Looking at the time we have, that would make even less of a dent. Clearly the reason to make immigration an issue is to divide environmentalists and ignore the biggest carbon emitter hogs.
On the contrary, you are ignoring the most important items that deal with that sustainability.
-Lester Brown, plan B
As pointed out before, eradicating poverty and education are the key to controlling the population, stopping immigration is not really the priority for that sustainability.
Yes, you are ignoring the main issues, forcibly even by not dealing with the issue that the anti immigrant groups pretending to follow environmentalism in reality deny AGW.
And they do so because otherwise they would have to realize how silly is the idea to concentrate on immigration when the big picture and priorities do not see it that way.
Not playing your game of turning this into the pit, so your quote is ignored.
I’m not saying it is an either/or situation, so stop with the strawmen.
You really need to read on what **focus ** and priority means.
Deal with the point or you are granting it, the anti-immigrant organizations that pretend to be environmentalists are not. They, by their inaction or openly, deny one of the most important issues that deal with the sustainability: AGW.
Yes you are. You’re basically saying that if you focus on these other issues then it is pointless to even think about things like immigration as a policy option. That is illogical.
As for these other organizations you refer to, maybe they are. It makes no difference to my argument and the point made by Porritt above.
Cite for that? Once again when you say pointless you are relying on a very peculiar dictionary to get that, the focus or priorities are clear for environmentalists like Brown, it is not my problem that you though he was helping your case more when in reality you just were ignorant of what his focus is.
Maybe they are? As mentioned before, you had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate otherwise, you have not produced anything from those anti immigrant “environmentalist” groups demanding action or reporting politicians, similarly to what the Sierra Club is doing here:
As for Porritt it was pointed before he belongs to a government agency that is proposing a policy change. As mentioned before, the most important point remains that environmentalists groups do not have the focus on immigration but on the whole population as the issue has to include the ones causing the most pollution.
You mean a writer, broadcaster? His background is not related to this. It is true that he is involved now in the office of the sustainability office, but that is a government office in the UK. It does not relate much to the focus an environmentalist has, and much less in the USA. What I can see here is just excuses in finding evidence that the fake environmentalists organizations in the USA are actually doing any efforts to deserve being called environmentalist.
And as the Sierra Club showed, environmentalists are not impressed by that view.
And neither other activists:
Incidentally I mentioned current efforts regarding carbon emission controls, and pointed at examples the Sierra Club looks at protesting the current inaction regarding carbon emission controls. Missing a huge part of what it is important nowadays for environmentalists only shows how fake the environmentalism is in the organizations that attempted to control the Sierra Club.
Point being that there has been no evidence so far of the “environmentalist” anti-immigrant organizations in the USA doing any current similar efforts to put the innactivist (on the carbon emission control) politicians to task.
Being called racist is a problem, but not the whole reason why the anti-immigrant organizations are considered to be a farce, part of it is that they **pretend **to care about the environment.
What is not good is avoiding the rest of the post:
There has been no evidence so far of the “environmentalist” anti-immigrant organizations in the USA doing any current similar efforts to put the in-activist (on the carbon emission control) politicians to task.
Being called racist is a problem, but not the whole reason why the anti-immigrant organizations are considered to be a farce, part of it is that they **pretend **to care about the environment.
For the sake of argument let’s accept that. It still doesn’t address the negligence of environmentalists in avoiding US population growth (Clinton Sustainability Taskforce) and immigration which is a significant driver of that.
I already linked to the Sierra Club pages on population control. So once again this accusation is puzzling.
As it was pointed before the Clinton Task Force was not a bad report, but the anti-immigrant sources have misrepresented what it said.
It acknowledged that there was not enough data to check the impact that the immigrants had, and it warned about denying immigrants of their rights and humanity. Population on the whole was the focus. And I have to warn you that I looked at the final report, the one you have been using was an early one. Suffice to say is that immigration was in the end referred only once on the final report and in the context of intolerance creating issues that affect the solutions that are needed regarding population control.
Having a zero net immigration policy as mentioned by Porritt, and which was the previous Sierra position, is hardly anti-immigrant and isn’t denying people their rights. You might as well say that having borders in the first place is denying people their rights which is obviously nonsense.
