According to the Government and independent academic demographics experts, Britain is about to witness unprecedented population growth, ranging from five to ten million, over the next twenty-five years.

With the birth rate of indigenous Britons just about at “replacement” level at best, it is clear that almost all this future growth will be down to either immigration or births within migrant communities already established here. We would refer sceptics to both the government’s Office of National Statistics (OS) site or to Migration Watch UK’s highly informative site, for confirmation.

The impact of population growth is already manifesting itself in many undesirable ways. Quite apart from the growing pressure on homes, education, health services, employment, social welfare, water availability, policing, energy demand, traffic congestion and landfill sourcing, is environmental destruction to provide the development land needed for the homes required to facilitate further immigration.

For some years now the availability of homes, for either purchase or rental, has been “drying up” �“ with demand increasingly exceeding supply. As a consequence both rents and mortgages have been pushed beyond the reach of many. This, in particular, has affected our young couples - resulting in many having to live at home with mum and dad and put off having a family of their own. The latter, of course, contributing to the stagnation in the indigenous birth rate.

Yet despite the obvious fact that the millions of migrants who have arrived in Britain over recent decades have had a massive negative impact on affordable home availability, a succession of governments have failed to take the obvious step �“ halting immigration �“ to prevent matters from getting even worse.

Instead of halting immigration the Labour regime has announced that it wants to build over two million new homes in Britain over the next twenty years �“ whilst, at the same time, allowing in anywhere between five to ten million more migrants! Clearly Labour’s mammoth house building programme has only one objective �“ providing the homes needed to facilitative their nation-wrecking immigration programme!

But all these homes have to be built somewhere. And although a significant proportion of them will be built on brown field sites in urban areas, the fact remains that the bulk of them will have to go on green field sites �“ resulting in the destruction of tens of thousands of acres of pristine countryside and green belt!

Only this week it was reported, in the regional media, that the Labour regime is to “pressurise” local authorities in the West Midlands into building almost 500,000 new homes in that region between now and 2028. This is partly in response to a regional baby-boom fuelled largely by births within the huge migrant communities already established in that region, but mainly to provide homes for the waves of migrants expected to settle there over the next two decades!

But why, the BNP asks, do we need to sacrifice our precious countryside to facilitate immigration that is neither wanted nor needed? We should slam the immigration door firmly shut and build homes only for our own people on brown field sites. In other words - follow through on the BNP’s “Sons & Daughters” home building programme. That way not only do we preserve our irreplaceable countryside from unnecessary destruction, provide affordable homes for our own people but also protect the quality of life of all our people from the dire environmental consequences of engineered gross overpopulation.

Yet - as with homes, education, health services, employment, social welfare, water availability, policing, energy demand, traffic congestion and landfill sourcing - the destruction of our countryside is an issue that arises directly out of overpopulation. And overpopulation is, without a shadow of a doubt, fuelled almost entirely by immigration!

Is this why the Green Party, for instance, refuses to recognise immigration as the greatest threat to this country’s habitats, our countryside and our quality of life? Is this why they campaign against the symptoms, rather than the predominant cause of these critical environmental threats?

So, once again we ask: Immigration - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

It is reported that some 700 scientists are attending a major conference in Brazil for the purpose of drawing up an action plan to protect the world’s wetlands. Conference organisers say a better understanding of how to manage the vital ecosystems is urgently needed. The conference has been called due to concern over rising temperatures, which are not only accelerating evaporation rates, but also reducing rainfall levels and the volume of melt water from glaciers.

Although only covering 6% of the Earth’s land surface, they store up to around 20% of terrestrial carbon.

The five-day conference, which is co-organised by the UN University and Brazil’s Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, will examine the links between wetlands and climate change.

Conference co-chairman Paulo Teixeira says: “Humanity in many parts of the world needs a wake-up call to fully appreciate the vital environmental, social and economic services wetlands provide. These included absorbing and holding carbon, regulating water levels and supporting biodiversity.

Meanwhile Konrad Osterwalder, who is the rector of the UN University, said that people in the past had viewed the habitats as a problem, which led to many being drained. he added: “Yet wetlands are essential to the planet’s health,” he explained. “With hindsight, the problems in reality have turned out to be the draining of wetlands and other ’solutions’ we humans devised”.

The conference follows a growing number of scientists warning that if the decline of the world’s wetlands continues, it could result in vast amounts of carbon being released into the atmosphere and compounding the global warming problem significantly. Critically, It is estimated that drained tropical swamp forests release 40 tonnes of carbon per hectare each year, while drained peat bogs emit between 2.5 to 10 tonnes. Yet data suggests that about 60% of wetlands have been destroyed in the past century, primarily as a result of drainage for agriculture.

It therefore makes sense to reduce the stress on wetlands caused by pollution and other human activity, as this will improve their resilience and effectiveness as “carbon sinks”. Wetlands should be considered “natural sponges” and their role as sources, reservoirs and regulators of water is largely under appreciated. In addition they also cleanse water of organic pollutants, prevent downstream flood inundations, protect river banks and seashores from erosion, recycle nutrients and capture sediment.

The conference organisers claim the ecosystems, many of which have biodiversity that rivals rainforests and coral reefs, were in need of complex long-term management plans. They hope, as one conference objective, to highlight the range of measures needed, such as agreements that covered the entire catchments of the wetlands.

There are fears amongst environmentalists that the proposed new generation of nuclear power stations could be built in flood-risk or supposedly environmentally protected areas of the country. This is because green safeguards are listed merely as “discretionary” amongst criteria, which government ministers intend to use to decide where to site the reactors, whereas commonsense should dictate that these are precisely the sensitive areas that should be ruled out!

Under Labour’s so-called Strategic Siting Assessment system, nominations for “credible” sites - crucially “backed by nuclear firms” - will be sought early next year. They would then be evaluated against a set of criteria before being put forward for planning permission - possibly using a the controversial planned “fast-track” approach that disregards public opinion.

It is claimed that although sites at risk of earthquake or near heavily populated areas will be instantly ruled out, this will not be the case where sites prone to flooding, coastal erosion or environmentally protected are concerned. Leaving the door open for the construction of the power stations, for which work is likely to begin around 2013, on environmentally valuable sites is seen as yet further evidence of this government’s apathetic attitude towards the environment.

A Government spokesman said: “Nuclear power is an essential part of our future energy mix. And, alongside a ten-fold increase in renewables and investment in clean coal technology, it will help wean us off our dependency on oil and protect us against the politicisation of energy supplies. So, we must do everything we can to remove any remaining barriers and open up the UK as the most attractive place in the world to invest in nuclear power. The strategic siting assessment is the next step towards a Nuclear National Policy Statement. This will help to speed up planning applications while making clear that safety and engagement with local communities are key.”

Not surprising then that some commentators are wondering whether the provision of investment prospects for nuclear programme speculators is higher up the Government’s agenda than environmental protection!

Details of a planned environmental assessment of the nuclear new-build project were also published today, which showed it would examine “the likely significant effects on the environment including biodiversity, population and human health, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage and landscape.” All of which sounds fine in theory but when taken in the context of the Government’s stated evaluation priorities, amounts to very little - hence its perception by many as a piece of political posturing.

There will also, we understand, be a Habitats Regulations Assessment to monitor the potential effects on areas protected as part of the European Union’s Natura 2000 project. Interestingly, the Government’s Department for Business dismissed reported a few weeks ago that it had already drawn up a list of sites alongside existing reactors - including Sizewell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Dungeness, Hinkley Point, and Bradwell - as the most suitable places. Despite the denial the truth will only emerge next year - an announcement that Land & People is awaiting with much interest.