Can I interest you in https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m which illustrates in some detail why this is so.

But he’s right.

That the top 0.1% or 1% use so much is an issue related to morality and ethics not the environment.

If you took them out of the equation then all you do is kick the can down the road for a few more decades, now that has some appeal to those alive today for sure and should be the basis of policy (I’f wed vote that way) but that’s separate issue to the carrying capacity of the biosphere.

I’d suggest a number closer to 100 million ? Maybe less ? Your refrigerator has way more enviomentlal impact then the average African, so giving then all a fridge and car and AC and access healthcare even at the minimum level of the working poor of the US would be beyond disastrous. Let alone another couple billion in Asia, Sth America etc.

Ther are solutions , global cooperation, humans stop having kids tomorrow for a decade or two and harsh restrictions on energy use but do you think most of the people causing the problem will do that ? What of Russia, Israel will they ? or the US Defence force being disbanded etc.

Don’t misunderstand, the pooresr 50% should be bale to lift their living standards but in order to kick the can down the road we must reduce the consumption of the top 10%-20% significantly or that cliff is way closer. That’s you and me, no cars, no flying, no dishwashers, no lawn mowers, no water craft, no cruise ships, no advertising and on and on.

Usual “solutions” proposed are dues ex machina. I.e.some future tech will save us, so we’ll ignore the problem.

Here’s a video from the author of the book @eleitl sent. Short version: even if we got rid of wealth inequality today, we’re still in trouble.