this photo illustration, the Tinder logo is shown on a smartphone
sticking out of the pocket of a pair of jeans. In this photo
illustration, the Tinder logo is shown on a smartphone sticking out of
the pocket of a pair of jeans.

[86]Tinder may not get you a date. It will get your data.

By [87]Rebecca Heilweil
2020 Vanity Fair Oscar Party Hosted By Radhika Jones - Roaming Arrivals
2020 Vanity Fair Oscar Party Hosted By Radhika Jones - Roaming Arrivals

[88]Listen: Billie Eilish’s big 2020 continues with James Bond theme “No Time
to Die”

By [89]Allegra Frank

[90]Trump just got bad news from Neil Gorsuch’s mentor in a big Medicaid case

By [91]Ian Millhiser

[92]“This fundraiser is a slap in the face to all of us”: Oracle employees
are furious over Larry Ellison’s support of Trump

By [93]Theodore Schleifer

[94]This photo triggered China’s Cultural Revolution

By [95]Coleman Lowndes

[96]Chorus
* [97]Terms of Use
* [98]Privacy Notice
* [99]Cookie Policy
* [100]Do not sell my info
* [101]Communications Preferences
* [102]Licensing FAQ
* [103]Accessibility
* [104]Platform Status

* [105]Contact
* [106]Send Us a Tip
* [107]Masthead
* [108]About Us
* [109]Editorial Ethics and Guidelines

[110]Vox Media Vox Media logo. [111]Advertise with us [112]Jobs @ Vox
Media © 2020 [113]Vox Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Share this story

* [114]Twitter
* [115]Facebook

References

Visible links
1. https://www.vox.com/rss/index.xml
2. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism#content
3. https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-W8JKW6
4. https://www.vox.com/
5. https://auth.voxmedia.com/login?return_to=https://www.vox.com/
6. https://auth.voxmedia.com/login?return_to=https://www.vox.com/
7. https://auth.voxmedia.com/signup?return_to=https://www.vox.com/
8. https://www.vox.com/open-sourced
9. https://www.vox.com/recode
10. https://www.vox.com/the-goods
11. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect
12. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight
13. https://www.vox.com/first-person
14. https://www.vox.com/pages/podcasts
15. https://www.vox.com/videos
16. https://www.vox.com/explainers
17. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics
18. https://www.vox.com/culture
19. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health
20. https://www.vox.com/world
21. https://www.vox.com/identities
22. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment
23. https://www.vox.com/technology
24. https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance
25. https://www.vox.com/open-sourced
26. https://www.vox.com/recode
27. https://www.vox.com/the-goods
28. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect
29. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight
30. https://www.vox.com/first-person
31. https://www.vox.com/pages/podcasts
32. https://www.vox.com/videos
33. https://www.vox.com/explainers
34. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics
35. https://www.vox.com/culture
36. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health
37. https://www.vox.com/world
38. https://www.vox.com/identities
39. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment
40. https://www.vox.com/technology
41. https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance
42. https://www.vox.com/authors/sigal-samuel
43. https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?text=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&u=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
44. https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?counturl=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism&text=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism&via=voxdotcom
45. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
46. https://reddit.com/submit?title=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
47. https://getpocket.com/save?url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
48. https://share.flipboard.com/bookmarklet/popout?title=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism&v=2
49. mailto:?subject=Having fewer kids will not save the climate&body=Some say you shouldn’t have children in the era of climate change. Don’t buy it.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
50. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect
51. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/12/birthstrikers-meet-the-women-who-refuse-to-have-children-until-climate-change-ends
52. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18256166/climate-change-having-kids
53. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
54. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children
55. https://founderspledge.com/stories/climate-and-lifestyle-report
56. https://www.vox.com/2019/5/4/18528526/climate-change-uk-net-zero-law
57. https://www.ft.com/content/46bfd6e2-473a-11ea-aee2-9ddbdc86190d
58. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#consumption-based-trade-adjusted-co2-emissions
59. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?contextual=aggregate&end=2014&locations=XD-XM-XP-1W&name_desc=false&start=1960
60. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/chart-of-the-day-these-countries-have-the-largest-carbon-footprints/
61. https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/
62. https://founderspledge.com/research/fp-climate-change
63. https://www.rainforestcoalition.org/
64. https://www.catf.us/
65. https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2
66. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/12/2/20976180/climate-change-best-charities-effective-philanthropy
67. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/20/20802413/overpopulation-demographic-transition-population-explained
68. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18256166/climate-change-having-kids
69. https://medium.com/s/story/sorry-yall-but-climate-change-ain-t-the-first-existential-threat-b3c999267aa0
70. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population
71. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect-newsletter
72. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/privacy-notice
73. https://www.vox.com/newsletters
74. https://www.vox.com/2020/1/7/21020439/support-future-perfect
75. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect
76. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/14/21063487/self-driving-cars-autonomous-vehicles-waymo-cruise-uber
77. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21135200/fast-radio-bursts-astronomy-aliens
78. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21132732/coronavirus-cruise-ship-quarantine-japan
79. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/11/21133521/tech-billionaires-philanthropy-numbers-data
80. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/11/21133298/bill-gates-melinda-gates-money-foundation
81. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/28/20833505/women-science-unconscious-gender-implicit-bias-study
82. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/privacy-notice
83. https://www.vox.com/newsletters
84. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21126962/crossover-voting-south-carolina-republicans-tea-party-bernie-sanders
85. https://www.vox.com/authors/jane-coaston
86. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/14/21137096/how-tinder-matches-work-algorithm-grindr-bumble-hinge-algorithms
87. https://www.vox.com/authors/rebecca-heilweil
88. https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/2/14/21137767/billie-eilish-no-time-to-die-james-bond-theme-song
89. https://www.vox.com/authors/allegra-frank
90. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21137865/trump-medicaid-work-requirement-arkansas-david-sentelle-neil-gorsuch
91. https://www.vox.com/authors/ian-millhiser
92. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21136577/larry-ellison-fundraiser-donald-trump-oracle-employees
93. https://www.vox.com/authors/theodore-schleifer
94. https://www.vox.com/videos/2020/2/14/21137797/china-cultural-revolution-mao-ze-dong-photo
95. https://www.vox.com/authors/coleman-lowndes
96. https://www.vox.com/
97. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/terms-of-use
98. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/privacy-notice
99. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/cookie-policy
100. https://www.vox.com/contact#donotsell
101. https://www.voxmedia.com/communications-preferences
102. https://www.voxmedia.com/pages/licensing
103. https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/accessibility
104. https://status.voxmedia.com/
105. https://www.vox.com/contact
106. https://www.vox.com/contact#tip
107. https://www.vox.com/masthead
108. https://www.vox.com/pages/about-us
109. https://www.vox.com/2018/12/7/18113237/ethics-and-guidelines-at-vox-com
110. https://www.voxmedia.com/
111. https://www.voxmedia.com/vox-advertising
112. https://jobs.voxmedia.com/
113. https://www.voxmedia.com/
114. https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?counturl=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism&text=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism&via=voxdotcom
115. https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?text=Having+fewer+kids+will+not+save+the+climate&u=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism

Hidden links:
117. https://twitter.com/voxdotcom
118. https://www.facebook.com/Vox
119. http://bit.ly/voxyoutube
120. https://www.vox.com/rss/index.xml
121. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21137102/mike-bloomberg-instagram-meme-ad-campaign-backfiring
122. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/13/21136212/tampon-tax-tennessee-period-menstrual-equity-menstruation
123. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21134473/coronavirus-outbreak-singapore-us-symptoms-pandemic
124. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/2/13/21125464/brow-lift-botox-bella-hadid-ariana-grande-kylie-jenner
125. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21136577/larry-ellison-fundraiser-donald-trump-oracle-employees
126. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21126962/crossover-voting-south-carolina-republicans-tea-party-bernie-sanders
127. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/14/21137096/how-tinder-matches-work-algorithm-grindr-bumble-hinge-algorithms
128. https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/2/14/21137767/billie-eilish-no-time-to-die-james-bond-theme-song
129. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21137865/trump-medicaid-work-requirement-arkansas-david-sentelle-neil-gorsuch
130. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21136577/larry-ellison-fundraiser-donald-trump-oracle-employees
131. https://www.vox.com/videos/2020/2/14/21137797/china-cultural-revolution-mao-ze-dong-photo
132. https://www.vox.com/