It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Greta opposed to massive immigration to the First World?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Politicians have been kissing babies with the same or similar purpose in mind since i can remember.


I'm with you on the plausible solution department.

Not seeing any of those myself, that does not mean we don't need a plan of action all the same.

It just remains to be seen.

We can at least mitigate the circumstance if we do it together all the same, what more reason do we need than to save a billion lives?




posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think population size has little meaning compared to our actions, if we act like we are not a part of this world, the planet will reject us as a species,

And we really suck acting like we belong here, hence it is good to overpopulate because it will keep the odds on our side that we will not go extinct.

We are just constantly being flushed down the planetary toilet, but we float.

It knows.. It knows we are trying to separate from it... Quickly! Kill it with fire!



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Every plan I've ever seen has crap like carbon credits and carbon taxes...
They do nothing for the environment.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Indeed, its like even if we do something about our way of life, the bankers and corporations are apt to still want there pound of flesh.

Thing is we cannot remove there meddling without also removing the politicians.

We still need to mitigate the coming circumstances all the same, tax or no tax.

We need a reality check and it's on the horizon.

What's required is a paradigm shift the likes of which we have yet to experience, how that transpires all the same, i dont think anyone has a scooby doo.

But it will have to happen.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
This CHILD has no legitimate independent thoughts on the details of the system she supposedly hates so much. She is merely a political pawn being used by eco fascists to push an agenda.

If these people actually cared about saving the planet they wouldn't be berating us. They would be going after some of the biggest polluters on the planet.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: andy06shake

Every plan I've ever seen has crap like carbon credits and carbon taxes...
They do nothing for the environment.


Lol!! Carbon credits!!


Thats the equivalence of tax evasion for the rich.

The rich always manage to design a ponzi scheme for themselves to

keep themselves in they way they are accustomed.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980

And yet the child is part of that very same system.

We are all pawns mate, and also products of society.

Agree that they should be going after the biggest polluters on the planet.

Half measures and carbon credits just ain't going to cut the Mustard.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

How clueless can people be?
She is so obviously a parrot being used as a figurehead to deliver the agenda of the people propping her up. Take ten minutes and research her family and you will see all the environmental activists, actors and authors that are the real voice in her speeches.

The hate you think is towards this girl is really hate for the way they are using a child with mental issues to push a political agenda.

Let me know when they have her spewing a few "actual" "plausible" solutions to the issues.


But why do you care? What is the agenda she represents and why does it matter?

If you actually read my post you would have seen I said it doesn't matter what this little girl says. People are going to continue to use cars and buy gasoline. So what is the threat?

Let's assume Greta is right in her premise burning fossil fuel will eventually kill everyone on the planet. Just out of curiosity, if the science were sound and true this were the case, what public policies would you adopt to address the problem?



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Why are we not voting children to heads of state?

bastards, I thought you cared.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Even more....why are we talking about her at all?

She is a kid. A kid with a mental illness and some rather extreme parents.

Im not diminishing her value as a human. But I am absolutely diminishing her value as a public voice that deserves any more consideration than any other human with a voice and an opinion. She lacks the education and the breadth of world experience to take up so much real estate in our minds.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



Because she is being used as a tool, thrust into the public consciousness, nobody sought her out.

Manipulation.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Well gretta is wrong. Fossil fuels will not kill us all.

But if you are truly serious about lowering carbon emissions the first thing must be to stop the biggest polluters..india, china, etc...

Then hammer new nuclear powerplants.

Policy must be decided by actual science not politics.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Then why point out she has a mental condition at all?

She's just a kid.

Her voice is as important as anyone else voice.

Politicians lack education and the breadth of the world, nevermind basic empathy and common decency and yet they get to run the show, bump their gums about whatever will derive the best backhanders.

As to real estate, well Gods not making any more land, and natures about to take a significant percentage away from our paws in the next 50-100 years.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Scapegrace
If Greta Thunberg and anyone concerned at all about global warming are honest, they’ll admit that immigration population growth is the main driver of greenhouse gas emissions growth in America...


I think you can have sustained population growth, which is good for the United States, and still be conscious of how we handle the ramifications of that growth. It's not like it's an either/or scenario and we can only do one thing at a time.

If we have sustained population growth we will have to continuously reduce our per capita greenhouse gas emissions just to keep our total emissions at the current level. Can you see that happening in America? Realistically?



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheGreazel
a reply to: Scapegrace



So choose my leftist/environmentalist friends: Mother Earth and our children’s future, or immigration. Which is more important to you?


Immigration does not remove greenhouse gas emission , just look at low density countryside with lots of livestock , what do you think the amount of methane they produce does to the enviroment.

Your just moving the "problem" there will be the same growing amount of people and industry to support them.


OR i didnt understand this thread , thats a possibility too , running om 4 hours sleep a day this week



And i am not a enviromentalist or leftie , Just a random guy on planet earth for the ride , i don't care about global warming , we build all this to make a quick buck without thinking about the longer consequences.
gotta reap what you sow.





What I’m trying to say is, immigration to America and other First World nations greatly increases greenhouse gas emissions. People living in the Third World cause fewer emissions because they don’t consume as much as we do. When they move here, their consumption of resources and creation of greenhouse gases rise dramatically.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Scapegrace

It's not like you don't have the space to accommodate 524 million people in 100 years time, as long as you build the towns cities and infostructure to accommodate such numbers.

The UK has a population of 66.04 million people on an island only 242,495 km² in size and thats in this day of age. The United States being 9,833,000 square kilometers, im sure you will be fine.

Still, need to come together as a species and address the global climate changes in the post, whether or not we are contributing to the change or otherwise.

Why would we want more than half a billion people living here? Sure we could accommodate them, but is it desirable? Heck, I think we’re way too crowded now, and 200 million more people means you have to increase everything by two-thirds just to maintain our current standard of living. Two-thirds more schools, hospitals, highway lane miles, housing, prisons, water and sewage treatment plants, power plants, oil refineries — everything. Not to mention the vastly greater impact on our environment from the consumption of natural resources and higher greenhouse gas emissions.
edit on 27-9-2019 by Scapegrace because: Improved a sentence



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Why does the opening poster oppose anyone with the skills to work for a better wage?



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scapegrace
...When they move here, their consumption of resources and creation of greenhouse gases rise dramatically.


So they shouldn't come because they'd consume resources and create greenhouse gases as dramatically as we do? Wouldn't it be more noble to suggest we reduce our consumption to match theirs?



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Scapegrace

I don't understand why people hate Greta so much. She has a very simple message. Although the premise of what she is saying may not be correct. But in her eyes, if the premise is correct, she makes very good points:



The leftist way of thinking there may actually be some truth to the assertion burning fossil fuels in such high amounts will have serious consequences with regards to the quality of our environment.

But again, I don't think anything Greta is saying really matters. People are going to keep using cars and burning gasoline for a very long time.

Someone please explain to me why there is so much hatred for Greta? What threat does she pose to you that you have such a strong emotional response to what she is saying? WHAT IS IT???

I dislike her for a number of reasons, but I admit the main reason is rather petty: It’s her angry facial expressions and the way the little creep glared at Trump. Another, more rational reason I don’t like her is she’s a leftist. She’ll never, ever condemn massive immigration to the First World, even though it increases greenhouse gas emissions enormously. Because that would be racist.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: Scapegrace

At last, a sensible thread I can wholeheartedly agree with.

This has to be the main argument against mass immigration in the current political climate. It's glaringly obvious that increasing the numbers of consumers can't be good for a warming planet. But western governments are constantly lobbied by big businesses to relax immigration controls, and big businesses don't strike me as being the best advocates for the ecology of the planet.

Even Sir David Attenborough has argued passionately that we need to reduce the human population. By logical extension, he must also be against mass immigration.

Agreed. I’m very conservative, but I do believe human activity has caused the highest level of CO2 ever in our atmosphere. And I know the only way heat escapes our atmosphere is by radiating into space. Anything that slows the escape of that energy results in a warmer atmosphere. The interior of a car sitting in the sun on a hot day is a good example.

Personally, I think it’s too late to prevent global warming for the next century; we’d have to actually extract greenhouse gases from the atmosphere as well as greatly curtail our emissions to stop global warming. It could happen if we develop a really clean, dense, cheap and abundant power source. Maybe molten salt nuclear reactors using the thorium fuel cycle are the answer. Fusion seems too far off to help in time.

Population growth definitely needs to be curtailed, and above all, population growth in the First World. America most of all, because we’re the biggest consumers and worst emitters per capita. Liberals and environmentalists must accept that immigration to the First World is harmful, just as conservatives and fundamentalist Christians must embrace reduced population growth worldwide. I don’t see either happening unfortunately.
edit on 27-9-2019 by Scapegrace because: Typo



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join