Global warming alarmism comes mostly from Leftists.  But the push for mass migration of 3rd world non-whites into 1st world white majority societies also comes mostly from the Left.  When 3rd world non-whites migrate to 1st world white majority societies, their carbon footprint increases 400%  This is a contradiction. Or is it? To figure this out, let's ask another question. How do you convince whites to destroy their own countries? We all know the standard ideas from this sub. A. Push the fake idea of "white privilege". B. Suppress discussion of who really is priveldged in our society. C. Teach people that race doesn't exist. D. Convince whites that in order to alleviate your white guilt, you must embrace mass immigration of non-whites into your society.  But maybe there's another very effective strategy. What happens when you destroy (or significantly degrade) a country's electrical grid? How much does a technologically advanced society depend on having access to cheap, reliable electricity? What happens when you convince people that the earth is going to be destroyed by "climate change" unless we all rapidly switch from hydrocarbon fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) to "cheap", "reliable", renewable energy? An Australian named Jo Nova tells us How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Electricity Grid in Three Easy Steps by forcing the replacement of cheap, safe, reliable hydrocarbon fuels with expensive unreliable renewables. A multi-country study clearly shows that the percentage of solar/wind used in supplying the electrical grid is directly correlated to a significantly higher cost of electricity. Higher percent solar/wind means not only higher cost, but (even more importantly) it causes a dramatic increase in blackouts and brownouts. It's very damaging to certain industries to no longer have access to the extremely high reliability of an advanced electrical grid running on hydrocarbon fuels, hydroelectricity, and/or nuclear energy. start time at 13:25 https://youtu.be/JYHX-Ib3Q5Q?t=805 Once you figure out which billionaire internationalist class is really behind the Global Warming agenda, then it suddenly makes sense that:   Global Warming activists are mainly targeting white majority countries and sometimes specifically blaming white people   These activists don't seem to care very much about the fact that China and India are building new coal plants like crazy. In fact Engineering & Technology claimed that China could add 290 GW of new coal-fired capacity this year. That is more than 10 percent higher than the entire U.S. existing coal-fired generation fleet of about 261 GW. And yet, China and India are not in their targets.   White girls are the ones who are most severely effected by the propaganda telling them that they need to be childless in order to be a "good person" who is doing their part to stop the destruction of the earth. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children   Many of same people pushing global warming alarmism don't appear to see much of a contradiction with also pushing mass immigration of third world non-whites into white first world societies where their carbon footprint skyrockets.   Despite massive evidence showing that nuclear energy is reliable, safe (compared to other sources), clean, low cost, and carbon free, the majority of the global warming organizations will never be pro-nuclear, because their billionaire donors don't actually want to have a "solution" to the global warming "problem".   For those who think, all this analysis of motives is great, but what about the actual science? Please be aware that the temperature record is being systematically falsified in order to confirm the scientific bias of the global warming promoters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqZGgaZaXig Also, Climate Change is Unfalsifiable pseudo-science