She certainly should be. When someone emigrates from the Third World to the First World, is she or he likely to consume more resources, or less? Cause
more greenhouse gas emissions, or less?
Here’s what Progressives for Immigration Reform has to say about it: “... in recent decades, four-fifths of the increase in U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions has come from U.S. population growth, as more people drove more cars, built more houses, ate more food, and did all the other things that
PFIR notes that 80 percent of the USA’s population growth in the last decade was driven by immigrants and their children born here. It estimates
that 2.25 million immigrants per year will result in a U.S. population of 669 million by 2100, when Greta will be 96. Even 1.25 million immigrants per
year will give us 524 million by 2100. Does anyone want that? Can anyone justify it?
A Pew Research study projects the nation’s population “... will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and fully 82% of the growth
during this period will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their descendants.”
Pew Research: “Of the 117 million people added to the population during this period due to the effect of new immigration, 67 million will be the
immigrants themselves, 47 million will be their children and 3 million will be their grandchildren.”
If Greta Thunberg and anyone concerned at all
about global warming are honest, they’ll admit that immigration is the main driver of
greenhouse gas emissions growth in America, and a huge factor in the western world in general. So choose my leftist/environmentalist friends: Mother
Earth and our children’s future, or immigration. Which is more important to you?
edit on 27-9-2019 by Scapegrace because: Typo
edit on 27-9-2019 by Scapegrace because: Clarification
27-9-2019 by Scapegrace because: Another stupid typo