Are environmentalists cowards on immigration?

[Chen019]

It seems to me that they might be. Where is the Sierra Club on this issue?

In 2009, Philip Cafaro and Winthrop Staples III published a report which examined the detrimental environmental effects of immigration to the United States, specifically the vast increase in population. “At the current level of 1.5 million immigrants per year, America’s population of 306 million is set to increase to over 700 million people by 2100,” they wrote, indicating that an increase in population would be more of a strain on the ecosystem. “Conversely, scaling back immigration to 200,000 per year would greatly reduce America’s population growth, according to studies by the U.S. Census Bureau.”

“Obviously, we haven’t figured out how to create a sustainable society with 300 million inhabitants. It’s not plausible to think we will be able to do so with two or three times as many people,” the report continued, before concluding, “Americans must choose between allowing continued high levels of immigration and creating a sustainable society."

In fairness, I can see they’re torn like this guy between their concern for the environment and being accused of prejudice, but surely they can make their case on a colorblind basis?

Hell, discussing immigration makes me uncomfortable! I would much rather avoid the topic, particularly among my fellow progressives. More than once, I’ve been called a nativist, a xenophobe, a racist—not because of anything objectionable I’ve said about any racial or ethnic group, but simply for saying that we should reduce immigration. Who needs it?

The answer, I think, is that nature needs it. Nature needs fewer people—globally, but also right here, in the United States.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Huh?

The US may have an increase in population but the country the immigrant left has a decrease in population.

Bottom line there are “X” number of people on the planet. As regards the global environment why does it matter where they are? We’re all on the Earth (somewhere).

I suppose you could make a case for a local impact if people move into a given area but that is a different thing.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

Immigrant decedents have to eat. Don’t matter what country they’re in. Located in US, Mexico, or anywhere the environment has to support them either way. However richer countries have slower population growth than poorer countries, so I don’t see why the total amount of people wouldn’t be smaller with more people in a richer country.

[gatorslap]

So environmentalists are supposed to tell immigrants to go pollute their own country?

I’m pretty sure most immigrants to the US come from countries with significantly worse environmental standards, so it may actually be better for the global environment for them to come here. Perhaps not better for specific local environments, but that issue is migration, not immigration.

[GIGObuster]

What Whack-a-Mole and **gatorslap **said, and then, one should consider who is making the claims.

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/06/18/anti-immigrant-groups-blame-immigrants-for-bp-oil-spill/

So who is Philip Cafaro and why is he connecting immigration and the BP oil spill? Cafaro is associated with not one, but several of Tanton’s organizations, and he’s been pointing his finger at immigrants for a long time. As an advisory board member for Tanton front group “Progressives for Immigration Reform” (PIFR), Cafaro is well-versed when it comes to spinning a politically extreme agenda for typically progressive audiences. But it’s not just what he says as where he gets his anti-immigrant ammo. Cafaro links his blogs to the white nationalist Social Contract Press which is a journal published by none other than John Tanton. The journal is also edited by Wayne Lutton, a member of the white supremacist group Council of Conservative Citizens.

Furthermore, Cafaro has written multiple publications for Center for Immigration Studies and writes blogs for another of Tanton’s anti-immigrant groups, NumbersUSA. Pseudo think-tank Center for Immigration Studies, like Cafaro, has a history of immigrant bashing.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@GIGObuster

What Whack-a-Mole and **gatorslap **said, and then, one should consider who is making the claims.

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/06/18/anti-immigrant-groups-blame-immigrants-for-bp-oil-spill/

“Progressive”?

Can’t decide if that is being co-opted or they have no clue what it means.

I feel safe in saying no people who consider themselves a “progressive” would agree with that.

[foolsguinea]

In 2009, Philip Cafaro and Winthrop Staples III published a report which examined the detrimental environmental effects of immigration to the United States, specifically the vast increase in population. “At the current level of 1.5 million immigrants per year, America’s population of 306 million is set to increase to over 700 million people by 2100,” they wrote…

I am shocked, shocked that this report was written by an Italian-American and a WASP!

Trying to use environmentalism to justify immigration controls seems mostly to serve nativist ends. Global population matters to overall sustainability of agriculture and biodiversity. Local population matters where there are water & disease issues. Trying to regulate movement in and out of a large state or federation based on these issues is colossally missing the point.

[foolsguinea]

I caught part of Bonnie Erbe’s To the Contrary tonight, and she was trotting out this line again. I don’t watch her show much, so I don’t know how much she’s gone over to the nativist right, but I know she says she thinks we pay too much in tax, & she likes this kind of simplistic anti-immigrant crud.

[fumster]

Yes, liberals are hypocrites because they oppose access to birth control and are trying to cut funding for Planned Parenthood. Oh, wait, that’s conservatives.

[Kobal2]

@Chen019

The answer, I think, is that nature needs it. Nature needs fewer people—globally, but also right here, in the United States.

How does keeping people out of the US make them reproduce less, exactly ?
If anything, birth rates in first world countries are markedly lower than those of the third and fourth world ones so if that guy was really being honest about his anti-natalist argument* he should be calling for more immigration, not less.

*(which he quite evidently isn’t, and I’m nonplussed that you could for even a minute think this horseshit would fool anybody into thinking it’s *really *about the environment.)

[Chen019]

@Kobal2

How does keeping people out of the US make them reproduce less, exactly ?
If anything, birth rates in first world countries are markedly lower than those of the third and fourth world ones so if that guy was really being honest about his anti-natalist argument* he should be calling for more immigration, not less.

*(which he quite evidently isn’t, and I’m nonplussed that you could for even a minute think this horseshit would fool anybody into thinking it’s *really *about the environment.)

They tend to have a far larger carbon footprint in the US:

Diana Hull, President of Californians for Population Stabilization commented, “Imagine taking close to 100 million people with a relatively small carbon footprint and quadrupling their carbon emissions overnight just by moving them to the U.S. That’s going to significantly impact Global Warming. Cutting immigration to the U.S. isn’t the only thing we should do to solve the global warming problem, but stopping mass immigration, especially from low carbon use nations will go a long way towards a solution because it is a significant contributor to the problems we face.”

[SmartAlecCat]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Immigrant decedents have to eat. Don’t matter what country they’re in.

I’m pretty certain that decedents, both immigrant and native, don’t eat any more.

[nachtmusick]

Nobody on the left wants to come within spitting distance of the certain truth that environmental issues and population are two sides of one coin. As a biologist and environmentalist, there is no issue where I find myself further afield from Democratic dogma than that all humans have the right of unchecked reproduction, and that all races must be equalized before any other solution can be conceived.

The First World is approaching stability, but the the Third World is flooding the First World with more mouths than can be fed. The Democratic and humanitarian impetus that compassion demands is that we find room and sustenance for all, but where is the end of it?

Science predicts that world population will peak at 9 billion or so, but that is an unsustainable total. That many souls can only be achieved on this planet if we sacrifice all remaining wildlands and species upon the altar of unchecked growth.

[Kobal2]

@Chen019

They tend to have a far larger carbon footprint in the US:

You heard it here folks: to solve the global warming problem, all we have to do is cross the border into Mexico. BAM, problem solved as our individual carbon footprints decreases by 75% ! Overnight !!

Yeah, not really.
Carbon footprints are not linear: an “individual’s” carbon footprint is generated by his car of course (which I would assume lettuce pickers do not own), but that’s only a drop in the bucket.
For the most part, the disparity in carbon footprints between first and third worlds is based on power generation, food distribution, mass transportation and so forth. Those do not vary *that *much whether there’s 2 or 10 million people living in the city, especially not with nuclear power (more common in the West). There’s also the footprint caused by farming & heavy industries - but once again, those are not really dependant on population. All of the farming & grazing soil in the US is already used exhaustively, the only change population brings there is that more of it has to stay home instead of being sold abroad (or subsidized to be destroyed).

So, I think what I’m saying is: cite for that quadruple footprint quote. Where did dear Diana pull it, exactly ?

Diana also assumes that carbon emissions cannot be reduced at all in reaction to any increase caused by population. Which is not true either.

Try again, grasshopper.

[GIGObuster]

To add to what Kobalt2 said, I also have to say that the carbon footprint numbers they use are based on flawed assumptions.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/13/206859/immigration-the-environment-myths/

This report strikes down many of the false arguments regarding immigrants and the environment, provides a clearer picture of immigrants’ environmental contributions, and outlines real environmental solutions that can cut carbon and curb climate change. Key findings include:

• The assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the U.S. carbon footprint is false. The 10 highest carbon-emitting cities have an average immigrant population below 5 percent, according to a 2008 Brookings Institution study.
• The cities with the lowest carbon footprint, on the other hand, have an average immigrant population of 26 percent.
• Immigrants, especially recent immigrants, tend to lead “greener” lifestyles than the native-born and are more likely to use public transportation and practice sustainable habits like compact living, conservation, and recycling.
• Immigrants, who are largely low income, are also more likely to have their lives disrupted by extreme weather events and other adverse effects of climate change.
• Addressing climate change and poverty on a global scale will help stabilize immigration flows from undeveloped countries.
• Immigrants are disproportionately hurt by the dirty energy economy and face unique environmental challenges. Consequently, they fight for greener solutions, including challenging the use of hazardous pesticides in the agricultural fields where many immigrants work. A successful campaign by immigrant farm workers during the 1960s led to the banning of the dangerous pesticide DDT.
• 2010 polls of key electoral states find that immigrant-rich communities overwhelmingly favor policy that will create green jobs and tend to support congressional candidates who back efforts to fight global warming.
• Immigrants are integral to driving clean energy innovation. They accounted for 70 percent of men and women who entered the engineering and science fields from 1995 to 2006 and 40 percent of all high-tech venture-backed companies.

Instead of blaming immigrants, the report recommends the following actions the United States and other countries can take to start cutting pollution and getting a handle on climate change:

[DMC]

@Chen019

They tend to have a far larger carbon footprint in the US:

Dude, you really need to find a few more degrees of separation between your various cites and Tanton. Your latest, Diana Hull is on the advisory board of FAIR. Guess who founded that?

Couldn’t you at least mix it up some and cite the Pioneer Fund or VDare?

[Chen019]

@DMC

Dude, you really need to find a few more degrees of separation between your various cites and Tanton. Your latest, Diana Hull is on the advisory board of FAIR. Guess who founded that?

Couldn’t you at least mix it up some and cite the Pioneer Fund or VDare?

Try playing the ball not the man. If you think the figures about the increased carbon footprint are wrong, point that out. Otherwise your guilt by association stuff is really not getting us towards the truth of the matter.

[fumster]

@nachtmusick

Nobody on the left wants to come within spitting distance of the certain truth that environmental issues and population are two sides of one coin. As a biologist and environmentalist, there is no issue where I find myself further afield from Democratic dogma than that all humans have the right of unchecked reproduction, and that all races must be equalized before any other solution can be conceived.

The First World is approaching stability, but the the Third World is flooding the First World with more mouths than can be fed. The Democratic and humanitarian impetus that compassion demands is that we find room and sustenance for all, but where is the end of it?

Science predicts that world population will peak at 9 billion or so, but that is an unsustainable total. That many souls can only be achieved on this planet if we sacrifice all remaining wildlands and species upon the altar of unchecked growth.

It’s either that or they do. Can’t you conservatives just pick a position and stay with it for 10 minutes: Here and
Here
[“the long-time leftist belief that if we don’t get the population under control, our society is doomed”](the long-time leftist belief that if we don’t get the population under control, our society is doomed)
["libs still believe in population control "](libs still believe in population control)

[Chen019]

@nachtmusick

Nobody on the left wants to come within spitting distance of the certain truth that environmental issues and population are two sides of one coin. As a biologist and environmentalist, there is no issue where I find myself further afield from Democratic dogma than that all humans have the right of unchecked reproduction, and that all races must be equalized before any other solution can be conceived.

The First World is approaching stability, but the the Third World is flooding the First World with more mouths than can be fed. The Democratic and humanitarian impetus that compassion demands is that we find room and sustenance for all, but where is the end of it?

Science predicts that world population will peak at 9 billion or so, but that is an unsustainable total. That many souls can only be achieved on this planet if we sacrifice all remaining wildlands and species upon the altar of unchecked growth.

Good post. There is this progressive group that focusses on the issue of population growth and environmental impact.

Progressives for Immigration Reform is committed to the creation of a sustainable society in the United States, one that secures essential natural resources for future generations and preserves flourishing populations of all native species in perpetuity. It is our position that the United States will fail in these efforts, if we fail to stabilize our population. As David Brower, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, put it, at the dawn of the environmental movement: “We feel you don’t have a conservation policy unless you have a population policy.” [1]
…
In addition, while many progressives like to think of ourselves as “citizens of the world,” concerned for the well-being of all humankind, those of us who remain citizens of the United States, have further, particular responsibilities. As Americans, we believe we have a special responsibility to preserve wild species and wild landscapes right here, in our own country. Our children and grandchildren will blame us, rightly, if we fail to preserve opportunities for them to get to know and appreciate wild nature. They will blame us, rightly, if we fail to preserve clean air, clean water, sufficient topsoil to grow food, and all the other resources essential for their well-being. In other words, we have a duty to future generations of Americans to create a sustainable society. Continued population growth makes achieving that goal impossible. So we must end U.S. population growth.

However, in order to stabilize America’s population, we must reduce immigration, since today it is high immigration rates that are driving continued rapid population growth in the United States. During much of the previous century, population increase was fueled primarily by high native birth rates, but in recent decades, the total fertility rate of American women has fallen dramatically: from 3.5 children per woman in the 1950s, to 1.7 children in the 1970s, to 2.05 children today. According to a recent study from the Pew Hispanic Center, 82% of population growth between 2005 and 2050 will be due to new immigrants arriving and their descendants. [

http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/

[Czarcasm]

@Chen019

Good post. There is this progressive group that focuses on the issue of population growth and environmental impact.

http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/

“Progressives For Immigration Reform” is just another front group for anti-immigration leader John Tanton. By no means whatsoever is it an authentic Progressive organization.