New York Times: Save the Planet by Having Fewer White Babies

According to a recent article in the New York Times, the most effective way for an American woman to lower her carbon footprint is by not reproducing. The Times reports that having children is the surest way to negate other energy-saving behaviors and send your carbon footprint soaring:

Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.

"Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle."

Since whites are the only people who take environmental sustainability and the dangers of climate change seriously, it goes without saying that this hypothetical American woman is white. But in case any of the white NYT readers didn't realize the article was directed at them, a picture of a pregnant white belly accompanied the article.



It may seem ironic that articles encouraging population reduction are being aimed at white women, given that white Americans have the lowest fertility rate of all races. The white fertility rate is only 1.86, which is below replacement level; the Hispanic fertility rate is 60% higher, at 2.99.

Due to continued immigration and differential fertility rates, it's estimated the Hispanic population in this country will triple by 2050. During that time, the total American population is expected to soar to 420 million, even as the white population decreases. This chart from NumbersUSA shows that immigration is fueling America's population growth.



Importing millions of highly-fertile immigrants from the developing world will increase our country's carbon footprint much, much more than convincing whites (who are already reproducing at below replacement levels) to have fewer children will reduce it. This is just common sense.

If we were serious about reducing our country's total carbon footprint, we would restrict immigration and exhort Hispanics and other fecund minorities to lower their fertility rate to replacement level.

That liberals can simultaneously advocate for population reduction measures and massive immigration from the Third World may seem perplexing. These two seemingly contradictory views can be reconciled by realizing that the liberals' true goal is not to reduce the carbon footprint, but to reduce the white genetic footprint.


Update: This is not a strictly American phenomenon. In the UK, the Muslim population is growing an astonishing 10 times faster than the rest of society. Like in America, the white population is reproducing at below replacement levels, and immigration is fueling the population growth. Yet when The Daily Mail urged its readers to save the world by having fewer children, this is the picture they chose to use: