I also agree that other countries are improving their economic situation and increasing consumption there adds up to global warming, not migration.

what regards "no solution" this is so shortsighted that it's even difficult to decide where to start in disagreeing :)

it's easy to say "screw it, let's see what happens" but take this angle: let's say EU will make everything to reduce climate change effects, but other regions not. In event of radical climate change people will start migrating to more safe regions, including EU, so EU will pay partially price for those regions who did not do any effort to reduce climate change. I don't want to pay price for sea level rising just because USA wanted to gain some short-term gains.

also trading your life safety for economic gains sounds ridiculous.

> enforcing worldwide policy for CO2 reduction

This is what things like Kyoto were intended to be.

> Machinegun the boats

This is the kind of thing we executed Nazis for at Nuremberg. It's called a crime against humanity for good reason.

To not tackle population increases is to acquiesce in the suffering of greater numbers of humans as global warming really kicks in. Population control is the kind thing to do.

Population increase is already tackling itself except for the Sub-Saharan Africa where people produce almost no CO2 anyway coz they are dirt poor. It is safe to say that increased consumption decreases reproduction rate by itself simply because people have other things to do.