White western males - always ready to sacrifice other people's lives or fertility "to save the planet".
Have you looked at the future recently? Long term, the best thing that could happen to humanity is a pandemic, preferably in the West.
Thing is though, the situation from a climatological POV isn't quite as clear-cut as the wicked, profligate West vs. Everywhere Else. Sure, the average Texan has a greater personal impact on greenhouse gas concentrations than the average Malian, but there's rather more to it than that. Consider this chart of GHG emissions per capita, taking into account land use change e.g. deforestation:
Clearly Canada is by some margin the biggest per-capita emitter (although if you look at CO2 emissions only, by the far the worst offenders are the smaller oil-rich Gulf states and, surprisingly, a couple of fairly poor Caribbean microstates). But then, Canada is home to about 0.5% of the world's population. Indonesia, not far behind the USA in population, has the same per capita emissions as the EU, and China is rapidly closing the gap. So it's hardly surprising that China has been by far the biggest single contributor of GHGs for some years now.
The situation is desperately grim as it is, but the most salient point is that if per capita GHG emissions in China start to approach North American levels, which they inexorably are, then even if every country in the OECD underwent some impossible green revolution tomorrow and halved their emissions, it would at best delay the ongoing catastrophe by a couple of years.
The other side to this is the humanitarian angle. Now I'm sorry to get all eugenic, nihilistic, reactionary, Malthusian &c. &c. on you all, but the Earth has finite resources, including land, and in the broad view, the more people there are then the less resources there are per person. As I said before, nearly all the world's population growth is going on outside the OECD, that is, in countries where per-person resources are often extremely scarce even as things currently stand. People typically have large families to ensure at least one child is around to look after them in old age, if they reach it, which is far less of a concern in more developed countries. It's also partly an insurance gambit against high infant mortality. Of course it was exactly the same in the UK a couple of hundred years ago, but birth rates have fallen drastically with economic and especially social development, to the extent that our population would be falling were it not for immigration.
Now I expect most people, given the choice, would probably rather have a few kids who can be virtually guaranteed to survive childhood and have a realistic expectation of a reasonable material standard of living than have loads of kids, several of whom die in infancy while the rest have mainly strife and squalor to look forward to. Of course this depends on economic development, so we're into the catch-22 of development leading to increasing GHG emissions and land degradation, leading to exactly the problems that perpetuate and worsen poverty in the first place.
Obviously I don't pretend to have ready answers to either of these aspects of the general problem but it is at least clear that rapidly growing populations are a very important part of the problem and accusations of misanthropy or supporting eugenics at anyone not prepared to stick their fingers in their ears about this are an utterly bizarre non-sequitur.