Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

The world population growth rate is still in the positive range. What does your statement refer to regarding 2011?

He is right. In 1950 we still had a birth rate of around 4.6, in 2020 it is still around 2.5. From 2.1 onwards, a population decline is assumed. It will level off to around 1.7 in the long term. Statistics and calculations show that we will have a peak of 9.7 billion people around 2070 and then settle long-term at 8.8 billion.

The comparison is absolutely correct even if you try to ridicule it here.

I don’t have to ridicule it, it is indeed correct but still ridiculous, since two things are being compared here that neither have anything to do with each other nor create an alternative to one another. Are people seriously faced with the question child or diesel car? Can you seriously justify having a child by not driving a diesel or vice versa? That is obviously absurd.

The diesel driver is evil, the parents are good?

See above – that is absurd. That’s not even comparing apples to oranges. Don’t let yourself be influenced by the polemicists, you are capable of much more, as can be read in numerous posts here. By the way, I am extraordinarily evil: children and diesel and new construction and cryptocurrency players! Good sides will no longer be found – the other is just an alibi in the eyes of the critics.

There is no such consensus on the calculation of CO2 emissions of individual countries or people. There are various scenarios that differ depending on the assumptions.

You are right, and there are approaches to calculate the CO2 footprint per person in different countries. Here you can clearly see that the so-called developed countries have a significantly higher per capita emission than the less developed countries. It is interesting that the per capita CO2 emission peaked in 2012 and declined slightly by around 8% until 2019. At the same time, the world population increased by about 10% in the same period – source statista. A somewhat more differentiated consideration of developments in European and other developed countries suggests that what we do here in Europe is still not enough, but also that it has a certain global impact. Most scientific studies on this subject are written in English; there are some of them. I myself have only browsed through them so far.

It is not about choosing between a car and a child, but about how these things are valued and portrayed, and how this subsequently affects society.

A car is perceived as bad while a child is viewed positively.

Purely on a factual and objective level, a child is actually the much greater burden on the climate, yet no one would call parents climate deniers and environmental destroyers.

Calling a driver that has, however, become considered legitimate in some population groups; even the destruction of cars is propagated and carried out there.

If everyone simply stops having children now, the issue of man-made CO2 emissions will be solved in a few decades. And the good thing is, instead of one child, everyone could even buy 3 cars without changing the end result. Brilliant!

It is not about choosing between a car and a child; rather, it is about how these things are valued and portrayed, and how this subsequently affects society.

A car is perceived as bad while a child is viewed positively.

Purely on a factual and objective level, a child is a much greater burden on the climate, yet no one would call parents climate deniers and environmental destroyers.

Calling a driver that has now become legitimate in some groups of the population; even the destruction of cars is being promoted and carried out there.

Well, one falls under "species preservation" and has a different existential pressure than the other. For most people, the imperative desire for a car is not evolutionarily programmed into the brain.