Sure I get that having many children is a multiplier, but even if that average Bangladeshi couple has 4 they still dont contribute as much to environmental destruction as an average US couple without kids.
My solution would be (as only picking on someone's solution is not nice in a discussion): only tax pollution, scarce resources and stuff that otherwise needs to be disincentivized. Only. So no tax on wholesome behavior like income from labor or housing. And yes: money is a scarce resource (tax the shit out of it over say 5 or 10MM USD). This will rearrange the economy to do good for us all + nature.
The author mentioned paying poor men for vasectomies as the quickest and pretty much only solution to environmental problems.
It should be pretty clear why improving education is not a yikes while eugenics is.
I am suggesting that the attempt of suppressing reproduction within a particular demographic, no matter the incentive or perceived "good" that results (cash or education), is walking a very fine line.
Coercion is waaaay less, to the point that I'd like to say educating is not coercing. Education can be undone, unused, forgotten. Vasectomies not so much. I dont think "totally" suppressing reproduction is what happens: those women still want/can/will have babies, just not so many.
Yikes.
There is a better alternative: it is very well known/studied that women that have a strong position and are educated have less children.
One (poor; your words) man without a vasectomy can knock up many women. Hence I think it's better to focus on the women.