Assuming that I've fixed your grammatical inconsistencies correctly, you appear to be saying that it's O-K for the populations of Shanghai (and the rest of China and Africa and South America) to continue to expand be- cause the carbon footprint of the typical person living there is so much less than that of the typical American.* IMHO, pollution (as measured in terms of carbon footprints / carbon feetprint) is NOT the only problem facing mankind, and that deforestation, loss of topsoil, increasing shortages of clean water due to both drought and fracking, etc., etc. are all exacerbated by overpopulation. If U.N. projections are correct, the number of us 2- legged cancer cells will increase from three times too many (~7.5 Billion today) to four times more than this planet can support long-term (~10 Billion by 2100).
Maybe if there weren't so many people competing for so few resources (food, land, oil, water) there wouldn't be quite so many wars. (Of course then the military-industrial complex (Boeing, GE, Halllburton, Lockheed-Martin, Trump University, etc., etc.) would have to come up with some other excuse for their profiteering.)
* In effect you appear to be arguing against ANY immigration into the U.S., since the carbon footprint of the average immigrant from Europe would be more than doubled, and that of an average immigrant from Africa, Asia, the Middle East or South America would increase by a factor of anywhere from five to seven times. In
that case we are in complete agreement on at least one issue.