However: the data don't support your view that family size control will make any meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally. Family size is the actual straw man.
You asked me to point out where you were focusing on un-developed nations. As well as the direct quote above, which I note you haven't addressed at all, your entire obsession with family size as being a major factor does this in a second order way.
Family size is the actual straw man?
It was mentioned by me in direct relation to the fact that some climate-change hypocrites find it well within their remit to try to tell me, loudly and repeatedly, to turn down my central heating at the very same time that they're pumping out more than a single unit of inverted-people-pyramids. That was the entire basis of me entering this thread, and I stand by that position.
When you say that 'family size control' doesn't make a 'meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally', that's not the point at all (even if I disagree with it on a 'preparing for the future' basis....)...
I only need those climate-change hypocrites to fully understand that if they were less hypocritical, and looked towards their loins rather than angrily towards my hand near my heating thermostat, they'd then realise that their own 'family size control' would make a much, much larger difference to planetary C02 levels, on a 200-year, five generations out view (don't forget about all those little inverted people-pyramids starting at each off-spring...), than them standing there with their multiple off-spring pointing at my thermostat.....
You're the one that's meandered away from that central point that I was making, I'm afraid, and I'll please ask if you agree on that specific point or not, rather than continuing to spur off into developed/un-developed nation rabbit-holes...