Say we want to reduce our emissions 1/10 of their current rate. This would not be enough for long term climate stability but, if we did it soon, would greatly push back our deadline on elimination the other 10% to avert the bulk of the forecasted catastrophe.
There are two ways to reduce humanity's rate of CO2 emissions:
1. Reduce the number of people emitting CO2.
2. Reduce the amount of CO2 that each person emits.
You're complaining that noone ever considers option 1 which, as an approach to our desired 90% reduction in emissions requires that we kill off 90% of the world's population? Even for those lucky enough to be among the surviving 10%, fallout from the war and the loss of the other 90% will constitute a tremendous cost in terms of their standard of living. And it won't leave those survivors in a great position to figure out the (still necessary) elimination of their remaining emissions rate.
I, for one, am unlikely to be in the 10%, and hope this approach is dismissed by those with the power to enact it.
But it's better totally.
> Also, how do you know it is never considered among the solutions?
Never seen it discussed.