The global-warming hypocrisy

If you watch this interview by Bill Moyers, you’ll be struck by the apparent sincerity of his guest, Anthony Leiserowitz. The man comes across as very intelligent and open-minded as well. But toward the end of the interview, Leiserowitz makes it abundantly clear that he is in favor of the continued massive immigration from Latin America, and that he sees no problem with a future America that is largely Hispanic.
Is a Hispanic America likely to be more, or less, conscientious about the environment? A quick google  image search of “climate change activist” yields mostly white faces. A 2009 New York Times article states:

National environmental organizations have traditionally drawn their membership from the white and affluent, and have faced criticism for focusing more on protecting resources than protecting people.
But with a black president committed to environmental issues in the White House and a need to achieve broader public support for initiatives like federal legislation to address global warming, many environmentalists say they feel pressure to diversify the movement further, both in membership and at higher levels of leadership.
“Our groups are not as diverse as we’d like, but every one of the major groups has diversity as a top priority,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “There’s great commitment to making the environmental movement representative of what the country is.”

While there certainly are Mexican environmentalists, concern for the environment appears to be much stronger among whites than among Mexicans. This is apparent to those who have spent time in both the U.S. and Mexico. A Hispanic America is bound to be an America that takes a less active role in protecting the environment. Cultural values do not change overnight.
Furthermore, for all the talk of global-warming and how we must mitigate it, the gorilla in the room is the increase in population. I have written about this elsewhere but the above interview is a perfect illustration of how people who supposedly care about the environment, will simultaneously promote policies that will clearly lead to environmental catastrophe. If not for immigration, the population of the U.S. would remain more or less static. Much has already been written about this. The Alliance for a Sustainable U.S.A. puts it nicely:

In an article of April 6, 2011 entitled “Nonwhite youth population growing in California and nation, report finds“, the Los Angeles Times reported that “nonwhites accounted for all the growth in the youth population from 2000 to 2010”, based on a study authored by William Frey of the Brookings Institution. The same Los Angeles Times article also wrote: “Another finding from the study was that 10 states and 35 metropolitan areas, including California and the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana area, have minority white children populations.” reported in its news article of March 24, 2011 titled “New milestone: 1 in 6 in US is Hispanic“:
“Racial and ethnic minorities are expected to make up an unprecedented 90 percent of the total U.S. growth since 2000, due to immigration and higher birth rates for Latinos”. This information was the Census Bureau’s “first set of national-level findings from the 2010 count on race and migration, detailing a decade in which rapid minority growth, aging whites and increased suburbanization were the predominant story lines.”

The article goes on to say:

The California Department of Water Resources has forecast serious water shortages 10 years from now, due to population growth, most of which comes from immigration. Although consumption must be reduced at all levels, continued population growth directly threatens biodiversity and causes species extinction, loss of farmland and open space, and general degradation of environmental quality, including global warming.

It makes about as much sense to oppose global warming and also support continued immigration as it does to oppose AIDS and also promote unprotected sex. Not only does immigration increase the population of the U.S (and other Western countries), it also provides the third-world with  an excuse to ignore its own ticking population bomb; it can offload some of its excess population onto the West. The typical leftist rebuttal to this point is to state that “we all live in the same world.” While this is true, it’s more of a slogan than any sort of meaningful comment. If local communities do not have to suffer the consequences of their own poor choices, they will have no incentive to correct them. It’s also grossly unfair to communities that do all the right things to have to suffer from the overflow of communities that do not.
But it’s not simply a matter of a larger population bringing about more environmental damage. By most accounts, Americans have among the largest per-capita carbon footprints in the world. According to Energy Trends Insider:

The U.S. also has much higher per capita emissions than developing countries and EU countries. In 2008, the U.S. had the 12th highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions, but due to decreases in recent years are probably further down the list of countries now. (See chart in the original article).

Common sense would dictate that environmentalists, such as Leiserowitz, would favor policies that would lead to less Americans, not more of them. And yet he is in favor of ever-increasing population growth in the U.S. One gathers, from the interview, that he has only one child. It’s safe to assume that this child will be raised to care about Mother Earth. If I may be so bold as to be a spokesman for Mother Earth, I would tell him to have at least 5 or 6 more children. Leiserowitz may think he is doing his part to decrease the human burden on Mother Earth by having only one child. In reality, such efforts are futile and pitiful; his “contribution” is more than offset by the millions of migrants pouring across the border and by their tax-subsidized children. Leiserowitz speaks fondly of the fragile ecosystems in the Rockies. How will they fare when the U.S. population reaches half a billion and more?
Leiserowitz is concerned about the many Americans who don’t take “climate-change” seriously. I think he should address this issue by first seeing to it that people like us take him seriously. It’s hard to do so when he blatantly contradicts himself.

This entry was posted in immigration/ Hispanics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The global-warming hypocrisy

  1. Black Death says:

    In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Sierra Club called the United States “the most overpopulated nation in the world” and called for restrictions on immigration because Third World immigrants to the US used so many more resources than when they remained in their home countries. But in the 1990’s they changed their tune – attempts to restrict immigration became “racist.” Ever wonder why? Here’s the reason:
    But then, in the 1990s, inexplicably, the Sierra Club began to condemn as racist efforts to get the club to take a stand to reduce immigration to far-lower historical norms. The club hierarchy made similar accusations against candidates running for the board of directors on immigration-reduction or population-stabilization platforms. After a 2003 election, some candidates charged that the club’s stand was due to pressure from a secret donor.
    Then, an Oct. 27, 2004, Los Angeles Times revealed that David Gelbaum, a math genius who applied mathematics to Wall Street investments, had contributed $101 million to the Sierra Club. Gelbaum insisted he did not influence the election but admitted that he had earlier told the club that “if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

    As for me, I’ll believe that global warming is a problem when the people who say it’s a problem start acting like it’s a problem.

    • Atheist Race Realist says:

      I agree with this 100%.
      I can’t take any of the global warming people serious because they don’t take it seriously.
      If any of these people believed what they were saying they wouldn’t fly around in private jets to make speeches about it.
      With the way technology advances and the new advances in battery technology we’ll probably reduce our emissions in America to near zero in the next 20 years. Without insane government regulation.
      I’ve researched this and from what I have found is that things are happening so slowly that we’ll solve emission problems way before the problems kill us all.
      But looking at the federal budget we are headed for an economic disaster within 10 years. That’s a real problem that is much more devastating. If we get another Obama/Bush type president for the next 12 years (Obama + another 8) we’ll be done.
      I’m actually working on getting a college degree that I can take out of the country. I don’t know where I can escape to but I need an escape plan. In 2016 I’ll know if I need to escape or not. I’m guessing that I will.

      • worx92 says:

        I agree too. The only people that population growth has been aimed at is Whites. As long as we who work keep having our taxes subsidize illegals and their constant breeding, the population will grow.

  2. John says:

    The Gorilla is the Gorilla. He occupies Detroit, DC, Atlanta, Memphis, St Louis, Baltimore and Newark.
    The main global problem is the industrialization of China and secondarily the industrialization of India.

  3. You are right, John. This is what Planet of the Apes looks like when it crosses from movie to real life …. get your gun, and get some ammo. there is going to be real trouble, real soon!

  4. destructure says:

    If I may be so bold as to be a spokesman for Mother Earth, I would tell him to have at least 5 or 6 more children. Leiserowitz may think he is doing his part to decrease the human burden on Mother Earth by having only one child. In reality, such efforts are futile and pitiful; his “contribution” is more than offset by the millions of migrants pouring across the border and by their tax-subsidized children.
    Exactly! There is absolutely no point in reducing procreation as long as immigration continues. Until immigration is reduced any restraint I show is counter-productive.
    I do have a question about the Gelfman / Sierra Society though.Why would he care if the Sierra Society wanted to limit immigration for environmental reasons? What was Gelfman’s motive / logic? It couldn’t have been for environmental reasons for the reasons JAY gives. Given his Wall Street ties, do you think it was business related in the sense that businesses wanted cheap labor? Or do you think he’s a strong Democrat and thought it would cause a rift between two Democrat constituencies? Or do you think he just holds two contradictory social positions?
    Inquiry minds want to know!

    • John says:

      He appears to enjoy the sight of an ethnically diverse but racially homogenous white (Europeans) country destroyed.
      It’s as simple as that.

    • CanSpeccy says:

      Mass immigration is the means to destroy the nation state, which is the greatest impediment to the corporatist global system of governance.
      The existence of a nation state presupposes the existence of a nation, an ethnically homogenous population, the members of which work cooperatively for mutual benefit.
      The globalist project requires universal genocide: the destruction of national identities, ethnicities and cultures, the better to reduce the masses to the status of domestic animals to be bred, culled, indoctrinated and commercially exploited at will by the corporate interests that own the governments of the moribund nation states.

  5. Black Death says:

    Why did Gelbaum favor open immigration, especially of the Mexican variety? This may help:
    Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.
    ” ‘I asked, ‘Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?’ ‘Gelbaum said. ‘Abe didn’t speak English that well. He said, ‘I came here. How can I tell them not to come?”
    “I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents.”

    • destructure says:

      @ Black Death
      His reason sounds sincere but I still despise him for doing it. Your answer reminds me of a conversation I had with my wife years ago. I once asked her why so many of her co-ethnics seemed to be pro immigration. She said its because they were given a chance and want to give other people a chance, too. I told her that helping foreigners colonize the country that gave them a chance was a piss-poor way of showing gratitude. I’d forgotten the conversation until you reminded me.

      • John says:

        Scorpions and Frogs. Ticks and Deers.

      • worx92 says:

        These people who want to “give them a chance” are inviting takeover. Don’t they get that for thousands of years, people didn’t do this…they didn’t invite groups in to take them over? The whole “feel good” mentality is weak, and if people think the illegals are going to pay the favor back, they got another thing coming.

  6. Amateur says:

    JAY, this post is insightful and completely correct.
    In Africa, although lots of blacks find employment in conservation and tourism, and do in fact put their lives on the line in anti-poaching battles, the organization and funding of voluntary conservation efforts is almost entirely driven by whites (including expatriate whites) .
    On the other hand, almost all of the (totally illegal) rhino horn and elephant ivory ends up either in the Middle East or in East Asia. Whites are rarely consumers of illicit animal products.
    It seems that it is mainly whites who are particularly motivated by a genuine revulsion at the cruelty implicit in the illegal animal parts trade, as well as by the desire to preserve the beauty of the natural earth for humanity, and even for its own sake.
    The genuine environmentalists and the anti-white globalists pretend they have a common agenda, but the reality is just being papered over.

  7. Ape Eater says:

    Jay: I am really surprised that someone who writes as intelligently as you would misspell “hypocrisy”. I had to go look it up myself, so abnormal did it seem for you to make such an amateurish mistake.
    Apart from that, you know I’m a big fan of this blog; I’ve been following it since it began, and marveled at its evolution.
    – Arturo

  8. Kiwiguy says:

    ***It makes about as much sense to oppose global warming and also support continued immigration as it does to oppose AIDS and also promote unprotected s*x. ***
    Hahaha. The Green Party in the Australia and NZ are particularly hypocritical on this issue.
    I just noted someone on the UK Student Room website posted:
    “Personally I would like it if we became around 700,000,000, perhaps less, also it would be better for all earth-life if we didn’t occupy so many continents, perhaps just one or two instead.
    The only important thing for the human race right now is that we spread into space. The more we fill this planet up with human life the more likely we are to destroy ourselves and all life on it.
    What do you think? If you agree, will you contribute to the decline by refraining from reproducing? ”
    I replied:
    “This is a terrible idea for European and Asian peoples as they are the ones biologically adapted to maintain modern economies. The population sub-saharan Africa is going to double to 2 billion by 2050 – that is what aid agencies need to address.”

  9. Anon says:

    There is no limit to the amount of idiocy in the world, and western universities are, sadly, in the business of vastly aggravating the over-supply. They are first and foremost institutions of propaganda, staffed by our version of the taliban, and the product is exactly what you would expect.

  10. J Green says:

    Although I have some strong libertarian leanings I am a good deal more pro-environment than most libertarians. I really don’t mind our government running national parks and national forests. The national forests in particular were created in the first place because when the land was in private hands they were clear cut so fast we were in danger of running out of wood. I used to belong to the Sierra Club. A dissident organization called Sierrans for U. S. Population Stabilization (SUSPS) was created to sponsor candidates for the board who would push for lower immigration levels. Their candidates were demonized by the existing board and were called racists and xenophobes, even though most were card carrying liberal Democrats. Not one of the immigration reduction candidates won. So the Sierra Club will protest every new dam, every new mine, every new coal burning plant, every new nuclear power plant, every new highway project, every new business park, and every new suburban development, but will do nothing about the underlying reason why we need all that new stuff, our ever growing population.
    I quit in disgust, and no longer want anything to do with Sierra Club hypocrites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *