Worse, the logic of the "climate action now" position is that we can't wait for 2050. That will be too late. Well, if you want to reduce the population by 2050, what concrete steps do you propose? (I know, you didn't say 2050. I think "action now" is inherent in the logic of your position, though.)
You cannot fix overpopulation while still keeping your empathy and "everyone has a right to life" hats on. There needs to be a decrease and it will have to be ugly and unpleasant. No way around that. It's either survival of the species or the death of humanity. You have to take off the civilized glasses if you actually want to fix the global problem (which is the number of humans inhabiting the planet beyond its sustainable limits).
Just so you know, there isn't too many people for the planet. The planet can handle a lot more. What it can't handle is this many people at the US's level of consumption. But not consumption of food of medicine, but of banal shit like driving huge trucks with 10 MPG everywhere instead of using public transport, or overnight shipping for new iphone every year.
The simple solution is to stop consuming like crazy, which can be easily achieved by adding the planet-destroying externalities to price of everything.
Instead of, you know, genocide.
So no proposal, just a dim view of our possible outcome if the overpopulation is not solved. The problem lies in how we view the earth as a personal resource instead of a shared habitat.
he's calling for basically this elsewhere in the thread.
If your focus is "survival of a given individual", then I agree it's probably not a solution. But if your focus is "survival of the human species in the long term", then it very much is a part of the solution space.
Even if you march everyone in Africa and India do death camp (and it's always Africa and India with people like this), the US is more than capable of destroying the people by itself.