Setting aside the obvious moral problems with "losing" half the current human population, letting the market decide is exactly the wrong thing to do here. It's

Setting aside the obvious moral problems with "losing" half the current human population, letting the market decide is exactly the wrong thing to do here. It's not the bottom 50% (the once that would starve) that are the problem in terms of climate change, it's the top 50% (or 10%). The average CO2 emissions per capita in the US are 16 metric tons per year, versus 1.6 in India [1]. You would end up with 50% of the population, but still have 95% of the CO2 emissions. You could accomplish much more by cutting the fossil fuel subsidies ($5.3 trillion in 2015 if you count the externalities [2]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...