Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, January 3, 2019
Like water, money for “anti-racism” will flow into any gap. “Green Jobs” is the next way to “establish economic, social, and racial justice in the United States of America,” said Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a panel earlier this month. “There is no climate justice without racial justice,” said Thenjiwe Harris of the Movement for Black Lives at the “People’s Climate March” in January 2018. “Racial and environmental justice are fundamentally linked,” declared Greenpeace in 2016. Fighting “racism” and “climate change” are inseparable to many other progressives. The actual mechanics of how fighting racism will fight climate change — or vice versa — are murky, but joining the two makes for an exciting, new “intersectionality.”
Even granting that climate change is manmade and made worse by carbon emissions, targeting the “white, corporate capitalism” hasn’t accomplished much — and won’t accomplish much. A recent report from the United Nations found global carbon emissions are still increasing, with several nations not meeting their targets from the 2015 Paris Agreement. The United States, Canada, and the entire European Union fall into this category, though so do several non-white nations including South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa. China and India are meeting their targets, though the report hints that this “may, in some cases, reflect relatively low ambition.”
Success by China and India doesn’t mean much. China’s carbon emissions exceeded those of the United States and Europe combined in 2012. China’s carbon emissions increased since 2015, and the bulk of its energy still comes from coal. In a recent article in the Financial Times, Niklas Höhne, a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, identified China as the one that determines in the end whether global emissions will peak soon or not. China is also investing in new coal plants in Africa, which will fuel carbon emissions there.
Countries such as India and Vietnam have growing populations and rising economies, factors which increase carbon emissions. Forbes reports the Asia Pacific region is now responsible for almost 50 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, a percentage likely to increase. “Regardless of the actions taken by developed countries, the primary driver of carbon dioxide emissions in coming decades will be areas of the world with huge populations, but with low, and growing per capita emissions,” wrote Robert Rapier in Forbes.
The Center for Global Development reported that by 2015, developing nations, all of which are non-white, were already responsible for 63 percent of current carbon emissions. That percentage, too, will almost certainly rise. “White, corporate capitalism” is not the problem; state-driven industrialization in non-white nations — mostly in Asia — is. Non-whites are also driving broader pollution problems. For example, 90 percent of the plastic polluting the oceans comes from just 10 rivers. Eight are in Asia; the other two are in Africa.
Non-whites are also contributing to increased carbon emissions and increased demand on resources even within the United States. Though emissions have declined in recent years, the United States has relatively high per capita carbon emissions for its vast population. Immigrants produce an average of four times more carbon dioxide than they would have in their home countries, according to the 2008 report from the Center for Immigration Studies. The “ecological footprint” of Americans — the area of productive land needed for food, housing, transportation, consumer goods and services, and waste disposal — is far greater than the ecological footprint of other peoples.
The more foreigners are admitted, the more people consume at the American level. The Pew Research Center reported in 2017 that future immigrants and their American-born children, most of whom will be non-white, will account for 88 percent of the country’s population growth between 2015 and 2065. The most effective way to limit future American carbon emissions would not be “green jobs” but an immigration moratorium. Most environmental groups never point that out. The Sierra Club used to oppose mass immigration, but it changed its position, reportedly after businessman David Gelbaum awarded it hundreds of millions in donations on the condition that it never support immigration restriction.
Overpopulation and its impact on carbon output is still a popular topic in the media. Unfortunately, there are few articles encouraging immigration restriction, but many pushing Westerners to save the environment by not having children. “The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions,” begins a 2017 article from The Guardian. Another article covering the study tells readers: “Want to save the planet? Don’t have children!” A 2017 article from Think, a project of NBC News, is entitled: “Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggest we stop having them.” “Would human extinction be a tragedy?” asked a recent article in The New York Times.
A June 2018 article in The Guardian provided largely positive coverage of giving up children to “save the planet;” it even gave a favorable nod to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. This movement’s website argues that the desire to pass on one’s genes is a “bloodline mentality” linked to racism, and that “breeding for [national] power is a remnant of that ancient tradition of mass murder we call genocide.” (If extinction is supposed to be desirable, isn’t genocide a good thing?)
Whites are bombarded with these messages, but it is not the Western world that is causing overpopulation. In 1950, Africa had a third of Europe’s population; a century later, it’s estimated it will have three times the population of Europe. Recent estimates by UNICEF suggest the number of Africans will increase from about 1.033 billion in 2013 to 4.2 billion in 2100. Even if these Africans produce carbon emissions at a fraction of the Western or Asian level, the environmental damage will be catastrophic. Worse, without immigration controls, this surplus will pour into the developed countries of Europe and North America. If they are admitted by open borders politicians, the migrants will produce carbon emissions at a rate close to those of native Westerners.
In 2017, Prince William warned about the dangers of African overpopulation. However, in an implicit criticism, the author of an article in the Express reporting on the speech noted that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge recently had a third child.
This misses the point, as do calls for “racial and climate justice.” Western populations aren’t even replacing themselves. Voluntary sterilization by naive or self-righteous whites will do almost nothing to protect the environment in the face of a massive African population surge. It’s also self-defeating for the United Nations to call for reductions in carbon emissions while simultaneously promoting “replacement migration” from the Third World into the First. Restructuring Western economies through taxes, regulations, and “green jobs,” will have little effect on carbon emissions when Asian countries are pursuing economic growth and exploiting African resources. The ultimate result will be extinction of the white race and the death of Western Civilization, without any benefit to the environment.
At a time when the French took to the streets over a fuel tax, Western policymakers shouldn’t assume they can dump the costs of new environmental regulations on their own populations. Far more sweeping changes will be needed if Western leaders want to protect the environment. The First World must stop subsidizing unsustainable birthrates in Africa. Every white country should stop immigration and automate simple jobs if they really want to limit carbon emissions. Finally, trade policies with Asia should be linked to environmental controls; bad actors should be punished economically, not just criticized in international summits.
Serious environmentalists would pursue these policies. Yet Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s revealing description of “green jobs” as a “mechanism” for redistribution suggests that shouting about a climate crisis could just be an excuse by leftists to gain power and redistribute wealth on racial grounds. Actual “racial and climate justice” requires acknowledging that human populations are different, and that Earth can’t survive an infinite African population boom, skyrocketing Asian consumption and pollution, and a white death spiral. Sustainable global and national policies would discourage mass migration and limit consumption of resources. Whites created the environmental movement. Environmentalism, like so many products of Western Civilization, won’t survive the death of the creating people. A sustainable future for Earth requires a future for whites.