# Are environmentalists cowards on immigration? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086 "2011-06-11T06:04:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/221 "2011-06-16T05:53:58Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > If, (as it seems, although perhaps you intended a different meaning), you are accusing a poster on this board of sock puppetry, then do it via the Report post function, not by way of a vague reference in an active thread. > > [/Moderating] Not at all ! I was referring to Tanton founding multiple groups who coincidentally all happen to publish articles and reports with the exact same slant, and who appear to be citing each other. In other words, IRL sock puppeting. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/222 "2011-06-16T06:02:40Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > So the water issue is irrelevant? btw. why do you want it full up? Are spaces left for nature & wildlife without people not an environmental concern ? _bonk, bonk_ MCFLY ?! HELLO ? ANYBODY HOME ? That bogus concern has already been shot down. More population does not imply more sprawl & destruction of wildlife. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/223 "2011-06-16T07:02:54Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Hahaha. So I provide an example of your illogical position and it turns out I am “debating ad nauseam.” > > I’ve shown you that [population growth is linked to water shortages](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/science/earth/02drought.html) in the US. > > This is a problem in a number of [cities](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water#mwpphu-container). > > So again, why wouldn’t a US environmentalist think it makes sense to reduce immigration which is the main cause of US [population growth](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85)? > > It seems only an ideological commitment to never restrict immigration can explain this. > > Indeed. > [Infinite Ingress](http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-growth04jan25,1,5397335.story) Not reading the cite I made indeed: > [@](#): > > I’m not saying immigration isn’t an important issue, and I am not an advocate for unchecked borders. A sensible, just and fair immigration policy is a prerequisite for a stable society—and I make no claim to knowing what that policy should look like.\*\* I just think there are much bigger culprits when it comes to climate change than your average undocumented immigrant.\*\* BTW it is the Nativist Zukerman, (not an expert on the environment, no matter how much you illogically wanted to make it so) is not convincing anyone that that counts into dealing with immigration alone. **Once again, population on the whole is not ignored**. All your other cites are not separating immigrants from the Population, the Pew cite concentrate on the immigrants, but not the environment. And after your laughter you only showed that you avoided dealing with my cite. So for the second time the points of the environmentalist stands. > [@](#): > > The idea that we greens should focus our efforts on combating immigration seems misguided, to say the least. Over consumption, carbon emissions, fossil fuel addiction, industrialized agriculture, peak oil—these are all massive environmental problems that we must tackle right now. Restricting the movements of the poor and the landless will do little to help get us there. However, helping to avoid a growth in climate refugees or using clean energy as a development tool just might. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/224 "2011-06-16T07:18:18Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > _bonk, bonk_ MCFLY ?! HELLO ? ANYBODY HOME ? That bogus concern has already been shot down. More population does not imply more sprawl & destruction of wildlife. Chen019 is really just wanting all to believe in magic, it is like a peculiar forester manager that encounters a huge forest fire and it tells the firefighters to not do anything until we figure out how to separate the conifers from the deciduous trees. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/225 "2011-06-16T09:39:51Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > _bonk, bonk_ MCFLY ?! HELLO ? ANYBODY HOME ? That bogus concern has already been shot down. More population does not imply more sprawl & destruction of wildlife. So you concede the water issue? Then why can’t you bring yourself to consider restricting immigration to reduce [population growth](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85)? **Again, it seems it must be a deep ideological commitment that prevents you and GIGObuster from considering this obvious policy option.** > [@](#): > > “At the root of the water supply problem in the Southeast is a growing population,” they wrote. [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/science/earth/02drought.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/science/earth/02drought.html) > [@](#): > > Like Las Vegas, the city now relies on importing water from the Colorado River via hundreds of miles of aqueducts. \*\*The Colorado may only be a temporary solution, however, as the city continues to increase its demand at an unsustainable rate. \*\*In its utility risk rating, Ceres gave the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power the highest likelihood of risk among the cities it assessed. That list included Atlanta and the Forth Worth area. On top of this, the Hoover Dam, which is the main source of electricity for L.A. and much of the greater Southwest, is also producing at a lower rate than it has historically. Some scientists suspect this drop-off will continue to a point where its electricity production is too small to sustain the dam economically. Los Angeles, even if the dam doesn’t cease production in 2013, as some predict, still faces serious water shortages. [http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water#mwpphu-container](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water#mwpphu-container) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/226 "2011-06-16T09:53:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW it is the Nativist Zukerman, (not an expert on the environment, no matter how much you illogically wanted to make it so) is not convincing anyone that that counts into dealing with immigration alone. **Once again, population on the whole is not ignored**. No need to create stawmen **GIGObuster**. I’m not saying that dealing with [US population growth](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85) (which is largely driven by immigration) alone would be sufficient. However, it is an issue as demonstrated by the water issue above. Accordingly, I’m still baffled at how you think US environmentalists should ignore US population growth. You said above Population control includes immigrants. However, you’ve also said that you don’t support open borders. Would you support **any** reduction in immigration? Under what circumstances would you consider that population growth in the US was detrimental to the environment? Why do you think that it isn’t an issue in terms of water supply in the US? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/227 "2011-06-16T10:02:32Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > So you concede the water issue? Then why can’t you bring yourself to consider restricting immigration to reduce [population growth](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85)? > > **Again, it seems it must be a deep ideological commitment that prevents you and GIGObuster from considering this obvious policy option.** Yup, sure seems that way. I’m probably hating freedom _right now_, too. As for the water issue, to the extent that it is an actual issue it is still a local issue, whereas immigration control is a federal one unless I (once again) don’t understand how the US works. Just because town X is getting overcrowded doesn’t mean the whole country has to shut down the gates. It just means new immigrants should be encouraged to settle in town Y instead, at least until we setup better water recycling/desalinization routines and processes and get people to observe better water discipline. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/228 "2011-06-16T10:39:13Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Yup, sure seems that way. I’m probably hating freedom _right now_, too. > > As for the water issue, to the extent that it is an actual issue it is still a local issue, whereas immigration control is a federal one unless I (once again) don’t understand how the US works. Just because town X is getting overcrowded doesn’t mean the whole country has to shut down the gates. It just means new immigrants should be encouraged to settle in town Y instead, at least until we setup better water recycling/desalinization routines and processes and get people to observe better water discipline. It doesn’t have to shut its gates, but could perhaps reduce the number of people taken in to stabilize the population. Again, population stabilization was something the Clinton advisory council suggested. Desalinization has it’s own environmental issues (see [p121](http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=121)). The Southwest is particularly dependent on the Colorado River basin. In this report various water management strategies, including desalination are considered. They comment on population growth and the impact of increasing demand: > [@](#): > > As western populations have grown, this historical approach has become less viable than in a previous era, leading to questions and debates about the limits of western growth and water supplies. These different views were pointed out in a proceedings of a 1991 National Academy of Sciences conference on western water and climate variability: “In all the major arid states, unlimited population growth is taken as an article of faith and the function of water policy is to supply all the water necessary to accommodate this growth. Many serious observers of the West think that the question is backwards. We should first set growth limits and use them to temper water demands to the more realistic use of available, possibly diminishing supplies” (Tarlock, 1991). Today’s population levels and growth rates, intensifying competition for limited water supplies, and nontraditional water uses such as recreation and instream flows suggest that the relationships between population and urban water supplies soon will have to be confronted more seriously than in the past…p52 > > \*\*Beyond increasing water demand, population growth across the region portends a range of negative impacts that include deteriorating air quality, additional urban “sprawl” and congestion, reductions in open space, and increased levels of traffic and strained transportation systems. \*\*Each additional person entails an increase in water demand of, roughly, at least 140 gallons per day (and often more). p54 > > Water transfers will no doubt continue to be used to meet increasing water demands, and municipalities, tribes, farmers, and other water users will continue to develop innovative means for effecting these transfers. But growing populations will nonetheless act to offset “gains” in water supplies achieved by transfers. It is recognized that population growth and higher water demands are reducing the region’s ability to cope with drought and increasing the potential for conflicts over limited water supplies (see, for example, the Department of Interior’s Water 2025 website: [http://www.doi.gov/water2025/](http://www.doi.gov/water2025/)). **The limits of Colorado River water supplies, increasing populations and water demands, warmer temperatures, and the specter of recurrent droughts point to a future in which tension and conflict among existing and prospective new users are likely to be endemic** …p61 > > \*\*Technological and conservation options for augmenting or extending water supplies—although useful and necessary—in the long run will not constitute a panacea for coping with the reality that water supplies in the Colorado River basin are limited and that demand is inexorably rising. \*\*p132 [2 Historical and Contemporary Aspects of Colorado River Development | Colorado River Basin Water Management: Evaluating and Adjusting to Hydroclimatic Variability | The National Academies Press](http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61) ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/229 "2011-06-16T12:01:26Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Are environmentalists cowards on immigration? It seems to me that they might be.? Of course! Obviously, too many people, overpopulation, ALWAYS! destroys the environment. If we had stopped immigration and held our population constant at 200 million people, or less, then we would have had much less pollution and less traffic, we would have much more trees and farms and fields, less crowding. Anyone who cannot see this does not understand anything. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/230 "2011-06-16T13:40:36Z")
Holding the population at 200 million? How would you accomplish that? I mean after we erected the 50-foot electrified wall around the entire country? Chinese-style ‘one child rule?’ Forced abortions? Death panels? Thunderdome every Friday night? What? I’m sorry, but someone who can float the idea that all we need to do is to keep the population from growing at all, as though one could pass a law and that’s all it would take, can’t really be taken seriously in this, or pretty much any, debate. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/231 "2011-06-16T13:52:53Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Holding the population at 200 million? How would you accomplish that? I mean after we erected the 50-foot electrified wall around the entire country? Chinese-style ‘one child rule?’ Forced abortions? Death panels? Thunderdome every Friday night? What?I’m sorry, but someone who can float the idea that all we need to do is to keep the population from growing at all, as though one could pass a law and that’s all it would take, can’t really be taken seriously in this, or pretty much any, debate. If the United States had stopped immigration in the 1960’s, instead of increasing immigration, our population would be less than 200 million and declining. We would have more and more farms, fields, forests each year, less and less pollution, and less and less debt with less and less energy imports. We perhaps would have just half the people in our country that we had in 1965. Our hiways and biways would be totally uncongested, and there would be no unemployment. If there is no immigration, the basic trend is for the population to decline. Even though the barn door has been left wide open since 1965, the best thing the USA could do today to help the environment is to immediately stop all immigration, and deport all 20 or30 illegals that are in the country to give an initial environmental bang . Fwer and fewer people in the USA would do the most to improve our environment, we will become less crowded, less polluted, less strain on our fresh water supplies, less traffic, less energy imports, less welfare, less crime, less debt, more forests and more wildlife, cleaner lakes and streams, and a healthier and happier life style for everyone. The solution to a better healthier cleaner environment in the USA is soooooo simple. **Population decline** > **[Population decline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline)** > > Population decline, also known as depopulation, is a reduction in a human population size. Throughout history, Earth's total human population has continued to grow, but projections suggest this long-term trend may be coming to an end. > From antiquity until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the global population grew very slowly, at about 0.04% per year. After about 1800 the growth rate accelerated to a peak of 2.1% annually during the 1962–1968 period, but since then, due to the worl... _A number of nations today are facing long term population decline, stretching from North Asia (Japan through to Eastern Europe through Russia including Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Germany, Hungary, and now Italy. Countries rapidly approaching long term population declines (but currently still growing, albeit slowly) include Greece, Spain, Cuba, Uruguay, Denmark, Finland, Austria and Lesotho._ ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/232 "2011-06-16T14:22:40Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > No need to create stawmen **GIGObuster**. I’m not saying that dealing with [US population growth](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85) (which is largely driven by immigration) alone would be sufficient. However, it is an issue as demonstrated by the water issue above. Accordingly, I’m still baffled at how you think US environmentalists should ignore US population growth. Now you are even denying what I said, but that is clear to many others. As noticed for the third time, you ignored what the environmentalists are actually saying, so I’m glad that you are conceding that. > [@](#): > > The idea that we greens should focus our efforts on combating immigration seems misguided, to say the least. Over consumption, carbon emissions, fossil fuel addiction, industrialized agriculture, peak oil—these are all massive environmental problems that we must tackle right now. Restricting the movements of the poor and the landless will do little to help get us there. However, helping to avoid a growth in climate refugees or using clean energy as a development tool just might. BTW just concentrating on water it is really clear that you are acting like a climate change denier. The article referred in the New York times from the university does not talk about immigration. > **[Climate and Environment](https://www.nytimes.com/section/climate?inline=nyt-classifier)** > > Sign up for the Climate Forward newsletter, for Times subscribers. Later studies still point at Global Warming as the most likely reason why water shortages are coming in the west. [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/26/207967/news-climate-change-worsens-western-water-woes-gas-prices-slam-mobility-and-obamas-popularity-too/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/26/207967/news-climate-change-worsens-western-water-woes-gas-prices-slam-mobility-and-obamas-popularity-too/) The pedantic reason why even the department of the interior does not deal much with immigration regarding water is that [http://www.usbr.gov/research/science-and-tech/proposals/evaluation/social.html](http://www.usbr.gov/research/science-and-tech/proposals/evaluation/social.html) > [@](#): > > Since we do not know what the overall water ethic of immigrants will be, the effects of immigration on water demand are unknown And that brings us back to the issue at hand, once again, population, all population needs to be controlled, unfortunately for the inhumane proponents, it is mostly a thing that will have to be imposed voluntary. However, once again, the fake environmentalists demonstrate that they are not interested in doing anything about the carbon footprint. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/233 "2011-06-16T14:39:36Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > If there is no immigration, the basic trend is for the population to decline. Even though the barn door has been left wide open since 1965, the best thing the USA could do today to help the environment is to immediately stop all immigration, and deport all 20 or30 illegals that are in the country to give an initial environmental bang . > > Fwer and fewer people in the USA would do the most to improve our environment, we will become less crowded, less polluted, less strain on our fresh water supplies, less traffic, less energy imports, less welfare, less crime, less debt, more forests and more wildlife, cleaner lakes and streams, and a healthier and happier life style for everyone. > > The solution to a better healthier cleaner environment in the USA is soooooo simple. Is not that simple and that solution of yours is not even mentioned by any cite that is not a nativist one, simply because it would still ignore most of the descendants… that are already American citizens. [http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-the-hypocrisy-of-hate](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-the-hypocrisy-of-hate) > [@](#): > > The arguments being made by the nativists today — in a nutshell, that immigration drives population increase and that a growing population is the main driver of environmental degradation — have in the last 15 years been rejected by the mainstream of the environmental movement as far too simplistic. The allegation that immigrants are responsible for urban sprawl, for example, ignores the fact that most immigrants live in dense, urban neighborhoods and do not contribute significantly to suburban or exurban sprawl. In a similar way, most conservationists have come to believe that many of the world’s most intractable environmental problems, including global warming, can only be solved by dealing with them on a worldwide, not a nation-by-nation, basis. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/234 "2011-06-16T14:53:08Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > _bonk, bonk_ MCFLY ?! HELLO ? ANYBODY HOME ? That bogus concern has already been shot down. More population does not imply more sprawl & destruction of wildlife. “Shot down” in your own mind. The water issue is real. People require X gallons of water a day. The Colorado river basin, for instance, provides Y gallons of water. Only so many people can be sustained. As far as your “sprawl”, it’s not so much that people must live in sprawl, but that greater numbers mean more land must be used to sustain them. More land for farming. More land for ranching. And these activities place additional strains on the environment. Then, yes, there is also the land people have to live on. We can build upward, but that means more construction, using more resources, and then having to transport more goods to those cities from afar. So, no, nothing has been “shot down”. Another thing that hasn’t been done is you answering the questions I asked in Post 123: [QUOTE=magellan01] Let me ask you this: how many people do you think the U.S. ecosystem can support without great stress? Surely there is a point, right? Where do you think that point is? [/QUOTE] You responded to this by pointing to Belgium and Switzerland, but never answered the questions. Would you? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/235 "2011-06-16T14:56:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that brings us back to the issue at hand, once again, population, all population needs to be controlled, unfortunately for the inhumane proponents, it is mostly a thing that will have to be imposed voluntary. However, once again, the fake environmentalists demonstrate that they are not interested in doing anything about the carbon footprint. If it is valid to, as you say, look at the population as a whole, is it also valid in your mind to look at ways in which that population might spike? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/236 "2011-06-16T15:15:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > “Shot down” in your own mind. The water issue is real. People require X gallons of water a day. The Colorado river basin, for instance, provides Y gallons of water. Only so many people can be sustained. In that area. > [@](#): > > As far as your “sprawl”, it’s not so much that people must live in sprawl, but that greater numbers mean more land must be used to sustain them. More land for farming. More land for ranching. And these activities place additional strains on the environment. No. The US is nowhere near its peak food production, exports far more than it consumes and (just like Europe) even subsidies farmers to destroy the crops they’ve raised so as not to tank crop prices. Try again. > [@](#): > > Then, yes, there is also the land people have to live on. We can build upward, but that means more construction, using more resources, and then having to transport more goods to those cities from afar. So, no, nothing has been “shot down”. Ah yes, I would see how building a 2 story building would require more materials and resources than 2x1 story ones. Wait, actually no, that’s a stupid argument. In fact, this whole line or argument of yours is the opposite of truth, since concentrated housing centralizes things like water distribution, heating, power, food distribution etc… instead of doubling up on them and multiplying the waste exponentially. > [@](#): > > You responded to this by pointing to Belgium and Switzerland, but never answered the questions. Would you? I did, akshully. I gave you an arbitrary 1.5 billion ballpark figure, which in my mind is still far from a point of great stress, though I suppose it also depends on what you define as “great stress”. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/237 "2011-06-16T15:39:34Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > The solution to a better healthier cleaner environment in the USA is soooooo simple. There is always a well-known solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong. – H.L. Mencken ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/238 "2011-06-16T15:58:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If it is valid to, as you say, look at the population as a whole, is it also valid in your mind to look at ways in which that population might spike? Yes, as mentioned many times, I guess the best way to drive the missed point is to ask this: How does that assumption work, that dealing with population as a whole means that automatically, as some in this discussion continue to say, the immigrants will not inconvenienced too? Because that is the inevitable conclusion one has to reach if one continues this silly line of discussion. It is only by assuming that immigrants have magical powers that the immigrants that are already here and their descendants will not have to deal with the restrictions and changes of behavior that will be needed to control the population (And I’m already on the record with relatives that we should stop having many babies). As it is, economics are also helping demonstrate how immigrants can not use magic to avoid current issues, on the news it was mentioned that the recession has discouraged ideas to sprawl further as new residential construction and improvements are now going to the city centers. Also when things like a carbon tax are in place it would be really silly to assume that immigrants will not have to deal with that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/239 "2011-06-16T16:28:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, as mentioned many times, I guess the best way to drive the missed point is to ask this: > > How does that assumption work, that dealing with population as a whole means that automatically, as some in this discussion continue to say, the immigrants will not inconvenienced too? > > Because that is the inevitable conclusion one has to reach if one continues this silly line of discussion. > > It is only by assuming that immigrants have magical powers that the immigrants that are already here and their descendants will not have to deal with the restrictions and changes of behavior that will be needed to control the population (And I’m already on the record with relatives that we should stop having many babies). > > As it is, economics are also helping demonstrate how immigrants can not use magic to avoid current issues, on the news it was mentioned that the recession has discouraged ideas to sprawl further as new residential construction and improvements are now going to the city centers. Also when things like a carbon tax are in place it would be really silly to assume that immigrants will not have to deal with that. Thanks for this response. But while I understand what you say here and have little problem with it, you didn’t actually answer what I was asking. My question was: If it is valid to, as you say, look at the population as a whole, is it also valid in your mind to look at ways in which that population might spike? > [@](#): > > If it is valid to, as you say, look at the population as a whole, is it also valid in your mind to look at ways in which that population might spike? I was trying to understand if you though it was valid to look at ways how the population might spike. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/240 "2011-06-16T16:50:30Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > In that area. Yeah. And that area is vast. The basin supplies water to upwards over 25 million people. It is not, as you said a few posts up, a “local” issue. It comprises the entire Southwest. And there are other vast water basins that take up a big chunk of the country and supply water to similarly large swaths of people. The amount of people a water basin can sustain is finite. And there are finite water sources. > [@Kobal2](#): > > No. The US is nowhere near its peak food production, exports far more than it consumes and (just like Europe) even subsidies farmers to destroy the crops they’ve raised so as not to tank crop prices. Try again. What the hell do you mean by “no”. What part of what I wrote is incorrect: > [@](#): > > As far as your “sprawl”, it’s not so much that people must live in sprawl, but that greater numbers mean more land must be used to sustain them. More land for farming. More land for ranching. And these activities place additional strains on the environment. Please point to the specific points you think are wrong and explain why. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Ah yes, I would see how building a 2 story building would require more materials and resources than 2x1 story ones. > Wait, actually no, that’s a stupid argument. Well, then it’s a good thing I didn’t make it. So you simply responded to a stupid argument that no one made. ::shrug:: > [@Kobal2](#): > > In fact, this whole line or argument of yours is the opposite of truth, since concentrated housing centralizes things like water distribution, heating, power, food distribution etc… instead of doubling up on them and multiplying the waste exponentially. You might be interested to know that an “argument” is not measured by “truth”. Facts are measured by truth. Arguments are measured by validity. and what you wrote does not counter my point. So, as you say, try again. > [@Kobal2](#): > > I did, akshully. I gave you an arbitrary 1.5 billion ballpark figure, which in my mind is still far from a point of great stress, though I suppose it also depends on what you define as “great stress”. Okay. Is this based on any science, or just your opinion. It’s fine if it’s just an opinion. I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from. What level of confidence do you have that your arbitrary number is sustainable? Do you have any evidence to support it? Have you taken into account the amount of water needed for people? The additional farmland needed? The amount of water needed to irrigate this additional farmland? The impact of increasing the amount of food and other essential goods by 500%? The amount of extra fuel required. How many more roads and bridges will have to be built, or how much more often they will need to be repaired? The degree the air quality in cities will be worsened by increasing their density? The effects on the oceans lakes and rivers as we put greater demands on them for food? Etc.? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=13)