AGW, Immigration and Aid.

I’ve been thinking about the gaping inconsistencies of lowering-emissions policies and the whole gab bag of all the other government policies that contribute to AGW.

If the government was really serious about lowering emissions because high carbon emissions are dangerous to the planet’s future then why are they also promoting or rather maintaining a high level of immigration from poor countries that are obviously low carbon intensive? I’m not for a moment suggesting we should close down immigration as I normally range from open borders (if matched by low welfare) type to low restrictions but choosey from which countries we select from.

Pushing this barrow a step further, if warmers were also sincere about following their intellectual argument to it’s natural progression shouldn’t we also be following a zero aid policy to the poor countries and pulling out, or rather closing down/withdrawing financial support aid agencies like the World Bank and preventing the IMF from lending money to the poor (and obviously low emissions countries)?

The point I’m making is that if AGW is the “moral dilemma of this generation” and our success at cutting emissions is imperative to ensure the survival of the planet and the species etc. then there should also be a quick and total retreat in such areas of aid and lending to the poor countries as well as total moratorium on immigration from the poor countries as new immigrants would invariably raise their carbon foot print to our present average levels.

Now , I don’t advocate these policies of course , although aid is problematic from another perspective, however I would think that intellectual consistency from the doomsayers would eventually have to lead them to these sorts of policies.

9 thoughts on “AGW, Immigration and Aid.

  1. I think it is wrong to suggest proponents of reducing carbon emission think these reductions should come at any cost. While there may be some extreme environmentalists that feel this way, rational people concerned with climate change recognise that there are other global issues which shouldn’t be ignored.

    A sensible person concerned with the welfare of the world’s poor AND climate change would recognise there is a high probability that there won’t be a great enough reduction in CO2 emissions to stop warming. Given this possibility it is reasonable to want to help the world’s poor through immigration and aid so they are best able to cope with any negative consequences of climate change.

  2. Robbie:

    The Proponents of the ETS proposal suggest we go it alone to save the planet. My suggestion is that if they were legitimate in the concern they would advocate an immediate moratorium on immigration from low carbon countries and the immediate cessation of aid.

    Indeed if the planet is in such dire straits as they suggest, less people would be a good thing…..

  3. JC – people assume we can walk and chew gum at the same time. I’m a person that thinks we can reduce taxes over time without cutting government spending. Maybe some people think this view is inconsistent but I’m comfortable with it. When it comes to those that advocate action on AGW it is probably better to talk to them directly rather than to a strawman. Some of them do think we need to cut immigration and others have considered arguments on why we shouldn’t.

    In other news I note that some of the Victorian coal fired power stations located near the brown coal fields are saying that an ETS will wipe out the long term viability of their assets so they are going to slash routine preventative maintenance starting now. If they do this we should expect more unplanned outages and the associated blackouts in Victoria. This should be an interesting political test.

  4. I’m a person that thinks we can reduce taxes over time without cutting government spending.

    Well yes, you either let inflation do its work or you freeze or slowdown spending and falls as a % of GDP.

    When it comes to those that advocate action on AGW it is probably better to talk to them directly rather than to a strawman.

    It’s actually not as it requires these people to be consistent.

    Some of them do think we need to cut immigration and others have considered arguments on why we shouldn’t.

    Some of them isn’t good enough as they all need to take on these views in order for their position to be intellectually consistent.

  5. Some of them isn’t good enough as they all need to take on these views in order for their position to be intellectually consistent.

    You mean because everyone who agrees we need action on climate change—a broad area of public policy at the best of times—maintains some fundamentally coherent position? You and I are both considered libertarians, but I doubt if we would agree on many basic principles or issues.

  6. It’s intellectually dishonest to support high immigration and aid provision to low carbon countries when someone is concerned that the world is going to end as we know it.

    It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, especially when money is at stake.

  7. I don’t think that there is a clear argument to suggest any inherent conflict between those positions.

    Ignoring, of course, that fact that issues of population have little to do with levels of immigration.

  8. Annual immigration is around .75% of total population. That’s 8.25% or higher by 2020.

    I don’t think that there is a clear argument to suggest any inherent conflict between those positions.

    Really? So people moving from a low carbon nation to a high carbon one doesn’t conflict with the objective of the doomsayers to keep carbon levels down? It’s more like having a mental blind spot is how I see it.

    Ignoring, of course, that fact that issues of population have little to do with levels of immigration.

    Immigration and population having nothing to do with each other? You sure?

  9. jc, I’m sure I’ve read of plenty of AGW-worriers wanting to stop immigration, but I’m not sure that is to keep the carbon emissions of poor people low or just to protect our environment from over-population, perhaps a bit of both, but admitting to the first is kind of awful.

Comments are closed.