Remember when Liberals gave a shit about the Environment?

I miss those days.

Sierra Club Supports Path to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants (Yes, this is from the actual Sierra Club website):

“Today, the Sierra Club announced its support for an equitable path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

“The Sierra Club Board of Directors, made up of elected volunteer leaders, has unanimously adopted the position:

“‘Currently at least 11 million people live in in the U.S. in the shadows of our society. Many of them work in jobs that expose them to dangerous conditions, chemicals and pesticides, and many more of them live in areas with disproportionate levels of toxic air, water, and soil pollution. To protect clean air and water and prevent the disruption of our climate, we must ensure that those who are most disenfranchised and most threatened by pollution within our borders have the voice to fight polluters and advocate for climate solutions without fear.

“‘… America’s undocumented population should be able to earn legalization and a timely pathway to citizenship, with all the rights to fully participate in our democracy, including influencing environmental and climate policies. ‘”

Here, you might need this:


Normally I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I’ve heard enough people on the left lately explicitly saying that their organizations favor increased immigration because they believe those immigrants will vote Democrat/otherwise support their organizations that I’m starting to think that “import voters” is actually a Democratic strategy.

Which is cheating, BTW.

(Also, the Republican leadership wants more immigrants to keep wages down. Both sides are terrible.)

As logic goes, this is dumbass logic.

1. If the problem is that illegal immigrants can’t protest unhealthy work conditions without getting deported, then this is a good argument in favor of preventing illegal immigration, not encouraging more of it.

2. What makes them think Hispanic immigrants are suddenly going to start advocating for environmental protections, anyway? (I mean, do I have to drag out statistics here to prove that tree-hugging hippies are overwhelmingly white?)

Mexican citizens in their own country created one of the most polluted cities in the world:

Democracy: doesn't always end pollution
Mexico City

Mexico city manages to top the list of the world’s most polluted major cities:

From Air Pollution in Mexico City, by Hofmann
From Air Pollution in Mexico City, by Hofmann

Somehow, I don’t think lack of legal citizenship is the issue.

3. Population growth is one of the worst possible things you can promote if you give a shit about the environment. The Sierra Club used to understand this, back when their official policy favored population stabilization.

In other words, the Sierra Club is now explicitly advocating policies that result in environmental destruction.

Ultimately, I actually think the “they’ll vote for us!” justification is just that: a flimsy justification for doing what they want to do anyway, whether it actually squares with their other goals or not.

Which is to say, I don’t actually think the Sierra Club’s Board of Directors is delusional enough to think that increasing immigration will actually help the environment. Rather, I think the Board consists of liberals who buy into the pro-unlimited immigration propaganda that moving anywhere you want is a basic human right, and are especially interested in proving how much they love POCs, despite (or perhaps because of) working for one of the most overwhelmingly white organizations in the US. But since unfettered immigration => population growth is actually bad for the environment, some justification must be made to reconcile the two positions.

Meanwhile, about 66% of Americans actually do think Global Warming is happening, and only 15% are really committed to the idea that it isn’t.

But aside from a few people placidly saying they’re concerned about global warming, and a few people vocally responding, where is our leadership on the issue?

Al Gore seems to have had some things to say on the environment, but since he lost the Supreme Court vote, the Democratic base has turned increasingly toward more “people” oriented issues like racism, immigration, and gay marriage. And the kinds of people who care deeply about immigration, racism, and gay marriage may not happen to overlap with the kinds of people who think we should give serious thought to long-term global sustainability.

Here’s a question from the blog, “Ask a White Person: white people answering white peoples questions about race issues“:

“I got into an argument with a friend of mine who is a person of color. They were mad at me because I feel very passionately about protecting the ocean and they said that made me a bad person because I should only care about is social justice. I do care about social justice and I stand up to racism where I can, but how do I reply to that?”

From the response:

“Is client change real? Hell yeah! Is the ocean becoming a mass of plastic? Of course. But right in front of you is your friends pain.”

It’s almost like people who tend toward high time discounting don’t understand the logic of people with low time discounting.

“Since I don’t know you I also want to make sure to offer up that white people have a horrible track record of racism when discussing climate change. I am not saying this is you personally, just the system that we have created around climate issues has become its own thing and often is very racist in its approach. The way people talk about “food deserts” for example (which are almost always lower income communities of color) implies that there is not a food culture in those communities.”

Remember, if you’re concerned about the availability of fresh food in inner city communities, you’re a racist.

BTW, the presence or absence of a grocery store in downtown Detroit is not an environmental issue.

“One of the tricks here though is to keep fighting for climate justice and protecting the oceans while not ignoring your friend, and people of color, here on land. All of this shit is interconnected. The same system that is oppressing people is oppressing the ocean. … If we center black lives in our work then we will have to discuss climate issues, and the ocean. Listen to your friend and maybe what they are saying is that this type of centering in your work around oceans is needed. Maybe it is their not so subtle way of saying that they feel ignored in the larger climate and ocean movement?”

Meanwhile, Democrats are so committed to infinite immigration that openly illegal immigrants are being invited to White House Press Conferences.


Now, do whites have a great environmental track record?


But it’d be awfully nice if someone could start having one.

Redwood forest
It’d be nice to have a planet that’s nice to live on.

15 thoughts on “Remember when Liberals gave a shit about the Environment?

  1. I have nothing to add but I think you deserve more commenters. I’ve noticed this exactly in some recent environmental-ist gatherings I’ve attended (my family are activists).

    “It’s almost like people who tend toward high time discounting don’t understand the logic of people with low time discounting.” Yep.


  2. Think of it this way:

    11 million people who can be exploited and who take jobs in the underground economy


    11 million people who pay taxes and FICA.

    Which one do you want?

    No, there is no other choice.


  3. […] Everything Adults say about Bullying is Bullshit, Bullying pt 2: Race, Crime, and the Police, Remember when Liberals gave a shit about the Environment? Women in Combat, Transsexuals Prove That Gender is Real, Women in Science–the Bad Old Days, […]


  4. Well, believe it or not, once upon a time, this started out as a conservative movement…. back when it was about conserving pristine wildlife. That was before my time! I believe that was also before the book “Silent Spring” and it was back when John Muir was setting aside all those national parks.

    Face it, the only party fighting for the environment is the green party, and even that party’s message is diluted by unrelated issues. Environmentalists need to go the other extreme and bury the hatchet with opposing groups. We will get further finding common cause with people at all ends of the political spectrum. Texas ranchers started fighting oil fracking when waste water started killing their cows. Rural hunters and fishermen (AKA outdoors men) really like to have pristine wilderness where they can hunt and fish. There are a lot of energy saving techniques that simultaneously fight climate change AND reduce dependence on foreign oil. As environmentalists, let’s drop the parties. They already dropped us. Find common cause with our neighbors and fight the issues directly.


  5. I am an avid outdoorsman and many environmental groups want to keep us out of the areas we want to hunt, fish, camp etc in even though the fees we pay fund most state conversation effforts.

    There is a world of differnce between being a conservationists and and environmentalist. Many of whom are also anti gun, anti hunting, anti fishing etc so they would have to shift their politics, and for an extended period of time, before outdoorsman would join up with environmentalists.

    Environmentalistst are also frequently hostile to farmers and ranchers as well.


    • I hear you.
      I can understand saying, “this animal’s population is so low that it can’t handle any hunting or culling beyond removal of sick individuals, and it’s environment is very fragile and the whole area is far from where humans live, so we’re going to rope it off for a while and let numbers recover,” but the idea that you can just fence off large tracts of land and say, “Don’t touch!” and expect everyone else to respect that even as population continues to grow is just silly. Environmentalists have kicked Pygmies out of their traditional hunter-gathering ground, how’s that for ya. Of course the pygmies just bribe people and go hunt anyway, but obviously that’s a pain in the ass and you don’t want your food supply dependent on the gov’t liking you, especially in a region known for war and genocide.
      Ecosystem management is the only reasonable long-term option, and that includes humans benefiting from the land.


    • oh pleeze … poor you because you don’t have unlimited access to maraud and kill living beings at will wherever you want. 150k species are going extinct annually and accelerating. 70% of all species may be extinct by the end of this century. And you’re complaining about the people who are trying to protect ecosystems and the living beings that depend on them for existence. Wake the heck up.


      • LOL none of that is due to responsible hunters in the usa. Want to see the environment? Eliminate brown skin “people”. They are the problem. It isn’t White folks from Appalachia killing elephants to sell the ivory to chinamen and what have you


      • Also how fucking stupid do you have to be to think 150k species die off every year

        Reminds of the false claims regarding the death of homeless people

        A little honesty might help your cause but we all no the left would die off if it were honest


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s