Your first point is nonsenser. Show me how to reduce consumption without using LESS. Reforestation and other restorations are necessary, but they are totally insufgficient if ever more people keep usign more. Your path goes no where.

Your second point is also absurd. If there is less money sloshing around, consumption will be less. And your example of flying is bs as only the global rich fly and it is way more carbon intensive to fly than travel on land or water.

In other words we can not afford the lifestyles of the rich and your shilling for them tells me you have not seriously considered the ecosystems they are eating. And reducing the incomes of the weatlhy will mean less mining, less deforestation, etc. It is not the poor driving deforestation, it is the wealthy seeking export opportunities. Time for you to get real.