> what would the actual policy
I do not claim to have a solution, I'm simply pointing out where the focus of the conversation should be.
All of the "be friendly to the environment" type solutions to global warning I'm hearing about are all completely naive and simply ignoring human nature and the basic desire humans have for comfort and improvement to their lives.
Barring an amazing technological advance that'll let us control CO2 levels in our environment at planet scale, I believe it's time to be honest about the correlation between population size and global warming and to discuss what we can do about it.
>Are you talking about the genocide of billions for people?
Obviously not.
>I mean, that’s far worse than the crisis we face!
That remains to be seen. The number of people that might suffer to the point of loss of life because of climate change is something that - as another comment pointed out - no one can properly estimate.
>Or are you talking about birth control?
This is an avenue that needs to be discussed indeed. Perhaps not the way China did it, but something more along the lines of what the US did with educating people about tobacco. And also discussing the far reaching economic impact slow population decrease would have on the economy and infrastructures.
>most radical non-genocidal environmental policies.
That was my point. Environmental policies are IMO completely useless in the face of what the population wants. The problem is most acute in democracies where e.g. raising taxes on gas is a surefire way for a politician to commit political suicide. But even in tyrannies like China, I doubt they'll be able to restrain the wants and needs of their people to the point where we'll solve global warming.