# 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:** 18
**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 18, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/341 "2011-06-18T16:59:25Z")
> [@RaleighRally](#): > > Can’t you read? The reason they are pro-immigration is that they feel safer in a multicultural environment. They don’t care about the immigrants. Funny how it works, chances are that they will be also immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, they are also the targets of this efforts to link environmentalism with the removal of immigrants. > [@RaleighRally](#): > > They just care about what’s best for their own wellbeing. Just like the nativists. If you **really** want to help poor people, you should not take them to the US at all. Here’s a video to educate you: [Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE) And that is not the subject at hand. The reality is that scientists that are involved in the issue can not set policy, they can only recommend and point out that elements like immigration are not in the scope of the overall issue. > **[Speaking science to climate policy](https://theconversation.com/speaking-science-to-climate-policy-1548)** > > CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: CSIRO’s James Risbey explains why it’s not “alarmist” to describe the threat of climate change to the public and how the climate system will respond to half measures. With… > [@](#): > > With many issues to be considered in setting a climate policy one can end up wondering what the role of climate science is in all this. > > After all, climate science doesn’t tell us what to do. It doesn’t tell us whether to have a carbon price or where it should be set. Those decisions ultimately involve a range of normative and deliberative issues which are beyond the scope of climatology. > > Climatology can tell us, however, what is likely to happen if we don’t act, or if we don’t act with sufficient speed to keep total emissions within specific carbon allocations. > > There is no single threshold above which climate change is dangerous and below which it is safe. There is a spectrum of impacts. But some of the largest impacts are effectively irreversible and the thresholds for them are very near. > > In particular, the melting and breakdown of polar ice sheets seems to be in the vicinity of a couple of degrees warming. This expectation is based on current high rates of mass loss from the ice sheets compared to relative stability through the Holocene (the past 10,000 years) and on past ice sheet response in periods such as the Pliocene (a few million years ago) when the Earth was a couple of degrees warmer than preindustrial times (and sea level up to 25m higher). > > We have already had about 0.8°C warming globally, with another third of a degree locked in by the inertia of the climate system. > > That leaves, somewhat optimistically, perhaps a degree or so of wiggle room. Translating that into carbon emissions, if we wish to keep the total warming below about 2°C (with 50% chance), then we have a total global carbon emission allocation of between about 800 and 1000Gt carbon. > > We have already emitted about 550Gt, leaving perhaps another 250–450Gt. Current global emissions are about 10Gt per year, growing at roughly 3% per year. > > That leaves a few decades at present rates before having committed to 2°C warming and crossing the expected thresholds for ice sheet disintegration. And that is for a 50% chance of not crossing the 2°C threshold. For more comfortable odds of staying within the threshold, the total carbon allocation drops and so the time to threshold is even shorter. Looking at the time we have, it is folly to concentrate on immigration, this was the reason why other people said that it would not make a dent to the main issue. And that is why they can then mention that: > [@](#): > > A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businesspeople are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity. > > At the other extreme, **understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.** > > Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny. And the part of the scrutiny that the navitists are counting is precisely for most people to not deal with the reality that most of the movers in the nativists groups are well to do and with a carbon footprint that stomps many times over the puny ones of the immigrants. It is also one reason why when the time comes to demonstrate action they demonstrate that they support people or elect people that deny the science behind global warming. > [@Kobal2](#): > > 1. Yes it is. > 2. Tanton’s the supremacist. > 3. It’s not being attacked on the same grounds. Reading comprehension, dude. > 4. And since the Sierra Club is the only environmentalist thinktank out there… oh wait, it’s not ! > 5. If it didn’t convince people then, why do you think it’s going to be convincing now ? > > Look, whatever, don’t bother. You’re right, I made a mistake. I started engaging you in dialogue again. Couldn’t help myself. I apologize and I won’t do it again. And yes, reading comprehension is the biggest problem for him. I’m done with him here. What I will do is just continue to point out at items like why one pedantic reason immigration is not a big component of the big issue is that it is beyond the scope of the science. As for where he is coming from and who is really manipulating guys like him, that requires another thread. > **[Chen019: A bigger fool that follows other fools](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=612913)** > > Our resident fool just can not notice when his mild evil schemes are being hijacked by someone more evil. Hence the need to deal with population as a whole. And at the same time tackle the issue globally. The evil, as it is sad for you for some... ---
**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 18, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/342 "2011-06-18T19:44:56Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Sorry, I’ve been conversing with GIGO Buster for so long I’m not used to someone engaging in dialogue. I keep repeating it because he/she simply keeps reciting the same stawmen arguments about population growth not being the only issue & about whether or not some groups lobby against climate change. Look, here’s my very very last comment on the subject, because it’s gone long past silly: Your and **magellan** ’s arguments alike seem to boil down to: “all other things being equal, a smaller population would entail a smaller environmental impact”, correct ? That’s not a caricature, is it ? The big, glaring problem and obvious missing of the point there is that honest-to-god environmentalists do not \*want \*all others things to be equal. They’ve been screaming in your ears for decades that **all others things must change**. Fuck all other things. You can’t keep them, period, end of story. You can not keep the American apple pie stars 'n stripes way of life going the way it’s going now and expect it to work out Owkay, pilgrim. That ship has sailed, went past the horizon and sunk when it collided with the last of the half-melted icebergs. Tweaking immigration up or down won’t change that hard truth one bit. So this whole “weeeeeell, environment issues are complex and changing the lifestyle of the whole country is going to be veeery difficult, but at _least_ we can all agree on the immigration bit, right ?” angle you’re trying to move is a non-starter on two grounds: - first, because there are a lot of Tantons out there who do use that angle to try and legitimize their racist bullshit, which is _the_ reason you’re looking for if it were true that environmentalists are scared of coming out openly with ideas on population control - if they’re scared to be labelled as racists, it’s because that’s the line actual racists come up with. If you want to blame someone for that situation, don’t rag on the PC police, rag on the fucking racists for muddying the waters ; - and second, because a lot of lawmaking critters who are unfavourable to immigration for a slew of base electoral reasons would just jump on it, enable the changes, leave it at that and call it environmental cred, all the while nixing any _actual_ eco-friendly controls and measures for more base electoral reasons. IOW, using and abusing the environment for their own ends, only metaphorically on top of literally. Bottom line is: the immigration angle, to the dubious extent that it is an actual environmental concern (and as demonstrated so far, that’s still up in the air to me), is wholly counter-productive to serious, systemic, meaningful environmental policies. So in this particular case, yes Virginia, passing the big ticket items does and cannot but trump piddling wins and marginal effects. Openly supporting immigration control (as the sole item of population control, which BTW encompasses a slew of other means which for some reason you don’t seem to consider…) would just be handing the sleaziest of politicos the stick to assfuck you with and not call you in the morning. At the risk of repeating myself, this would be clear to you if you were in any way, shape or form \*really \*concerned about the environment rather than just brown people moving in. ---
**Author:** ![RaleighRally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@RaleighRally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaleighRally)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/343 "2011-06-18T20:30:57Z")
The point I am trying to make is that you can officially advocate for something good, and at the same time have an unofficial agenda that is serving your own interests. That’s the way the world usually works and I can’t understand why you are so upset about it ONLY when it comes to “environment-\>immigration”. ---
**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 18, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/344 "2011-06-18T20:34:27Z")
> [@RaleighRally](#): > > The point I am trying to make is that you can officially advocate for something good, and at the same time have an unofficial agenda that is serving your own interests. That’s the way the world usually works and I can’t understand why you are so upset about it ONLY when it comes to “environment-\>immigration”. Because, as it was mentioned before, that is not the only issue the nativists organizations mentioned are, and in the end, what they are doing is making the issue worse. ---
**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 18, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/345 "2011-06-18T21:02:34Z")
> [@RaleighRally](#): > > The point I am trying to make is that you can officially advocate for something good, and at the same time have an unofficial agenda that is serving your own interests. And my point has nothing to do with self-interest or the blaming thereof. Hell, ecology _is_ self-interest in the first place. All the crunchy granola hippies in the world who’ll tell you ecology is about saving the pandas have shit for brains. Ecology is not about preserving doe-eyed pristine nature from mankind, it’s about preserving _mankind_ from mankind. It’s a purely utilitarian concept. The endgame of current ecological efforts is not Nature Triumphant, it’s mankind lasting one more millenium before new and exciting fuckups arise. My point is that, if your cite (which to be perfectly frank seems as legit to me as a 3$ wooden coin) is to be taken at face value, Them Jews are pro immigration for self-serving reasons, ergo they support immigration. Which is an altogether different thing entirely from being against immigration for self-serving reasons, and on that basis pretending to support the Greens simply because supporting anti-immigration on a directly nativist platform wouldn’t get enough votes in. Either your ideas stand on their own two legs, or they don’t. Tarting them up otherwise achieves nothing but corrupting the democratic idea by getting people to vote against their own best interest. You might argue that the ends justify the means, but then We the People might just tell you to get bent just like Machiavelli did the dishonest moral vacuum he was ironically raving against in the first place. And as to that Sierra Club donor being one of Them Jews, besides the :dubious: factor of unironically playing the Them Jews card, you can point at the other side doing the same thing all you want, _it doesn’t make your side right._ ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/346 "2011-06-18T22:16:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [QUOTE=RaleighRally] > Originally Posted by RaleighRally > They just care about what’s best for their own wellbeing. Just like the nativists. If you really want to help poor people, you should not take them to the US at all. Here’s a video to educate you: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs And that is not the subject at hand. [/QUOTE] What **RaleighRally** offered is fascinating. But you are right, it is not the subject at hand. But neither is this: > [@](#): > > With many issues to be considered in setting a climate policy one can end up wondering what the role of climate science is in all this. > > After all, climate science doesn’t tell us what to do. It doesn’t tell us whether to have a carbon price or where it should be set. Those decisions ultimately involve a range of normative and deliberative issues which are beyond the scope of climatology. > > Climatology can tell us, however, what is likely to happen if we don’t act, or if we don’t act with sufficient speed to keep total emissions within specific carbon allocations. > > There is no single threshold above which climate change is dangerous and below which it is safe. There is a spectrum of impacts. But some of the largest impacts are effectively irreversible and the thresholds for them are very near. > > In particular, the melting and breakdown of polar ice sheets seems to be in the vicinity of a couple of degrees warming. This expectation is based on current high rates of mass loss from the ice sheets compared to relative stability through the Holocene (the past 10,000 years) and on past ice sheet response in periods such as the Pliocene (a few million years ago) when the Earth was a couple of degrees warmer than preindustrial times (and sea level up to 25m higher). > > We have already had about 0.8°C warming globally, with another third of a degree locked in by the inertia of the climate system. > > That leaves, somewhat optimistically, perhaps a degree or so of wiggle room. Translating that into carbon emissions, if we wish to keep the total warming below about 2°C (with 50% chance), then we have a total global carbon emission allocation of between about 800 and 1000Gt carbon. > > We have already emitted about 550Gt, leaving perhaps another 250–450Gt. Current global emissions are about 10Gt per year, growing at roughly 3% per year. > > That leaves a few decades at present rates before having committed to 2°C warming and crossing the expected thresholds for ice sheet disintegration. And that is for a 50% chance of not crossing the 2°C threshold. For more comfortable odds of staying within the threshold, the total carbon allocation drops and so the time to threshold is even shorter. Or this: > [@](#): > > A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businesspeople are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity. > > At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes. > > Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny. The OP is not about global warming (as much as you’d like it to be). It is about sustainability, the ways population and immigration relate to it, and the extent to which environmentalists did an about-face on the issue and are afraid of it. Now it might very well be that global trumps these considerations, but that does not mean that they are not valid considerations in their own right. One valid consideration is the environmental health, not of the _globe_, but of a particular region, or nation. One can very well be concerned about global warming _and_ the health of particular ecosystems or areas. Rather than be chalked up as a failing, you should be thrilled that there are people out there looking at global warming AND other environmental issues. But it does seem that your emotions regarding the issue get in the way of you acknowledging some basic facts. Even when you agree that other issues are valid, and being concerned locally is valid, you in the next breadth revert back to a blustery dismissal of the issue of environmental health/sustainability/population as “silly”. ---
**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 18, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/347 "2011-06-18T22:19:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What **RaleighRally** offered is fascinating. But you are right, it is not the subject at hand. > > But neither is this: > Or this: > The OP is not about global warming (as much as you’d like it to be). It is about sustainability Nope, as mentioned before Chen cited on the next post what the nativists groups were also doing: claiming that dealing with immigration would also be a way to deal with the carbon footprint issue. ---
**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 18, 2011, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/348 "2011-06-18T22:32:37Z")
BTW there are Professors of Sustainability among the group that I cited that you are claiming now that are not related to this. So, on the contrary, sustainability experts also see the carbon footprint as the issue that can not be ignored by sustainability experts. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/349 "2011-06-18T22:35:25Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Look, here’s my very very last comment on the subject, because it’s gone long past silly: > > Your and **magellan** ’s arguments alike seem to boil down to: “ **all other things being equal, a smaller population would entail a smaller environmental impact** ”, correct ? That’s not a caricature, is it ? (bolding mine) Actually, that’s you turning a fact into a caricature, in an attempt to make it easier to dismiss. Unfortunately, it is still a FACT. Whether uttered by Tanton, a disciple of Tanton, someone who once saw Tanton from afar, the spawn of Eva Braun and Attila the Hun, or (cue Angels) Al Gore, it is still a fact that _all things being equal, a smaller population will place less stress on the environment._ > [@Kobal2](#): > > …Openly supporting immigration control (as the sole item of population control, which BTW encompasses a slew of other means which for some reason you don’t seem to consider…) would just be handing the sleaziest of politicos the stick to assfuck you with and not call you in the morning. It appears from this that you acknowledge that there is, in fact, legitimacy to the position regarding immigration. The important thing is that you don’t admit that legitimacy publicly for fear that a group you dislike would gain some voice in the environmental conversation. A voice that might steal a few molecules of oxygen from the global warming issue and/or result in giving new support to immigration controls. The first of those two is a more valid position, as it is focused on the environment. But even that does not change the FACT that: _ **all things being equal, a smaller population will place less stress on the environment.** _ Really. It doesn’t. > [@Kobal2](#): > > At the risk of repeating myself, this would be clear to you if you were in any way, shape or form \*really \*concerned about the environment rather than just brown people moving in. Oh, you so want to insist that this is about race. But the facts supported by the sierra Club and the Clinton group were true then and true now. It doesn’t matter what color the people are, population matters. Immigration is just a means by which the population can grow more rapidly. But that doesn’t sound racist, so you’ll have none of it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/350 "2011-06-18T22:38:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW there are Professors of Sustainability among the group that I cited that you are claiming now that are not related to this. So, on the contrary, sustainability experts also see the carbon footprint as the issue that can not be ignored by sustainability experts. Can you not digest that both global warming and sustainability are valid things to look at. Just as over-fishing and coral reefs both play a role in the health of our oceans? It is not either-or. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/351 "2011-06-18T22:42:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, as mentioned before Chen cited on the next post what the nativists groups were also doing: claiming that dealing with immigration would also be a way to deal with the carbon footprint issue. So? They are right—if they are looking at the carbon footprint of the U.S., which is what they were looking at. They were looking at sustainability within the U.S., immigration into the U.S. Now, it may not be the most effective way to deal with the carbon footprint issue, even within the U.S., but that does not make it invalid. If you have a list of the all the ways that people can help stop global warming, not everything past #1 is invalid. ---
**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 18, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/352 "2011-06-18T22:43:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The first of those two is a more valid position, as it is focused on the environment. But even that does not change the FACT that: _ **all things being equal, a smaller population will place less stress on the environment.** _ Duh, and once again there is that magical power to separate populations. What it was explained before by other experts, is that only magic will give us that smaller population by concentrating on immigration. (The local water report from Colorado specifically mentions global warming as the big issue and population on the whole) ---
**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 18, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/353 "2011-06-18T22:47:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So? They are right—if they are looking at the carbon footprint of the U.S., which is what they were looking at. They were looking at sustainability within the U.S., immigration into the U.S. Now, it may not be the most effective way to deal with the carbon footprint issue, even within the U.S., but that does not make it invalid. If you have a list of the all the ways that people can help stop global warming, not everything past #1 is invalid. Now this I have to see, do you have a non nativist or serious source putting immigration in the list? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/354 "2011-06-18T22:59:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Now this I have to see, do you have a non nativist or serious source putting immigration in the list? No. From a global standpoint (as I said earlier) borders are meaningless. Arbitrary. And I’m certainly not going to spend my time looking for a cite that 1) doesn’t matter and 2) might point to a study done by a guy who once met Tanton at a cocktail party and have you discount it by categorizing him as “nativist”, “racist”. But focus on my #1. ---
**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 18, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/355 "2011-06-18T23:09:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. From a global standpoint (as I said earlier) borders are meaningless. Arbitrary. And I’m certainly not going to spend my time looking for a cite that 1) doesn’t matter and 2) might point to a study done by a guy who once met Tanton at a cocktail party and have you discount it by categorizing him as “nativist”, “racist”. But focus on my #1. That figures… Where experts are concerned, immigrants are at best considered as part of the population and when dealing with the issue, population is what matters. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/356 "2011-06-18T23:12:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That figures… Good. Then you do understand my position, finally. 🙂 ---
**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 18, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/357 "2011-06-18T23:23:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Good. Then you do understand my position, finally. 🙂 Nah, it just means that you cannot support what you say, the experts that matter are not impressed by your line of thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/358 "2011-06-18T23:29:11Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Look, here’s my very very last comment on the subject, because it’s gone long past silly: > > Your and **magellan** ’s arguments alike seem to boil down to: “all other things being equal, a smaller population would entail a smaller environmental impact”, correct ? That’s not a caricature, is it ? > t… > Bottom line is: the immigration angle, to the dubious extent that it is an actual environmental concern (and as demonstrated so far, that’s still up in the air to me), is wholly counter-productive to serious, systemic, meaningful environmental policies. No, you’ve completely missed the point raised above. Population growth is seen as a threat to environmental sustainability in the US. I’ve provided you with basic examples in terms of [water supply](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water) in the [Southwest](http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61). So from an environmental perspective it is negligent to avoid immigration, when that is the main cause of [population growth in the US](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85). > [@](#): > > If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82% of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants, according to new projections developed by the Pew Research Center. > > Of the 117 million people added to the population during this period due to the effect of new immigration, 67 million will be the immigrants themselves and 50 million will be their U.S.-born children or grandchildren. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2011, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/359 "2011-06-19T16:03:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Duh, and once again there is that magical power to separate populations. You mentioned something like this a few times, and I have to ask, what is so “magical” about looking at a specific population separately? By definition people seeking to emigrate into the U.S. are a distinct, "separate population. We decide how large that group is every year. We can either ad 1,000, 1,000,000, 5,000, 50,000, to our population or not. We stress the U.S. environment by a specific number or do we do not. What is so “magical” about this? ---
**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 19, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/360 "2011-06-19T16:41:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You mentioned something like this a few times, and I have to ask, what is so “magical” about looking at a specific population separately? By definition people seeking to emigrate into the U.S. are a distinct, "separate population. We decide how large that group is every year. We can either ad 1,000, 1,000,000, 5,000, 50,000, to our population or not. We stress the U.S. environment by a specific number or do we do not. What is so “magical” about this? The reality that in the context of the sources used, the number of immigrants needed to be removed to make a dent on the issue include the descendants of the immigrants, even the descendants of immigrants going back to after the revolutionary war if we take one of the iffy sources. Good luck on that. Controlling the issue means that, for example, putting a tax on carbon, on excessive water use and doing other sprawling controlling measures will more effectively take care of the population increase issue as it will drive the point to all people to the real cost of bringing another mouth to feed to the world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=19)