Australian Kelvin Thompson, once more demonstrates, by example, why it is vital that we present the ecological case against mass immigration. Mass immigration is NOT as Samuel Gompers said, fundamentally a "labor issue". Yes, the motive to grow our population has been primarily an economic one--cheap labour and more consumers. BUT the consequences are much more serious than job losses and depressed wages. Our environment, both national and global, is MUCH more critical in its importance than either the economy or our culture. Of course these issues are inter-related. But the ecological impact of immigration must NOT be shunted to the back of the bus in any immigration reform agenda. Canadian language--English or French, and Canadian culture (Judeo-Christian or western humanist) cannot survive in a nation that suffers an ecological meltdown. The nation itself would not endure. When the water you drink is polluted or inaccessible, when the farmland needed to provide Canadians food after international trade has collapsed with stratospheric fuel costs, when our forests are mowed down or our air is unfit to breath, the fact that a lot of people are wearing burkas or turbans and not talking to you will be the least of your worries.
Get real people. Get your priorities straight. I am not suggesting that economic and cultural concerns are not important. They are. That is why I spend much of my time attacking Official Multiculturalism, out-sourcing and the importation of cheap labour. But the environment comes first. It is the lifeboat that carries us. I would like the passengers of that lifeboat to be conversant in English and French, reconciled to Canadian core values, and for the most part, Canadian-born. But surely the most important thing is that the lifeboat remains afloat. I am opposed to mass immigration and an open refugee policy primarily because I believe that too many passengers will swamp it in the rough waters of the post-carbon world ahead.
The fact that the drowning swimmers clambering to get on board are fellow human beings, persecuted people, hungry people, handicapped people, deserving people, skilled people, environmental refugees or people of colour is completely irrelevant. Our obligation is to those already in the boat. And to make it clear to politicians and ordinary citizens alike, Canada is a lifeboat, not an aircraft carrier fitted to be "Home to the World" as the slogan goes. Our country is largely uninhabitable or unsustainable even with the numbers of people who currently live here. Forty per cent of our land mass is north of the 60th parallel. Our average year-round temperature is minus 5.6 degrees centigrade for God's sake. Only 5% of our land is arable and only one fifth of that is classified as "Class 1" prime farmland. And of the at Class 1 land nearly 20% of it is already covered by development. And it is situated precisely in those areas where immigrants choose to settle--within shouting range of the US border. Strict zoning laws will not protect green belts because developers finance the election campaigns of winning local politiicans, and they are the ones who make land-use decisions. That immigrants can be dispersed toward northern or colder localities is also a fantasy in the context of mobility rights defined by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If Canadians won't stay there, neither will New Canadians.
Canada has a false body image. We are reverse anorexics. We look in the mirror and see our selves as too thin and think that we can afford to put on more pounds. Well ,we can't. We are the Australia of the north. A big "little" country. We have room for more people but not the carrying capacity to support them. That is the difference. We need to shed weight and quickly. That other nations are have higher population densities is also irrelevant. Just because they over-booked their hotel is no reason that we have to over-book ours just to siphon off the excess population generated by their irresponsibility. Our obligation to the world is to preserve our biodiversity, not exterminate it to make room for more people on a planet that grows by 78 million people every year. The best favour that we can do for the world is to achieve sustainability for ourselves, as only a sustainable Canada will be in a position to offer international assistance. End of rant. Its off my chest. More about Thomson: (with thanks once more to Mark O'Connor for forwarding this article)
Populate and perish, warns Labor MP
By Ashley Hall for AM
AM | abc.net.au/am
Kelvin Thomson says it is hard to reduce the world's carbon footprint when it keeps adding more feet. (AAP Image: Alan Porritt, file photo)
A Federal Labor MP says the Government's push to reduce the size of Australia's environmental footprint is not being helped by its population policy, which is continually adding more feet.
Kelvin Thomson wants the Government to cap Australia's population at 26 million and he says failure to act will create an environmental disaster.
Mr Thomson stepped up his campaign with a speech to the Victorian branch of Sustainable Population Australia.
He says given the amount of emails he is receiving, his message is attracting a lot of support.
"People are concerned about our water supplies and our capacity to meet the food and water demands of a growing population," he said.
"They are concerned about urban sprawl and the quality of life in our cities. They raise issues about the impact on native wildlife. So a variety of concerns."
The catalyst for the feedback was a speech Mr Thomson gave in Parliament in August, calling on world leaders to stabilise the world's population.
He said the world's growing population was to blame for the food crisis, water shortages, housing affordability, the extinction of species and, of course, climate change.
"It is pretty hard to reduce your carbon footprint when you keep adding more feet, and that is true right around the globe.
"With the world on track to increase its population by 50 per cent by 2050, at the same time as scientists are saying we have to cut carbon emissions by 60 per cent, clearly there is a problem. And I believe this does need to be discussed at Copenhagen."
The latest Treasury projections indicate that the Australian population could reach 35 million by 2049, and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd argues a population of that size would be good for Australia's long-term national security.
But Mr Thomson is having none of that.
"I don't accept the idea that because Australia is not overcrowded compared to other countries, that we should be copying these other countries," he said.
Mr Thomson's stance puts him in the opposite corner to the Prime Minister. But he says that is not by choice.
"I have said for quite some time that I believe that there is a problem in relation to global population levels," he said.
"If you look at issues to do with our water supplies, with our food supplies, with the pressure on our cities, all of these things suggest that we need to change course."
Mr Thomson says it will take a long time to change the minds of those policy makers who are committed to a bigger Australian population, because they have been lobbied by self-interested big business.
"It needs people to mobilise, to contact media, to contact their members of parliament and to raise these issues on the internet and the like so that there is an understanding both of what is at stake and of community views about this issue," he said.