The whole point of improving environment is to make it better for people. If there is no people, then any state of environment, naturally speaking, is perfectly fine.

Having less children is, in effect, refusing to solve the problem.

The other way of solving the problem is to let people kill each other fighting over dwindling resources as the planet dies and becomes sterile, because we're not smart enough as a species to find and maintain a sustainable state of equilibrium with our environment. This scenario is apparently the one we're choosing, by default.

Human industrial/economic activity is what's killing the planet. The planet cannot sustain the side effects of an economy of 7 billion people. It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter if you recycle, or drink out of paper straws, or vote for the green party, or switch to hydrogen cars, or bury your head in the sand. If you want to solve the problem, but don't want to have less children, then figure out another way to reduce the population by billions of people. I can't wait to hear it.

> If you want to solve the problem, but don't want to have less children, then figure out another way to reduce the population by billions of people. I can't wait to hear it.

Maybe you don't need to reduce population at all - hence no need to find a way? How about just using existing resources - which are plentiful - and also new resources - which are available - to your needs without also getting those resources uses harming you (society)?

> Human industrial/economic activity is what's killing the planet.

Important here is that it's not the existence of this activity which kills, it's the way the activity is done. If so, we need to change the way. There are seemingly enough suggestions about how specifically it could be done - energy efficiency, better control for exhausts, pollutions, single-use items etc.