It's time for Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, to have more kids.

A new study found that the climate alarmists are wrong: You can love the Earth and have children too! While plenty of literature has lauded the carbon-saving abilities of not producing babies, a recent report by Founders Pledge, a London-based charitable initiative, reveals that those other accounts don't tell the full story.

Worries about carbon production don't take into account that emissions per person are declining, meaning that as climate policies get better, each person produces less carbon. The new report shows a chart demonstrating that having one fewer child would reduce 60 metric tons of carbon emissions. But when taking government policy into account, the effect shrinks dramatically, becoming almost comparable to living car-free. The report explains:

"For the reasons given, we think our estimate of the effect of having children is more accurate for people living in the EU or US states with strong climate policy, such as California, New York, as well as other states in the Northeast. Indeed, even outside the US states with strong climate policy, we think the estimate accounting for policy is much closer to the truth, since emissions per head are also declining at the national level, and climate policy is likely to strengthen across the US in the next few decades."

This is good news for Harry and Meghan, Miley Cyrus, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have all touted the climate-saving magic of not having kids. The authors of this new report conclude that "it would be too hasty to conclude that you should not have children because of these costs to the climate."

The conclusions of the report lead its authors to a metaphysical statement: "Presumably, bringing people into existence benefits them, otherwise we would have to say of every living person that it would not matter to them if they had never existed."

Regardless of whether having children might damage the environment, perhaps we should focus on a fundamental point: If existence is better than nonexistence, then bringing a new life into the world is good, no matter how much CO2 is created.