Green parties lose big in EU by ignoring immigration - environmental damage
Green and left-wing parties lost ground in recent elections to the European Union Parliament, in part by neglecting and even denying the relationship between population growth by immigration and environmental stress. They could have used the topic to their advantage, but failed to do so. Instead it became the flagship issue of the right...
This shift to the right is remarkable... This redistribution might also reflect an increase in nationalism and cultural defensiveness against the more globalist liberal position...
But the leading topic for many voters was undoubtedly immigration from countries outside the EU. What to do with refugees and economic migrants? How to stop them from coming? ... and send them back if they are not entitled to stay?...
Discontent with EU immigration policy, in combination with a compulsory quota system for member states, drove people towards parties such as Rassemblement National (France), Fratelli d’Italia (Italy), Alternative für Deutschland (Germany), Freiheitliche Partei Österreich (Freedom party of Austria), Vlaams Belang (Belgium) and, certainly not the least, Partij voor de Vrijheid in The Netherlands, currently by far the largest party in the Dutch parliament. The general sentiment is that a nation should be free to implement its own migration policy if the EU is unable to take appropriate measures to curtail uninvited immigration...
What about the left wing in the parliament?... rich countries have no right to restrict immigration...
If the EU were to continue accommodating its current high level of net migration throughout the century, the EU population would approximately double by 2100...
Population growth by immigration will have a proportional impact on all our environmental challenges, such as proper land use, protecting biodiversity and ecosystems, reducing air, water and soil pollution, preventing water scarcity, reducing waste generation, and so on. These are typical concerns of the Greens. But they fail to see how they relate to with population growth, or just ignore the connections...
Not only was there an electoral cost to this willful blindness. Supporters of a strong and comprehensive environmentalism have to wonder whether the Greens risk sliding into political irrelevance...
The sad irony is that the Right are largely weak on environmental policy and social equity. Voters who see population stabilisation or contraction as a key to a progressive and environmental agenda have no one to vote for.
The same holds true in America: US Population Driven to Double by Mass Immigration
Immigration, Population Growth, and the Environment
Environment and the consequences of immigration-driven population growth
Video: Progressive: Limit immigration for the environment's sake
Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S. population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade.
Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:
"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."
In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy.
