So how is all this mass immigration suppose to save the environment?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

With countries like Canada and the U.S bringing in record numbers of third worlders, international students, refugees, illegal immigrants, temporary foreign workers, did anyone stop to think that perhaps those airplanes being used to ferry them are burning a shit ton of fossil fuels?

Not to mention, Canada turns into a frozen tundra during the Winter. Which means burning more electricity just to stay warm and keep the lights on.

Something tells me you can't support infinite diversity and saving the planet at the same time.

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]TrabWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's one of many great hypocrisies espoused by the neoliberal system and it's followers.

I have no idea how anyone can look at Los Angeles and think "you know what this place needs? More people!"

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

By destroying the living standards of people in the first world.

The great and the good decided some time ago that to save the planet (lol) the average person in the developed world would have to have a huge drop in living standards and consumption. They were sensible enough to realise that people would not accept this, no matter how scary the green fear-mongering, so they hatched a plan to crash economies, destroying the middle classes and get people used to living in desperation so they will be grateful for the little they are given.

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's not just an immigration problem, that's a population problem. If you want to save the planet, the planet needs less people who pollute and consume. Does it matter as much that more people in Canada are using resources if China does it at a far greater rate? I think the answer is no, but yes in that it makes these places less livable than they would be if these immigrants, refugees, and illegals were not. Especially since they're coming from these places that have no consideration for consumption or pollution(much less crime).

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Does it matter as much that more people in Canada are using resources if China does it at a far greater rate?

Per capita wise, it is far worse.

The people who come from the poorest third world jungles didn't drive cars often, or required heating to survive Winter.

Not to mention, when they come to the first world, they love to CONSOOM. Think of all the crap that Wal-Mart sells? That's their audience.

That's not just an immigration problem, that's a population problem.

When we grow our population naturally, it at least takes 18 years before they become productive adults who could do serious damage. That's at least enough time to build more infrastructure or plan ahead for future increases.

With immigration, you are dumping an already mature population by the millions, who can then ask more of their friends to come join them as well. Places like Hospitals, Schools, Shopping Centers, Gyms etc are all going to be maxed out when immigrants have instant access.

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant general world population. The places with the fastest population growth would require population reduction much more than areas that do not. Assuming that consumption and pollution has drastic global effects, the idea would be to have less people in these rapidly growing and consuming places to begin with.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The places with the fastest population growth would require population reduction much more than areas that do not.

Assuming that consumption and pollution has drastic global effects, the idea would be to have less people in these rapidly growing and consuming places to begin with.

Yes, but taking them from poor areas with low resource usage/pollution per capita, and moving them to rich countries with much higher resource usage/pollution doesn't seem like a particularly good idea either

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're correct, that's a terrible idea. Which is why things like birth control is required in those poor areas.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're correct, that's a terrible idea. Which is why things like birth control is required in those poor areas.

I'd also point to the financial and food aid we insist on providing populations that have exceeded their productive capacity for the population. We have known for decades that doing so only increases the population growth in these countries, but the bleeding heart liberals don't like to face the reality of this particular kind of 'green science'

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

This isn't complicated or as hypocritical that you think it is. There are issues that are a higher priority than others. Replacing White people and dismantling their culture in their homelands is a higher priority because it secures their power in North America and in Europe. If they don't take measures to secure and retain their power in the western world everything else is a political non starter. They want to be the ones in power to make the decisions not you. Politics is friend vs enemy not about solving problems that affect swathes of the population. edit: Here is examples where leftists can point out hypocrisy with white nationalists.

  • Deporting nonwhites will hurt the economy! How can you secure the White race if your ideas would led to social and economic upheaval!

  • How can you say you care about the environment and White people when your ideas probably will lead to a war because the people in power are against you!

  • Why is race mixing not talked about enough! because don't you know it could lead to the extinction of Whites!

  • You say you don't dislike Black people, but you don't want to live by them! Why yes I have an ethno state in the middle east to run to but it is totally irrelevant!

Why are Jews so central to White nationalism when you are about White self-determination? Answer: because they are the most influential and power group in our countries and responsible for the social, cultural and economic transformation of White countries that we see will eventually lead to the loss of our dominance in our homelands and possible extinction.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Any government that espouses a belief in climate change/environmentalism, has to be aware that airplanes are a source of pollution.

They create new taxes or place restrictions all the time to meet their eco targets, except for when the subject of immigration is mentioned.

And yes, I'm aware that their agenda is replacing European stock, but you would still think someone on the Far-Left side would voice concerns that this particular method is damaging the planet.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They totally understand, they are just anti White. Jews have entire talks about how they are afraid that populists will use climate change as the rationale for closing their borders to the third world. Issues have different priorities.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not disagreeing with you by the way. I know what you mean.

I guess my expectations is I didn't expect them to be THAT extreme that they're willing to sacrifice the planet too.

For example, even Bernie Sanders once admitted mass immigration was bad for growing wages. This is despite him being a woke anti-white activist on other issues.

But practically no Liberal alive today has opened the debate on immigration being environmentally dangerous.

Look at this article. Justin Trudeau announced unlimited plane trips from India to Canada. That's messed up.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/trudeau-announces-unlimited-number-of-flights-between-india-canada-soon/articleshow/95514072.cms

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Politics is friend vs enemy not about solving problems that affect swathes of the population.

Wrong, you're thinking of war.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, all politics is friend vs enemy. Why do politicians act so hypocritically all the time? Friend vs enemy is the only standard that is consistent in every political debate or discussion on whether a policy should be passed. If politics was about solutions we would live in a technocracy based on merit and accountability.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because we're increasingly treating politics like war.