I can concede that it may not be necessary, but why do you believe that it would actually be counterproductive?
I didn't say or imply counterproductive. What I implied was uselessness.
There are multiple reasons (several of them related to decisions by the ultra-wealthy) but I think the best one is that most people's emissions aren't very high. You could remove the bottom 50% of the population as measured by income off of the map entirely and not make things much better.
Another reason is that most of what we do could be much lower-emissions if we used strategies we already know how to implement. Take agriculture for example where zero tilth agriculture dramatically increases yields and reduces emissions. This would require more human labor, but there's a lot of that available. The problem with shifting that direction is directly with the ultra-wealthy deciding we won't do it, so that they can buy more yachts. They absolutely depend on our agricultural systems minimizing labor. People don't want farm jobs because they are shitty, but they don't have to be today, that's entirely related to the profit motive where you hire the fewest people possible.
TL;DR: Eat the rich, and the emissions problems of eating can also be solved. Fail to do so and they cannot.