2008 June 09 Monday
British Green Adviser Favors Net Immigration Halt
A British government adviser on environmental issues thinks Britain should aim for fewer immigrants and population reduction.
Britain should set an example to the world by reversing its steeply-rising population growth and allowing no more people into the country than leave, the Government's chief "green" adviser has said.
Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, said it was entirely possible to be "very progressive" on immigration while still having a policy of "zero net immigration" and no further population growth.
Mr Porritt told an audience at the Cheltenham Science Festival, he would like to see Britain's population on a declining trend, instead of increasing to 65 million in ten years and to 70 million by 2031.
A halt to immigration will lower world population growth. An immigration amnesty in the United States triggered a big rise in fertility. Less immigration means fewer babies. The world is too populated and this is getting worse.
Population growth was a popular topic for environmentalists back in the 1970s. Then leftists decided that population growth was racists since almost all population growth was in non-white populations. But the environmental problems with population growth have become so large and noticeable and set to get so much worse that environmentalists are being forced to confront it. I expect population reduction to make a come-back as as a "green" issue. Humans are going to wreck the world if we do not control our numbers.
Here's an excerpt from a 2001 interview with former Senator Gaylord Nelson (who founded Earth Day in 1970):
Q. What is the number one environmental problem facing the earth today?
A. "If you had to choose just one, it would have to be population. . . . The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become. . . . We have to address the population issue. The United Nations, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it's phony to say "I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration." It's just a fact that we can't take all the people who want to come here. And you don't have to be a racist to realize that. However, the subject has been driven out of public discussion because everybody is afraid of being called racist if they say they want any limits on immigration."
Yes, Randall you're deade right.
Nary a squeak about 'world population growth' has been uttered since the 1970s when the topic was bandied about on a daily basis.
The only significant thing that has changed since is that Whites aren't having the babies - hence we don't hear about any more.
Gosh those lefties really must have the whole of the media and 'international agencies' sewn-up.
Here's a nice little story on how the oh-so-environmentalist Sierra Club's position on immigration was bought and paid for:
For the love of money
Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S. population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade.
Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:
"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."
In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy.
Mr. Gelbaum is entitled to restrict how his donations to the Sierra Club Foundation are spent. But he should NOT be permitted to influence how other members' dues or donations are spent or to dictate policy choices via the threat of withholding contributions. That is completely inappropriate.
Even worse, Sierra Club leaders accepted Gelbaum's conditions in secret and forced a modification of the Club's policy to conform to his wishes. Furthermore, Club leaders certainly shouldn't have misrepresented immigration reductionists as anti-immigrant or racist in order to guarantee Gelbaum's donations; there is nothing inherently racist or anti-immigrant about sustainable levels of immigration.