conservative

Many people today believe the world is overpopulated and that we are running out of natural resources.

the increasingly popular notion that the growing global population will eventually overutilize our planet’s finite resources.

contrary to the Malthusian claims of contemporary leftists and climate alarmists, population growth and resource scarcity do not share a causal relationship.

The entire article is based off of this idea. But it is not the main concern environmentalists have with overpopulation.

The main concern is that population is tied to greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and damaging consumption. Every person born will lead to a lifetime's worth of greenhouse gasses, water and air pollution, and contribution towards habitat loss.

They fundamentally do not understand environmentalist concerns, that's the factual issue with the article. The rest of it is grossly misleading:

The more people there are, the more opportunities there are for education, collaboration, and innovation that can benefit everyone.

Here they try to correlate population with solutions to consumption growth.

Take sand for example. Our sand consumption is positively correlated with population growth, yet this article would have you believe the reverse. It's simply not true, more people is leading to more sand consumption, which brings habitat destruction.

the median quality of life across the globe has dramatically improved over the past few centuries, in no small part due to human ingenuity.

The quality of life for the humans in the Wall-e universe has markedly improved.

Measuring quality of life in no way measures the damage of overpopulation.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed,

Another grossly misleading statement on the article's part. While matter can't be created or destroyed, it can be (effectively) irreparably altered such that it is not ever usable again.

He points to the Simon Abundance Index, a measure of the relationship between population growth and the abundance of 50 basic commodities, to make his case.

Then there is shit like this, comparing population to market availability. It ignores that the market is not a measure for environmental damage, or the depletion rates of resources.

Recall the 2015 Paris Climate Accords in which nearly 200 nations and the European Union nominally committed their economies to reducing dependency on fossil fuels and reducing carbon emissions while incentivizing investment in inefficient means of energy production.

This is misleading because the efficiency of green energy sources is that they don't destroy the planet. And they completely fail to understand that.

prominent Democrat politicians suggesting Americans should have fewer children are further iterations of this ethos — save the future by not building it.

Having fewer children doesn't mean there would be no future. Having fewer children is one of the easiest ways we can reduce green house gas emissions.