Environmental pollution essentially comes down to two basic variables - population growth and industrialisation. This is something anyone with a little common sense and imagination should be able to grasp.
So it comes as a continual surprise to me how concerned the New Zeland Green party is with defending the rights of prospective third world immigrants.
Third world countries have much lower CO2 emissions levels than developed nations, so from an environmental perspective, third world immigration is bad news for the planet.
New Zealand greens love to advertise the country's anti-nuclear credentials, but seem oblivious to the fact that our renewable power sources will be not be able to cater for a larger population at a first world standard of living.
US Blogger Brent Lane has crunched a few numbers and made a plausible estimation of the impact of illegal immigrants on US emissions levels.
Yet more evidence that pro-immigration Marxism is about as compatible with real environmentalism as bear-baiting is with buddhism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Same applies to the Australian Greens who refuse to even discuss immigration restrictions.
It shows how unserious they really are. What's the point of cutting back average household emissions by 5% or so if there are going to be millions of extra households added by immigration.
I even read a letter to the Melbourne Age a few days ago from an environmentalist who advocated population control by reducing births only, whilst still having open borders.
This is more an attempt to stay politically correct than a real help to the environment. First, because of the point you made, that third world immigrants will have a much bigger impact on the environment in the West than in their home countries. Second, because there's not too many births in the West to cut back on anyway. Third, because open borders will lead to massive population growth regardless of cutbacks to the fertility rate.
Pity the Greens aren't being more widely criticised on this issue.
When the Sierra Club declared its neutrality on the question of whether to increase or decrease immigration, they lost my support. More nuclear power generation and fewer destitute third-worlders settling in the developed world are the two most trenchant immediate ways to reduce environmental degradation. Apparently Greens a hemisphere apart are cut from the same cloth.
I agree completely.
If the Greens really wanted to win an election in America, they’d nominate a candidate who talks like Brenda Walker (see www.limitstogrowth.org): Anti-immigration, liberal in the pre-multiculturalist sense, absolutely against importing a Muslim problem, pro-labor. However, this isn’t going to happen, because the purpose of the Green Party here is still nothing but trying to get the Democrats to move farther left. Actually winning elections is nowhere on the agenda. I see it's the same in New Zealand.
Thanks for calling their bluff on this one!
Post a Comment