Okay forgive me if this is the most ignorant question ever, but I don't get why this is never mentioned as a possible solution to our energy crisis…
Common logic would say 50% reduction in population equates to roughly 50% reduction in energy consumption, right?
So rather than spend decades slowly phasing out dirty energy all while our population continues to grow exponentially, why not just cut back on the growth of the population instead? (or better yet, do both)
Obv. a repeat of the China 1 child policy isn't going to work, but you could incentivize couples to have 1 or less children through tax breaks, free education if you only have one child, extra retirement benefits if you retire childless etc.
This way, people can still have families, but there is added incentive to choose to cut back on the size of your family for the sake of humanity and the planet.
Yes, this might not be effective in developing areas of the world (although who knows, maybe it could be) but the majority of the world's energy use is from first world nations anyways.
What am I missing here?
It seems to me that rather than encouraging people to drive less, turn off their lightbulbs etc, we should be encouraging people to have smaller families. Really the single biggest lifestyle impact you can have on the planet is whether or not you choose to have kids (or how many you choose to have)
Please tell me why this isn't a thing.