Did you read the first line of the article? "The richest one percent of the world’s population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as

Did you read the first line of the article? "The richest one percent of the world’s population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity during a critical 25-year period of unprecedented emissions growth." Assuming this is correct the number of children poor people have is essentially irrelevant. The premise of your argument is that increasing the population divides a finite resource amongst all members. Now take into account the articles premise that carbon pollution scales exponentially with wealth. If you now apply the offspring argument the emissions multiplier for offspring in the developed world dwarfs all else. This isn't an original argument, it was made very popular by a 2017 paper by Wynes and Nicholas: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 If you read the paper it's clear that offspring in the developed world contribute, not the 3.1 billion poorest people on the planet.