There was a recent article that asserted pets have a negative impact on the environment. While no doubt true, there’s even greater causes for concern. Immigrants. Particularly, African and Arab immigrants. While the precise carbon footprint of our blacks is the source of scientific debate, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: as good for the GDP or as naturally conservative as they may be, black people have an impact on the planet.
For one thing, they love burning things. Burning gas is bad enough (it’s the current year guys, go electric) but blacks love burning all sorts of thing. From burning down cities in their fiery, but mostly peaceful protests, to necklacing when they kill people in South Africa, they sure bring about a lot of greenhouse gasses.
It’s strange why black people like burning things so much. The Sierra Club has even pointed out that nonwhites are disproportionately affected by climate change, so it’s odd that even Nelson Mandela’s wife advocated this practice when she said, “With our boxes of matches, and our necklaces, we shall liberate this country.” You’d think rather than using rubber tires, which have a great environmental impact, they would try to go green when they commit hate crimes. Remember, we only have one planet, so go green.
On a less tongue-in-cheek note, it is funny that we hear about all these concerns about global warming from the Left, but never any sensible solutions. If everyone stopped having kids, the human race would stop, but we’re told having children is terrible. The reason why people are told not to have kids to save the environment is not that kids between 1-18 have a crazy environmental impact. They certainly go through more sizes of clothes and shoes in that time, but every childless person I know has a wide assortment of shoes and clothing themselves (far more than they need). You’d think folks concerned about the environment would try a minimalist lifestyle before preaching about how we need not to have kids.
The main environmental impact of having children in the First World is it’s an extra person living at that country’s living standard and carbon footprint. Because the average Westerner uses more energy than the average Third or Second Worlder, the environmental impact per person is greater. While that’s true, it’s completely invalidated by then bringing in immigrants to First World countries. This is particularly true when those immigrants proceed to have more children than the natives did in the first place. In fact, if we really want to help the environment, we should prevent Third World people from immigrating here at all. Additionally, once alternative energies become affordable, push that technology, rather than fossil fuels, onto the Third and Second World countries.
Aside from immigration negating the environmental impact from anti-natalist (we all know the real reason for the anti-natalist propaganda is simply anti-whiteness) and borderline anti-human (we’re supposed to eat bugs and live in pods to save the environment) policies, there are other solutions to the environmental impact.
Why don’t we push more autarky and self-sufficiency? For one thing, production of goods in the developing world are performed with far less environmental regulation than in the Western world. That’s why it’s cheaper. How does it stop global warming if the pollution is coming from Asia and Africa, rather than Europe and America? It doesn’t.
Additionally, by producing things domestically, we’d need less international shipping. Shipping internationally is extremely expensive in terms of fuel costs and realistically prevents getting fresh products. While it’s apparently true that shipping is more fuel efficient than traveling by road, even though fuel costs represent 50-60% of total shipping costs for sea transport whereas fuel only accounts for 39% of trucking fleet costs, there is a greener alternative.
Green trucking isn’t possible yet, but we have a massive rail system in this country. Railway transport is far more fuel efficient than trucking or shipping. We could overhaul the American rail system as a jobs building and country-wide economic renewal program. Not only that, it could save our interstates. The wear and tear caused by the heavy trucks worsen maintenance costs of roads and this problem is just getting worse. Obviously, trucking employs a huge share of men in this country, but they wouldn’t be totally out of work. We would still need drivers to take things from train-depots to elsewhere in the areas (so, rather than 18 wheelers, think box trucks). With the increased frequency of train-use, there’d be more careers in that field for younger truckers. Also, by relying on domestic goods, we don’t have to worry about international shipping lanes being attacked by pirates or blocked by idiots.
So, you don’t need to get rid of your pets or your children. You just need to get rid of products made in China and importing people from hellholes who hate you, like Ahmad Al-Issa.
A Southern man trying to make a good Southern plan.
Deo vindice!
