Today I hoped to post about my reflections on Attachment Parenting, my struggles with and faith in it, and whether or not A.P. can be associated with environmentalism. Basically, I wanted to answer this question: “Is Attachment Parenting, and variations of A.P., a greener way to raise children (versus Ferberizing and mainstreaming)?”

To see what ideas on the topic were already out there, I googled Attachment Parenting and environmentalism. This is one response/reaction I came across. The writer of this entry, Kelly Mills, seems to be on the attack when it comes to Attachment Parenting–at the least, she is highly skeptical of and lacks trust in the ideals behind A.P. Mills claims that co-sleeping, baby wearing and breast feeding have “nothing” to do with environmentalism. To be fair, I understand Mills’ argument about the connection (lack of) between A.P. and environmentalism–how is “crying it out” bad for the environment? How does Mother Earth benefit from parents carrying their babies on their bodies?

From my experiences with raising Annabelle, I started parenting like a freshman starts high school. I had no frickin’ clue what the requirements were except that a lack of sleep was a factor and having babies was supposed to be expensive. Then I had a hospital birth, with a mid-wife, an induction, a close call with an emergency c-section, and an epidural. Afterwards I watched how the hospital nurses handled my baby (some good, some handling her like she was a sack of potatoes). Eventually these experiences inspired me to do some research on my new job as mother and I came across reading materials by Dr. Sears and other A.P. thinkers.

Back to the issue: why is Attachment Parenting associative with environmentalism? For starters, once I realized the advantages of co-sleeping for my baby and myself, I would walk by the crib in her nursery and wonder at its purposes. We still have not sold it and I often joke that it is an artifact of modern American parenting. Neither my husband nor I believe in “crying it out,” and I have even come to believe that it will be considered by future generations a form of normative abuse. Who in their right mind ignores a screaming and pleading baby? Who can believe that such an experience is good for the baby? I can only imagine what these experiences does to the baby’s brain development and self-esteem. My worst fear is that my children–from the experiences of crying it out–would seek out masochistic behaviors in their teens and adulthood. The least I can do in the early years of their lives is to nurture them and comfort them as they start out as practically aliens in this world.

Co-sleeping is an environmental choice if for the fact that it does not require a crib. A.P. parents like myself who started out with a crib can sell or freecycle cribs and enjoy cozy sleep with their children in a family bed. Co-sleeping requires fewer materials and thus would generate less waste for the environment if crib manufacturers and everyone who they are in bed with (pediatric associations?) did not push cribs on new parents.

Next, breast feeding is an environmental choice. Let me answer the counter argument that breast feeding mothers consume more food and so that influences the environment. To begin, breast feeding mothers need about 300 to 500 extra calories a day. What does this equal? 2 tbsp. of peanut butter or 2 cups of plain yogurt or 3 cups of juice. Breastfeeding does not produce the waste that formula containers, plastic bottles, nipples, pacifiers (assuming that one practices ecological breastfeeding), and all the other equipment that accompanies formula feeding babies.

Last, baby wearing is an environmental decision because it requires less material. For starters, look at all the plastic and metal used to make the average stroller. Parents who wear their babies can use a long swap of fabric or even a blanket to wrap and attach their babies to their bodies. Next to a warm, adult body, baby needs less clothing–in cold weather, a baby need only wear a sweater inside of a wrap rather than a snowsuit or puffy winter coat.

Admittedly, my next argument is a bit of a leap, but it is my experience that A.P. babies, especially babies who are worn and carried by their parents, will see more of the world that they are now part of. Baby watches as mom sweeps the floor, prepares meals, walks around the neighborhood–whatever mom does, baby observes. It is my belief that babies who are allowed to see what is out in the world will be more likely to be compassionate to others who are in the world. And compassion for others, I hope, might mean compassion for the earth and its resources.

Sure, Attachment Parenting, natural parenting, intuitive parenting, whatever name you choose to slap onto these practices, may not, at first glance, seem to have to do anything with the environment, but if you dig a little bit beneath the surface, it is easy to see how A.P. is good for the environment and the families who make use of it.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 at 1:58 pm and is filed under Baby, Green Living. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.