Considering that the average person in these so called developed countries pollute and consume far more than the average person in India and China, I don't see your point.
Exactly why should we reward India when it comes to pollution just because they have a lot of people? What does that do for the environment and for solving the climate crisis?
Should the West start doing their part when it comes to save the environment by having a lot more children?
It's more fair to use a per capita metric rather than per country. Not only does the average person in developed countries consume far more, they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China. So they're just outsourcing their environmental impact.
Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.
I replied to the high birthrate fallacy/dogwhistle in another comment in this thread.
Also, they didn't will the number of relatives they have, and yet, here you are arguing that they should be entitled to the same material wealth as an individual that has a lot less of those than them.
I could even be pressed to give part of my material wealth (and of my 1.53 children) if the others were actually improving their carbon footprint, but at this point I'm just being extorted of my money to give them so that they can emit even more CO2. It's maddening, and it has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.
since the argument seems to be that rich countries are using China and India to produce the co2, could these two countries simply stop making the tat that we import from them? If that will tank their economy, then wouldn't us stopping the imports of tat also tank their economy?