If that's the single biggest positive change then we're doomed.

1. Given the lack of other constraints, humans tend to use the maximal resources available. If the world population dropped to 10 million, but those 10 million people used the bounty left behind by the 7 billion and used private jets to go everywhere, we'd still be screwed.

2. The goal is net-zero by 2050. Without any other change, that means 0 humans by 2050? Stopping having babies isn't going to get anywhere near that. For population change to have any effect on the environment, it requires a drop in population into 9 figures in a decade or three. Nuclear war is the only way to achieve that, and that's not going to be too friendly to the environment...

3. Net Zero is achievable without drastic solutions. There are lots of better options, but the backstop is carbon sequestration. At a cost of $100 - $300 per ton, that's tens of trillions for net zero. Incredibly expensive, but achievable for the modern economy. A lot easier than removing a few billion people from the planet in a few decades.

It's the single biggest change the average individual can have.

Climate change isn't going to be solved by lots of individual actions. The whole planet could go vegan overnight and we're still doomed.

If we're going to have any meaningful impact on climate change, we need to deal with it on a total war footing.

But that's not going to happen.

It's quite possible to go carbon-negative, assuming you're well off. A family of 4 being carbon-negative is going to do more for climate change than a carbon-positive family of 2.

Even if some people stop having kids to help the environment, billions of people will continue to have kids either because they dont know, believe, or care about the implication. No one is advocating "drop the population to 10M."

And yet, places like the New York Times write articles like this one saying that stopping having kids is some sort of solution. It's not.

did this article say 100% of people should stop having kids?