I don't think it "solves" it - and there's one twist to my scenario

[GliderGuider]

In my scenario the pressure from climate change keeps increasing as time goes on. That is, the climate pressure on population goes from 0 in 2025 to -1% in 2050, but I don't say it stops there. If it maintained that rate of increase then by 2100 it would be dropping by 3% a year - by 30 per thousand every year. On top of a net "natural" birth rate that (according to the UN) will have fallen to 0 by mid-century, we'd be down to around 2.5 billion by the end of the century. Sad for people, but it would take care of the population problem.

But I wasn't trying to demonstrate that climate change is going to "solve" overpopulation in the short term. As the calculation points out it's quite possible for it to do so over the medium term, if one accepts my assumption that the negative pressure of climate change on population will keep increasing over time. However, my point is simply that climate change has the potential to reduce population faster than any human population control measure could take effect over the next generation or two. So maybe if we're going to address urgent existential problems by throwing money, effort, and resources at them, attacking overpopulation directly may not have the best return on investment.

Edited to add: Yes, there is hunger and thirst and exposure involved. And war, and crime, and misery and hardship, and lots of pain and suffering. It sounds a lot like an average day on most of the planet to me. Any reason we should we be exempt? Is there any way to avoid it?