I have always assumed “PC Crap” is when people refuse to use straight talk if it conflicts with either their own or other people’s sensitivities. I don’t know why that should extend to people being immune from correction or criticism when they use simplistic assertions to attack migration and migrants.

I am sorry you feel it is bullying for me express my opinion and thus feel the need to respond with abuse. It is a simple fact that Hanson’s party often used simplistic assertions regarding the inability of Australia’s environment to handle more people as one of their justifications for opposing migration. For a short period the Democrats official policy also had an anti-migration component using this justification. If you want to extrapolate that fact to a personal accusation of ‘racist xenophobe’ you can, but I didn’t use those words - perhaps you can accuse me of being ‘PC’?

The simple reason why “on average” (and there is an awful lot of variation hidden underneath those averages) “the greenhouse emissions of a person who migrates to Australia are around double those the person would have been responsible for if they had not migrated” is because (a) many of those people come from vastly poorer circumstances and (b) Australians have amongst the most profligate and wasteful lifestyles on the planet when it comes to greenhouse emissions.

I presume no one is seriously arguing we can encourage the rest of the world to adopt a greenhouse target strategy which involves them staying poorer, so we need to be focusing on reducing emissions overall rather than kidding ourselves that where people live at any one time will somehow help. The notion that lifting the drawbridge (now that we’ve come here of course) will help even slightly in sustainably reducing global greenhouse emissions is simply silly.

So we either keep poor people from poor countries living in poverty (an approach which directly correlates with much higher birthrates, it should be noted), or we reduce profligacy amongst people who live in Australia, migrant or not.

Given the current debates around the ETS Green Paper, it seems as a nation we are so wedded to every single aspect of our lifestyles that to even raise the idea that we might to need to engage in air travel less often, or consume less meat and dairy products, is seen as heresy. Blaming migrants is a distraction which helps us avoid focusing on our existing shortcomings, although as my original piece pointed out, it is a time honoured practice (in most countries, not just Australia).

If you want to see the data read the report titled “Population Growth and Greenhouse Gas Emissions” here
https://www.tai.org.au/?q=node/8&offset=8

As to PC crap I have read some of the statements by Sustainable Population Australia which could almost be seen as hate speech.