Good for the National Rally for coming to accept climate change. This is something that Republicans can learn from & shows that Europeans are much better educated on climate change than Americans are.
But, some people have jumped on board the notion that not accepting "mass immigration" is a green thing to do. Never mind that western nations have contributed massively to climate change, while people in developing nations barely have any power to control it. Also, let's not beat around the bush & take into account that the National Rally will use their green credentials to smear people of colour & justify their racist policies. At least Greens are more inclusive & don't use the issue of climate change to bash people of colour over the head.
Lastly, when these immigrants move into the west & their countries become wealthier, birth rates drop. Ironically, immigration is actually one of the best ways to decrease carbon emissions. Having lots of people doesn't necessarily contribute to the damaging of the planet, it's how people use these resources. This is why America & China are the largest polluters compared to African nations which barely contribute to our world's pollution.
1
I don't care for the fascist Le Pen or the anti-immigration party in France, but I'm glad they've come around to realizing the important of the environment. Really to bottom-line it, there are only two issues of any importance, environmental protection, and eliminating nuclear weapons. No other issue is very important in the long run, but either of these issues could mean the difference between humanity having a future, or ceasing to exist.
So this is a great step forward for the fascists in France, and I think they can still be defeated in national elections if it's pointed out how racist and short-sighted they still are. Hopefully after Trump crashes and burns, the Republican party will also realize that the environment is vastly important, and climate change does exist, and they'll change their tune too.
2
Interesting choice for a photo. The park in Henin-Beaumont is a monument to unnatural landscape. Will nationalists modify the political landscape so that the environmental status quo aligns with Disney?
Whether you like it or not, France’s far right has had some important “eco-conscious “ policies for a long time. Supporting local agriculture and buying French made products and limiting the ecological strains of massive immigration are just a few.
11
It's going to drive the left crazy, but restricting immigration, especially to the west, is probably one of the most effective things that can be done to combat climate change. Turning low co2 immigrants into high co2 producing westerners is not, from an environmental view, a good thing. Example. Guatemalans average 1.15 tonsyear co2 emissions. Americans? ~16 tons/year. I doubt the average Guatemalan will maintain their low co2 emissions lifestyle once they get here. They also have, on average, large families. Another bad thing for climate change. The low birthrates of western countries, far from being the terrible thing people talk about, is the only solution to our environmental mess. That's what should be happening in Guatemala for example, rather than exporting their extra people to the US. Same applies to France and the rest of Europe and their immigration crises.
17
@AT You need to understand that the centrist left would have achieved sensible comprehensive immigration policy in the US were it not for right-wing obstruction. Where did the real deep green sensibility come from? Conservative champions of the status quo? Good immigration reform laws would consider environmental sustainability--anathema to the hard capitalist right.
1
Dear AT,
As a liberal, I agree with you somewhat, but you're overlooking a couple of things. These immigrants are coming from places with high birthrates, which is indeed terrible for the environment, but once they join wealthy nations, they are likely to have less children. Also, they may not be creating as much carbon dioxide, but they're causing a lot of environmental destruction and extinctions by living off the land in their impoverished home countries.
So, taking in immigrants and encouraging them to have fewer children and live more sustainably is probably better than condemning them to impoverished existences. Also, wealthy nations are finally starting to do something about environmental damage, and it's unlikely that any impoverished nations will be concerned about reducing their impact.
Lastly, the best thing to do about the environment would be to kill four out of five humans, by lottery, worldwide. But as effective as that would be, I don't think anyone is going to promote that idea, except maybe Thanos (who had a lot of good points).
1
@Dan Stackhouse
I don't think so Dan. As the highest per capita co2 producers on earth, adding to the US population by any source, births or immigration is the worst thing you can do for climate change. Better to help them develop sustainable economies at home while encouraging birth control.
5