# 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:** 13
**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, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/241 "2011-06-16T17:17:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I was trying to understand if you though it was valid to look at ways how the population might spike. I said yes, didn’t I? I begin to think that you do not like the answer that environmentalists, specially when dealing with global warming, are also dealing with the population of immigrants. The reason why I do say yes is because there are many more factors that are ignored when immigration is the only one issue that in practice the nativists are dealing with. What I see now regarding the big picture: one side is worrying about population increase as a whole, and it worries also about carbon emissions. The other side worries about immigration alone, and what is tragic, is that they are also missing that ignoring in practice the emissions part of the equation will mean that we will get a bigger rise of future displacements, in other words, more immigrants but this time as refugees. > **[A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change](https://skepticalscience.com/Convention-for-Persons-Displaced-by-Climate-Change.html)** > > A short piece for the general audience of RTR radio, Perth, Australia. (listen to the original audio podcast)There are many reasons why climate change is also a legal issue. One reason is because climate change is expected to cause much displacement,... Yes, the nativists try to say that they work for the environment, but it has been shown that the favored elected officials by the nativists are just busy now blocking any efforts to deal with carbon emissions. As someone said: By their fruits you shall know them. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/242 "2011-06-16T18:04:59Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > 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 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline) > _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._ Why 1960? Why not 1860? If we had stopped all immigration since 1860, our population would _really_ be low! ---
**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, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/243 "2011-06-16T18:16:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Until you’ve got numbers showing that there are water shortages across the US and that the projected 470something million blokes \*\*Chen \*\*keeps whinging about would make a dent, I still fail to see what this has to do with anything. Yes. Water is finite. Resources are finite. Got that. There is a ceiling. Got that too. That is immaterial in absolute. If you’ve got a cite that these limits have been or will be reached in the projectable future, bring it. If not, you’re just spreading alarmism and FUD. > [@](#): > > What the hell do you mean by “no”. What part of what I wrote is incorrect The part where more people = more wilderness turned into fields. It is not correct, because a) the US is already farmed exhaustively and b) that exhaustive farming is not used to capacity. So more people does not, in fact, imply more farming. > [@](#): > > 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:: Just like **Chen** , you must be made aware that people can scroll up and see what you fucking wrote. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, it does. Your argument it is not valid because what you base it on is not factual, i.e. not true. Also, I’m the linguistic pedant here ! Know your place ! 🙂 > [@](#): > > 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? My evidence is that these levels of population density have proven viable and sustainable elsewhere without tanking the environment. That’s about it. I’m not on the Sierra Club board. If you want a more factual number, go dig it up. > [@](#): > > 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? We’ve been there. No additional farmland is required. > [@](#): > > 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.? Yup. Switzerland is a post-apocalyptic desert where mutant ghouls choke on diesel fumes while they’re forced to build roads, roads, roads everywhere. Now, do you have any \*actual \*counter-data, or do you feel JAQing off is an actual counter-argument ? ---
**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, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/244 "2011-06-16T21:05:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. > … > 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. More illogical comments. Population growth is placing a [huge strain on water supplies in the US](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water#mwpphu-container). [Population growth is largely fueled by immigration](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85). Why is this off the table for you? Again, you’ve said you are not in favour of open borders. So would you support any reduction in immigration? It seems logical for environmentalists to point out that reducing population growth via reduced immigration is a sensible policy option. > [@](#): > > 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 > **[Read "Colorado River Basin Water Management: Evaluating and Adjusting to...](https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11857/chapter/4#61)** > > Read chapter 2 Historical and Contemporary Aspects of Colorado River Development: Recent studies of past climate and streamflow conditions have broadened ... ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/245 "2011-06-16T21:26:38Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > More illogical comments. Population growth is placing a [huge strain on water supplies in the US](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water#mwpphu-container). [Population growth is largely fueled by immigration](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85). Why is this off the table for you? Again, you’ve said you are not in favour of open borders. So would you support any reduction in immigration? It seems logical for environmentalists to point out that reducing population growth via reduced immigration is a sensible policy option. > > [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) Sorry but the one who is illogical is you. Dealing with population as a whole means that automatically the immigrants are also included and they will be inconvenienced and will have to follow new regulations like a carbon tax. What is really illogical is to continue to pretend that the cites that are not coming from nativists do not give too much weight to your “solution”. ---
**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, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/246 "2011-06-16T21:38:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sorry but the one who is illogical is you. > > Dealing with population as a whole means that automatically the immigrants are also included and they will be inconvenienced and will have to follow new regulations like a carbon tax. > > What is really illogical is to continue to pretend that the cites that are not coming from nativists do not give too much weight to your “solution”. Another illogical comment which manages to misrepresent what I’ve said. I haven’t talked about a single “solution”. I’ve called you out previously on this [strawman](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13921731&postcount=226). Now, will you please explain why immigration is simply out of bounds for you? 1. Population growth is placing a [strain on water resources](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13924016&postcount=244) (as just one environmental concern). 2. [Population growth is largely fueled by immigration.](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85) 3. Therefore reducing immigration would appear a smart way of reducing population growth. I think you have essentially already answered - you think this is inhumane. Is that right? ---
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/247 "2011-06-16T22:13:14Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Another illogical comment which manages to misrepresent what I’ve said. I haven’t talked about a single “solution”. Meh. Neither have I said on the quote that it was a “single” solution, as mentioned before, immigration is where you demand the focus to be and then you ignore what the focus of the fake environmentalists really is, hint: it is not about water. Their focus is also to laugh all the way to the bank and at people like you. As it should go without saying, it is only by your magic thinking that my points also do not fit points 1 Point 2 is really just denying that most of the descendants are American citizens already or that no further immigration reform will take place. And you are thinking that there is no way that environmentalists are also dealing with the immigrants by dealing with the population as a whole. It is not smart because, as demonstrated by your fake environmentalists, they are not lifting a finger to what will cause more refugees in the future. And that is clear when you dismissed the cites that show that thanks to global emissions the west is getting drier. ---
**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, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/248 "2011-06-16T23:06:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh. > > Neither have I said on the quote that it was a “single” solution, as mentioned before, immigration is where you demand the focus to be and then you ignore what the focus of the fake environmentalists really is, hint: it is not about water. > > Their focus is also to laugh all the way to the bank and at people like you. > > As it should go without saying, it is only by your magic thinking that my points also do not fit points 1 > > Point 2 is really just denying that most of the descendants are American citizens already or that no further immigration reform will take place. > > And you are thinking that there is no way that environmentalists are also dealing with the immigrants by dealing with the population as a whole. It is not smart because, as demonstrated by your fake environmentalists, they are not lifting a finger to what will cause more refugees in the future. I don’t demand that the focus is solely on immigration. I want to know why it is off the table for you. Why isn’t it an obvious policy option for environmentalists and others to alleviate the pressure of [popution growth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13924016&postcount=244) in the US? Again, it seems this is due to a deep ideological commitment on your part to never reduce immigration under any circumstances. Because you think that would be inhumane. Have I understood you correctly? ---
**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, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/249 "2011-06-16T23:35:17Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I don’t demand that the focus is solely on immigration. I want to know why it is off the table for you. Meh, like if I’m important. I already pointed to environmentalists and why they do not consider immigration the priority, and I agree with them. Population and other issues are, otherwise you are just beating around the bush. Personal angle: What it is really astonishing is that even when I told you already that I’m an immigrant, and it seems that that fact also sailed through you. But that is typical. 🙂 All people, all the world, will have to take their medicine, and I would rather deal with all trees on the forest rather that misleadingly assume that the carbon footprint issue will be taken care of just by dealing with immigrants. > [@Chen019](#): > > Why isn’t it an obvious policy option for environmentalists and others to alleviate the pressure of [popution growth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13924016&postcount=244) in the US? There comes a time to say that you are only JAQing to appeal to a shrinking audience. Once again, it is not an obvious policy because there is no followup whatsoever from the fake environmentalists. Even if by a miracle they put all stops to immigration the immigration situation will get worse if nothing is done on the fronts you are trying to ignore (yes, the same ones you are trying to claim that they are red herrings) > **[No more Americans, please - Salon.com](https://www.salon.com/2006/05/05/immigration_and_climate_change/)** > > Don't want to live like a climate change refugee. > [@](#): > > Arnold’s musings aren’t the first time the connection between immigration and climate change has been mulled. One year ago, a pair of scientists, Sujatha Byravan and Sudhir Chella Rajan, made a slightly different argument in Nature: Because climate change is likely to be most disruptive to developing nations, in particular those with large populations living near sea level, the rich nations that have been the most responsible for pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere should be required to allow the future immigration of the hundreds of millions of people likely to be displaced from their homes in the next century by rising sea levels. > > There is an elegant aspect to the proposition that the United States, responsible for 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, be forced to accept 20 percent of the climate-change displaced population, even if Byravan and Rajan’s suggestion does have something of a “modest proposal” tone. There’s no avoiding the conundrum: The richest, most developed countries that are largely responsible for causing climate change are also the countries with the resources to best adapt to climate change. > > You think illegal immigration from Mexico now is a problem? Wait until drought caused by climate change wipes out the mostly rain-fed farms of Mexico and Central America. Pressure to move north will only increase, as millions more risk their lives to reach a land of low fuel economy standards and “voluntary” targets for emission cuts. > [@Chen019](#): > > Again, it seems this is due to a deep ideological commitment on your part to never reduce immigration under any circumstances. Because you think that would be inhumane. Have I understood you correctly? No, as usual. If you had some imagination you would realize that moving to control population will also mean that there will be less descendants of the immigrants. What it is clearer now is that your ideology is the one that is preventing you to notice that fake environmentalists are just pandering to you, they have no intentions to do anything about the carbon footprint, and if that means that we will get more immigrants thanks to the inaction of their elected congress critter, they do not care. They have other sugar daddies on the denialist oil industry, you are just being played like a fiddle by them. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/250 "2011-06-17T00:00:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, like if I’m important. > > I already pointed to environmentalists and why they do not consider immigration the priority, and I agree with them. Population and other issues are, otherwise you are just beating around the bush. > > Personal angle: What it is really astonishing is that even when I told you already that I’m an immigrant, and it seems that that fact also sailed through you. > Once again, it is not an obvious policy because there is no followup whatsoever from the fake environmentalists. Even if by a miracle they put all stops to immigration the immigration situation will get worse if nothing is done on the fronts you are trying to ignore (yes, the same ones you are trying to claim that they are red herrings) 1. So that explains your personal ideological opposition to any restriction in immigration. I didn’t see you mention that previously. Your illogical opposition make a bit more sense now 🙂 You have heartfelt emotional reasons for it. 2. Yes, it is an obvious and sensible policy option because it is a controllable way of directly addressing population growth in the US. 3. I never said or suggested ignoring other environmental approaches. For the 3rd (4th?) time, this is a strawman you are intent on beating. ---
**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 17, 2011, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/251 "2011-06-17T00:11:27Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. So that explains your personal ideological opposition to any restriction in immigration. I didn’t see you mention that previously. Your illogical opposition make a bit more sense now 🙂 You have heartfelt emotional reasons for it. And now just pretend I did not mention it before, and also the points presented by the environmentalists that you where scared to deal with. > [@Chen019](#): > > 1. Yes, it is an obvious and sensible policy option because it is a controllable way of directly addressing population growth in the US. Talk is cheap. If from the beginning your heroes had not pretended to be environmentalists then dealing with immigration was a more valid position, it is bananas when the issue is environmental and global. > [@Chen019](#): > > 1. I never said or suggested ignoring other environmental approaches. For the 3rd (4th?) time, this is a strawman you are intent on beating. And even more cheap talk, you are not capable of bringing any example of your nativists orgs making even some pretend pressure on the elected congress critters they helped elect to office to do something about the carbon footprint issue. The action then is not there on what is a very important part of the issue. What this uncuriosity to examine the environmentalist actions of your heroes shows is that it is clear that they are continue to fool you. Drop the “they are environmentalists” charade. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/252 "2011-06-17T00:19:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And now just pretend I did not mention it before, and also the points presented by the environmentalists that you where scared to deal with. I honestly did not see you mention that previously. As I say, it does confirm my impression that you had a strong ideological position on immigration that prevented you from accepting basic logic. Regarding your other comments - please refer to the thread topic. It is my impression that the reluctance of some US environmentalists to address immigration as part of the suite of policy options is due to ideology. ---
**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 17, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/253 "2011-06-17T00:23:28Z")
Everyone should notice that he is claiming that I have illogically arrived to something only thanks to who I am, notice that he is then \*\*illogically \*\*dismissing all the points of the environmentalists cited just because of that. So I guess I should thank him for that direct evidence of who is really not doing this on good faith. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/254 "2011-06-17T00:26:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Everyone should notice that he is claiming that I have illogically arrived to something only thanks to who I am, notice that he is then \*\*illogically \*\*dismissing all the points of the environmentalists cited just because of that. > > So I guess I should thank him for that direct evidence of who is really not doing this on good faith. I thought you admitted that your own background was a factor in your refusal to consider reducing immigration? You were unable to provide any other rational reason for refusing to consider it as a means to address [population growth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13924016&postcount=244) in the US. ---
**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 17, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/255 "2011-06-17T00:35:54Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Regarding your other comments - please refer to the thread topic. And this was already demonstrated, real environmentalists are dealing with the issue on all fronts. Fake environmentalists do not, and are fooling many by concentrating on issues that are important, but not as much when taking a big picture view. Once we take into account the big picture, it is clear why the fake environmentalists are fake, they do not bother do do anything about the other interconnected problems. And this is denied by some in this thread. As it is also the denial that even papers in major journals are reporting that by not doing anything on the other interconnected problems like carbon footprints, then immigration will get worse. Denial of this is a small problem in this thread.\* Small because just a few are supporting you in all your points. As as we are finding out, your nativist heroes are losing big where it counts, so I’m not worried about convincing you. I post to inform others. ---
**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 17, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/256 "2011-06-17T00:38:53Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I thought you admitted that your own background was a factor in your refusal to consider reducing immigration? You were unable to provide any other rational reason for refusing to consider it as a means to address [population growth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13924016&postcount=244) in the US. And you should read it again, that was not the only reason why, what it is clear is that you already \*\*demonstrated \*\*that you will reach for personal (although mild) attacks in your efforts to ignore the points of others. So, why deny the points from the treehugger cite? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/257 "2011-06-17T00:40:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And this was already demonstrated, real environmentalists are dealing with the issue on all fronts. > > Fake environmentalists do not, and are fooling many by concentrating on issues that are important, but not as much when taking a big picture view. > > Once we take into account the big picture, it is clear why the fake environmentalists are fake, they do not bother do do anything about the other interconnected problems. And this is denied by some in this thread. > > As it is also the denial that even papers in major journals are reporting that by not doing anything on the other interconnected problems like carbon footprints, then immigration will get worse. Denial of this is a small problem in this thread. In other words - you’re an advocate not interested in discussing the thread topic. Perhaps you should start another debate thread on how to address environmental issues generally? \*\*Again - this thread is asking why environmentalists have been cowed into silence on immigration, when [population growth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13924016&postcount=244) is so clearly an issue. \*\* I also think your hostile comments about Professor Ben Zuckerman earlier perhaps provide some explanation. Who needs that kind of abuse? ---
**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 17, 2011, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/258 "2011-06-17T01:04:32Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > In other words - you’re an advocate not interested in discussing the thread topic. Perhaps you should start another debate thread on how to address environmental issues generally? > > Again - this thread is asking why environmentalists have been cowed into silence on immigration, when [population growth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13924016&postcount=244) is so clearly an issue. Denying that the carbon footprint issue will not make immigration worse is what you are attempting to do. Not bothering to analyze what the consequences of the real actions of the nativists is foolish. > [@Chen019](#): > > I also think your hostile comments about Professor Ben Zuckerman earlier perhaps provide some explanation. Who needs that kind of abuse? Anyone that is scapegoating others and only talking cheaply and not doing anything about the main issue needs it. (Really, a real environmentalist like James Hansen is willing to get arrested protesting government for not doing enough on carbon emissions, your heroes are not even producing a letter to the editor to denounce the current idiocy of conservative reps by attempting to stop emission controls) [http://www.splcenter.org/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-the-hypocrisy-of-hate/the-greening-of-hate-an-essay](http://www.splcenter.org/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-the-hypocrisy-of-hate/the-greening-of-hate-an-essay) > [@](#): > > The “keep them at home” refrain of the U.S. anti-immigrant movement assumes an automatic connection between immigration-related population growth and environmental degradation. But no such automatic connection exists. Take the issue of urban sprawl. In New England, where I live, sprawl has increased while population has decreased, a phenomenon that is occurring in many other urbanized areas in the U.S. experiencing population loss. Pittsburgh and Cleveland are two examples. “Smart growth” advocates identify the main causes of sprawl as poor land-use planning, zoning regulations and tax laws — not population growth and immigration. In other words, it’s not so much the number of people that matters, but how they live. As for all those traffic jams supposedly caused by immigrants, it’s America’s crazy love affair with the automobile, cheaply priced gasoline and lack of public transport that are at the real root of the problem. > > The argument that it’s better to keep poor people in poor countries so they consume less is just plain wrong on a number of counts. First, it diverts attention from the urgent need to address overconsumption: with only 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. presently consumes 20% of its resources. Whatever the rate of immigration, well-off Americans need to change their lifestyles for the future of the planet. > > Second, the assumption that immigrating to the U.S. necessarily turns people into super-consumers is a spurious one. Many immigrant communities bring with them traditions of greater respect for the environment. In my hometown of Amherst, Mass., Cambodian immigrants helped spur a revival in community gardens. In nearby Holyoke, Puerto Rican immigrants are revitalizing the depressed city in one of the most successful urban renewal and agriculture projects in the country, Nuestras Raíces (Our Roots). > > Third, protecting the environment does not mean you have to keep people poor. Contrary to anti-immigrant rhetoric, it’s possible to raise incomes and improve the environment at the same time. In the U.S., “green jobs” and “green recovery” programs represent a win-win strategy to provide decent employment and incomes, improve energy conservation, support green technological innovation, and fight global warming. All over the world, in rich and poor countries alike, people are using the climate crisis as an opportunity to link ecological goals with new kinds of economic and technological development that raise living standards without razing the environment. > > But the anti-immigrant movement has only one solution for global warming: stop immigration ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/259 "2011-06-17T01:28:45Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > \*\*Again - this thread is asking why environmentalists have been cowed into silence on immigration, when [population growth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13924016&postcount=244) is so clearly an issue. \*\* The most obvious answer would be that environmentalists perceive that overpopulation is a **global** issue, and how or where the population is distributed around the globe is of secondary importance. No one adds a straw of burden to the planet’s carrying capacity by sneaking across a border fence. The other answer would be that nobody **cowed** nobody for shit, what the fuck are you talking about?! ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/260 "2011-06-17T01:45:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The most obvious answer would be that environmentalists perceive that overpopulation is a **global** issue, and how or where the population is distributed around the globe is of secondary importance. No one adds a straw of burden to the planet’s carrying capacity by sneaking across a border fence. > > The other answer would be that nobody **cowed** nobody for shit, what the fuck are you talking about?! If you’re an environmentalist in the US it makes sense to be concerned about the local environment. Particularly, when you have the small matter of cities running [out of water](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water#mwpphu-container). > [@](#): > > 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 > **[Read "Colorado River Basin Water Management: Evaluating and Adjusting to...](https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11857/chapter/4#61)** > > Read chapter 2 Historical and Contemporary Aspects of Colorado River Development: Recent studies of past climate and streamflow conditions have broadened ... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=14)