You are so deluded that you continue to ignore on purpose that population control was already a given. What Brown and other environmentalists do not give you is that immigration should be the focus for that control.
You continue to avoid on purpose that “the focus of environmentalists, then, should not be on closing borders and blaming others for a changing climate, but on curtailing a system that consumes freely with little regard to global impact.”
And also you pretend that your efforts do not ultimately make your pet issue worse. It would be totally sad if it wasn’t for the fact that that shows what an hypocrite those fake environmental organizations really are.
And it demonstrates to all how scared you are for not dealing with those items. Keep going “hero”.
What you are are afraid of is to face to the fact that you are being manipulated or even willing to throw under the bus your so called beliefs that AGW should be a concern.
As mentioned before, other organizations have to deal with this issue, Environmentalists do not. As I already mentioned before that I agree with more secure borders and other restrictions, your question here is certifiably stupid.
But then again, I’m glad to be able to point that once again.
That is not clear from your comments. As I’ve demonstrated above, it is quite logical to reduce immigration as a means of reducing population growth in the US.
Therefore there must be strong emotional or political reasons for avoiding such an obvious policy option As Gaylord Nelson put it:
And he was wrong by being an absolutist on this. Absolute assertions demand more explanations and we already offered a lot on why he was not really that accurate on this point.
Be as it may, it has to be commendable that he does not shy away from putting pressure on the ones that are in Britain now and advises all to have less children.
Unfortunately I can see that he still uses the lie that environmentalists do not look at family planning.
So for real common sense one will have to look elsewhere.
But speaking of logical, you can not avoid the fact that it is clear that you continue to avoid that organizations like The Heritage Foundation are funding anti-immigrant groups and and the same time continue to deny that there is any AGW.
Not providing any cites to show that the “environmentalist” anti-immigrants are involved in any efforts to tell politicians to do something about carbon emissions demonstrate that your favorite organizations are just lying regarding their environmentalist goals.
I think his point is that not enough is done in relation to that. Also, he makes the obvious point about immigration and population growth in the UK. His position sounds similar to that of the Sierra Club until the mid 90’s:
Again, many over there also disagree with that. But the most important thing to realize is that he is part of the government, not an environmentalist group.
As I said before, immigration is more pertinent to public organizations than the sorry spectacle of nativist organizations attempting to hi-jack an environmentalist organization.
Environmentalists reject that and also the idea that immigrants should be blamed for the problem when even in other developed countries they can see how shortsighted that “logic” is.
It’s not a case of blame, it’s simply a question of how to effectively stabilize the population. Porritt is to be commended for pointing out the obvious, that “zero net immigration” is a way to achieve this.
I think you’ll find you are the one poisoning the well by name calling opponents. In any case, I’m getting the impression you would never support zero net immigration even if every environmentalist on the planet supported it
You are only admitting that you virtually do not have any good respected environmentalist that supports your peculiar points as the one you quoted was not from an environmentalist group but from a government agency proposing policy.
Speaking of name calling, it can not be helped if the shoe fits, now we have the case of you running from here to GD to do a jerk move:
We know already, you do not like the answers and you are pretending that no reply was made. But I’m glad that I can show all the jerk that you are.
Still pending, any evidence whatsoever that shows that the nativist groups that pretend to be environmentalists in the USA are all what they pretend to be. They are missing in action on anything related to carbon emissions controls in government.
Missing the point again GIGO. I was saying that it would make no difference to your position if every environmentalist on the planet said immigration to the US should be reduced. You would still not accept that.
I removed any name calling from the post, leaving just the parts that identify your ridiculous evasions and squid ink.
What anyone can see is that you cut the rest of the quote to make it so, I would have doubts if most environmentalists would focus on immigration, as they are not, you are only involved in wishful thinking.
And everyone can see that I replied already to that here, the fact that you do not like the answers is no reason to be a jerk and demand different ones in GD.
