World Economic Forum Adviser Professor Sarah Harper, has said that the UK population collapse (which I note, is mainly of the white British population), is good, as the high-income, high-consuming countries of the world reducing the
number of children that they're having, will reduce consumption, and hence the carbon footprint. It is just the sort of woke thing a university professor today would say. But, the system is not content to just allow that to happen, and uses mass immigration to beef up the numbers. The migrants instantly consume at the same or greater levels than locals, so absolutely nothing is achieved. Of course, the Great Replacement goes on as usual, which is the raison d'etre of immigration.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/20/u-k-population-collapse-good-for-the-planet-wef-adviser-prof-sarah-harper-explains/
“U.K. Population Collapse “Good for the Planet”, WEF Adviser Prof Sarah
Harper Explains
BY IGOR CHUDOV
Remember how depopulation was called a right-wing conspiracy theory?
Things have changed, and 'population collapse', which can no longer be
denied, is now good for us!
The Telegraph picked the perfect messenger to communicate the new way we
should think about population declines. A high-level WEF adviser tells us:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230817195336/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/17/20-year-low-for-baby-born-in-england-good-news-for-planet/
Oxford Professor Sarah Harper is a very important person. The Telegraph
article listing her credentials forgot to mention that she serves on the
Global Agenda Council on Ageing Societies of the World Economic Forum.
Prof Harper is thrilled about recent declines in fertility:
Prof Harper told the Telegraph: “I think it's a good thing that the
high-income, high-consuming countries of the world are reducing the
number of children that they're having. I'm quite positive about that.”
The academic said declining fertility in rich countries would help to
address the “general overconsumption that we have at the moment”, which
has a negative impact on the planet.
Most importantly, declines in births will bring about reductions in CO2
emissions from wealthy nations, Prof Harper points out:
Research has found that wealthy nations tend to have much larger carbon
footprints than poorer countries, as rich people can afford to buy more
goods, travel more and do other activities that generate emissions.
Carbon emissions from high-income countries were 29 times larger than
low-income countries on a per capita basis in 2020, World Bank figures show.
Population Declines or Population Replacement?
Here's the strange part: If the leadership of the World Economic Forum
wanted to reduce emissions from wealthy countries, I could understand
how they would hope that population reductions would lead to a decline
in economic output. Aside from moral implications, it is simple math
that fewer people means fewer cars on the road, less food consumed and
so on.
However, something entirely different is going on! While the population
of local-born natives is no longer reproducing at the levels needed to
maintain the population, new immigration picks up. It accounts for a
larger and larger share of births!
While the number of births in Britain is declining, the share of
children born to parents who immigrated from outside Britain has hit a
record high.
Almost one in three children born last year were delivered by mothers
born outside of the U.K. The number of births by women born outside the
U.K. rose 3,600 year-on-year to account for 30.3% of all births. The
previous peak was 29.3% in 2020.
When including the father, more than one in three children born last
year had at least one foreign-born parent. In London, the figure was two
thirds.
This development is inconsistent with wanting to reduce the populations
of high-consumption countries. It seems self-defeating to celebrate
birth reductions while simultaneously amping up the arrivals of new
immigrants who work hard to live well, consume a lot, have many children
and realise the 'British dream'.