That analysis where you ignore that I replied already to? Sure pile up the jerk moves for all to see.
Still pending from our fake environmentalists heroes, any evidence whatsoever that shows that the nativist groups that pretend to be environmentalists in the USA are what they pretend to be. In reality they are missing in action on anything related to carbon emissions controls in government.
You didn’t respond to it and simply kept repeating the error. That’s why I had to repeat the correcting post.
Another thing you don’t seem to grasp is that what the so called nativist groups do has no bearing on whether claimed environmentalists should consider net zero immigration to address population growth.
It makes sense when the proponents of focusing on immigrants effectively do nothing about the carbon footprint.
It is in their real nature to deny AGW. And not only that, but that there are technological solutions that would deal with the issue. Of course, since the fake environmentalist groups mentioned in reality deny AGW, then they also think that there is no need to work to help in the implementation of green technologies.
Nope, Lester Brown in Plan B mentions on the sustainability part that:
It is the big issue. And one that in his book will affect immigration, you really thought that I was kidding when I mentioned that he sees immigration getting worse by not doing anything regarding AGW? Well, he does.
And they are not avoiding it, immigrants are part of the population.
Sucks, but even if you tell me that you agree with the suggestions about actions to address AGW, it is clear that you do not care that those nativist organizations are treating you like a chump. You continue to support them regardless.
Their efforts, and this has been shown many times already, are geared to put and support people in office that are deniers of AGW.
Hehe, nice one. magellan01 explained the distinction above. In terms of the US population, I am talking about future immigration and the impact on the US population.
And I already noticed that if that is the case, then the point is even less important to be the focus for environmentalists.
As pointed before there is nothing in the Pew cites that criticizes the future trends, that is not their job. America is changing, and we should ensure all people do their share to avoid environmental degradation.
It isn’t their job. I’m glad you figured that out :smack:
And no, it doesn’t mean the point is less important. 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005. That is hardly stabilizing the population! It requires urgent attention and less diversionary tactics from lunatics like yourself.
Yeah like if the lunatics you peddle are being taken seriously, or you for that matter. Really, you can not count, your support in this board is in the single digits.
And we already saw how much support is there from the experts that count in this issue in the USA, we already know what a fiasco it was for you to point at one of the few experts that you thought that he supported your point of view. After reading the latest books from Brown, it is clear that your ignorance shows.
:smack: I think you’re getting dumber as the thread progresses
Again, the reluctance to address the issue of immigration is the very reason I started the thread on GD. It’s not because of any rational environmental position, but appears to stem from social and political concerns. We’ve been over this time and again.
Since when did you give a crap about the environment? Since you finally got around to reading the ancient press releases from various discredited neo-nativist groups.
Okay. If it does not make sense for environmental groups to look at the sustainability equation in the U.S. and how it might be impacted by immigration, what types of groups would be better suited to do that work? Historically, that type of work was, indeed, done by groups like the Sierra Club. Why are the ill-suited to do it now? And who is better suited to do it?
Hypothetically, the organization so best suited would not be an organization concerned with U.S. immigration or population at all; nor with the global population primarily; but with studying the environmental impact of shifts in population, through immigration and other demographic factors such as birthrate changes, from one part of the globe to another; and then identifying any real environmental problems that emerge from such shifts, and proposing solutions – the kind of solutions that can only enacted at the international level. (Because national border controls can only divert the pressure into another channel, as it were, and the net environmental impact in such case might be even worse than that of the single country in question doing nothing.)
Because that and nothing else is the problem properly under discussion here.
Ban illegal immigration.
U.S. economy collapses even more without dirt cheap labor.
Consumption and industrial output plummets, improving the environment.
Profit!
Really, you can not count, your support in this board is in the single digits.