A similar comment of mine got downvoted, but I can at least upvote yours.
Population growth is IMO a big part of the issue. I do not believe we can become so efficient and consume so little that adding more billions to the population can be compensated for. People need to be fed, at the least. Think habitat destruction.
People will still produce CO2 in various ways. So reduce CO2 footprint per person by, say, 50% while increasing population by 50% will bring us no benefits with regard to CO2.
Limiting population growth is desireable from a general environmental perspective, but it is a big red herring with respect to the climate change. The fight against the climate change needs to make some significant progress in the next 2 or 3 decades. In that timeframe, population dynamic won't have any effect, short of global disasters. So any discussion about population growth in that context sounds like an (intended?) distraction from the actual necessary means.
On the matter of population growth, the data is actually giving me a lot of hope: in most developed countries, the population is stable or even declining. China has a reproduction rate much lower than the equilibrium one of 2, causing a lot of problems on its own, still the population is growing a bit more as the average lifespan keeps increasing. But there is a clear maximum in sight.
The elephant in the room rather is: what if the average Chineese citizen would emit as much carbon and the average American one? Without any population growth, if that happened, it would be game over. So the immediate call to action has to be to reduce carbon emissions. In any country.
> So any discussion about population growth in that context sounds like an (intended?) distraction from the actual necessary means.
I'm only saying that we should think about population growth in addition to other measures. Also, it's not about limiting population growth but actually reducing the number of people living on this planet as quickly as possible. In the long term, I can't see a more effective way to save resources.
> what if the average Chineese citizen would emit as much carbon and the average American one?
Then global carbon dioxide emissions would rise by ~10%. It wouldn't make much of a difference, as serious negative effects from climate change seem to be unavoidable. But this doesn't mean "game over". Mankind is a lot more resilient than you seem to think. That's why there's still a need for long-term thinking (centuries, not decades).
People will still produce CO2 in various ways. So reduce CO2 footprint per person by, say, 50% while increasing population by 50% will bring us no benefits with regard to CO2.