> I believe we don't require complete elimination of air traffic to hit climate goals and would be restricting it LAST for government use anyway. So you excuse

> I believe we don't require complete elimination of air traffic to hit climate goals and would be restricting it LAST for government use anyway. So you excuse the hypocrisy because teleconferences would have worked just fine. Interesting. > As long as EU/US emissions are higher per capita China has more CO2 per capita than EU, and yet they get concessions in those aforementioned hypocritical accords. > Pretty much every "western nation" has close to zero or negative population growth pre-immigration. This makes the governments job harder because they have to deal with demographic change (=> pensions) and second order effects (like cultural rifts from compensating immigration). That is already more than enough motivation to keep population growth somewhat up, CO2/capita considerations never even enter the picture. I don't know what you mean. Boosting population in the highest CO2 emitting societies in the world is not a good thing. They do it because of "the economy", because per-capita does obviously enter the picture. If they were actually interested in the environment, they would let population naturally reduce. It's the easiest thing in the world to reduce consumption by reducing population. You need zero new technology, and no changes to lifestyle, and you can achieve large reductions. Not only in CO2 emissions but in all other environmental footprint. CO2 might have the limelight now, but there are many other catastrophic environmental problems and resource depletion that our massive global consumption causes which have no real solutions.