# 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:** 19
**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 19, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/361 "2011-06-19T17:00:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > (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._ It’s a fact, but so far you have not demonstrated that it’s a fact that _matters_. All other things being equal, my ordering a pizza tonight strictly decreases the amount of pizzas available in my town - but it doesn’t really matter because there’s more than enough to go around. “It’s just \*\*moar \*\*!” is meaningless in a vacuum and without a frame of reference. For example, I pointed out on the very first page of this bear of a thread that carbon footprints are not linear. I do not know the variables myself (do you ?), but purely hypothetically if say: CF = 10,000 + 0.0002\*(million people) Then the impact of immigration would be negligible, relatively speaking. It’s even more negligible if, still hypothetically speaking, tweaking that “all other things” (by controlling emissions, pushing clean energy, etc…) would slash that initial constant in half. So, what I’m trying to say is that if you have a concrete analysis of the impact immigrants (or just each new million people) has on the total carbon footprint of the US, then bring it darling. But contenting yourself with clamouring that “it’s more !” won’t do the trick, I’m afraid. ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/362 "2011-06-19T17:19:14Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It’s a fact, but so far you have not demonstrated that it’s a fact that _matters_. That’s what people should be looking it. More people mean more stress on our resources and the environment. At what point does it “matter”? I don’t know. I want people to look at it. You don’t know, yet you want to not discuss it. We DO know that prior to the payoff the Sierra Club thought it was important. As did Clinton’s council. > [@Kobal2](#): > > All other things being equal, my ordering a pizza tonight strictly decreases the amount of pizzas available in my town - but it doesn’t really matter because there’s more than enough to go around. “It’s just \*\*moar \*\*!” is meaningless in a vacuum and without a frame of reference. Okay, but let’s say a convention is in town. The ability for a finite number of pizza shops to make fresh pizzas in a given night is finite. The amount of water in a particular area has limits. There is a point at which there are more people than a water basin, like the Colorado, can sustain. already the flow at its terminus has been reduced drastically. How many more people can the Southwest sustain? Isn’t that a valid thing for environmentalists to look at? > [@Kobal2](#): > > For example, I pointed out on the very first page of this bear of a thread that carbon footprints are not linear. I do not know the variables myself (do you ?), but purely hypothetically if say: > > CF = 10,000 + 0.0002\*(million people) > > Then the impact of immigration would be negligible, relatively speaking. It’s even more negligible if, still hypothetically speaking, tweaking that “all other things” (by controlling emissions, pushing clean energy, etc…) would slash that initial constant in half. > > So, what I’m trying to say is that if you have a concrete analysis of the impact immigrants (or just each new million people) has on the total carbon footprint of the US, then bring it darling. But contenting yourself with clamouring that “it’s more !” won’t do the trick, I’m afraid. Fine, let’s say carbon footprints are not linear. The FACT remains that even if immigrants will have smaller footprints than the average American, it IS STILL AN INCREASE. It is further stress on the environment and resources. Regardless of whether the new people have smaller carbon footprints, the fact remains: additional people = more stress. ---
**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, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/363 "2011-06-19T17:22:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. No one is talking about removing people. At least n ow I understand you emotionalism. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We are talking about understanding the role immigrants play in the U.S. sustainability equation, which we would then use to craft immigration policy—IN THE FUTURE! ---
**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 19, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/364 "2011-06-19T17:41:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s what people should be looking it. More people mean more stress on our resources and the environment. At what point does it “matter”? I don’t know. I want people to look at it. On this we can agree, yes. Argue for more studies and hard data then, not reducing immigration already. > [@](#): > > You don’t know, yet you want to not discuss it. It’s not that I don’t want to discuss it altogether. I simply refuse to discuss it on the simplistic terms \*\*Chen \*\*wants us to lap up unthinkingly. And I certainly refuse to opine on the sole basis that a passel of pseudo-ecologists with an ultra right-wing agenda said it was the solution to America’s problems. > [@](#): > > Okay, but let’s say a convention is in town. The ability for a finite number of pizza shops to make fresh pizzas in a given night is finite. The amount of water in a particular area has limits. There is a point at which there are more people than a water basin, like the Colorado, can sustain. already the flow at its terminus has been reduced drastically. How many more people can the Southwest sustain? Isn’t that a valid thing for environmentalists to look at? It is. And I’m more or less confident they are in fact looking at it. Why wouldn’t they ? But if on the one hand they’re not screaming bloody murder about immigration or current pop. growth, and on the other hand are in fact writing op-eds explaining why linking immigration with fucking up the environment is misleading and agenda-driven, then I would be inclined to believe that they’ve concluded that it wasn’t an insurmountable problem, at least for the time being. ---
**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, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/365 "2011-06-19T17:46:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No one is talking about removing people. At least n ow I understand you emotionalism. But that’s not what we’re talking about. Then cut the personal digs at me, it is clear that the cites were not used properly. The insistence on using the desendants of the immigrants (the pew cite is not despairing for that) outside of the context of the cite, reeks of the efforts of nativists groups to remove the 14th ammendment. > [@magellan01](#): > > We are talking about understanding the role immigrants play in the U.S. sustainability equation, which we would then use to craft immigration policy—IN THE FUTURE! The future, Conan? 🙂 As it has been pointed before, the future that will come thanks to the real efforts of the nativists groups, is to make the future immigration worse by actively working to elect people that in reality are climate change deniers. Instead of dealing in the future with regular immigrants, we will get more as refugees. Trying to avoid looking at what nativists and climate change deniers are actually doing with their pretend environmentalism now is a foolish thing. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/366 "2011-06-19T17:58:42Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > On this we can agree, yes. Argue for more studies and hard data then, not reducing immigration already. But isn’t that what the Sierra Club _was_ doing? And Clinton’s council? That is the concern. Environmental groups, starting with the eminent Sierra Club has walked away from the issue after being threatened. They are usually the ones that would look into the issue. But now they’re not. This is basically Chen’s concern. As far as I can tell, anyway. > [@Kobal2](#): > > It’s not that I don’t want to discuss it altogether. I simply refuse to discuss it on the simplistic terms \*\*Chen \*\*wants us to lap up unthinkingly. > And I certainly refuse to opine on the sole basis that a passel of pseudo-ecologists with an ultra right-wing agenda said it was the solution to America’s problems. I think you drastically overstate the degree to which anyone things it is THE solution to anything. I think it would help if you read what you’ve written in this post and reread the OP. I think you’ve made some assumptions and jumped to some some conclusions that were unnecessary. > [@Kobal2](#): > > It is. And I’m more or less confident they are in fact looking at it. Why wouldn’t they ? THIS is exactly Chen’s concern and question. His argument is that environmentally concerned types, like the Sierra Club, have been pushed to NOT look at the issue. He offers some evidence that points to them being blackmailed into it by someone with a non-environmetal concern. Surely you’d agree that if the geologist I mentioned felt his funding would be pulled or that he would be attacked professionally by people hurling accusations of “racist” and “natavist” at him. Can you see that the left, who is usually concerned with the environment might be doing themselves a disservice by, in essence, closing down an entire field of enquiry? > [@Kobal2](#): > > But if on the one hand they’re not screaming bloody murder about immigration or current pop. growth, and on the other hand are in fact writing op-eds explaining why linking immigration with fucking up the environment is misleading and agenda-driven, then I would be inclined to believe that they’ve concluded that it wasn’t an insurmountable problem, at least for the time being. I agree. If they were doing the things you mention it would help them make their point. But it really wouldn’t add to the credibility of their point. It would merely reduce attacks like the ones you find in this thread. Regardless, the science is the science. ---
**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, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/367 "2011-06-19T18:10:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Then cut the personal digs at me, it is clear that the cites were not used properly. It is not a dig. Read your own posts, you _have_ been emotional about this. And remembering that you said you were an immigrant, I simple pointed out that that made sense to me. That the emotionalism was not out of the blue. Still, if you took it as a dig, I’ll apologize, as it was not intended to be. And believe me, if I want to take a shot at you, you’ll know it. 😉 > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The insistence on using the desendants of the immigrants (the pew cite is not despairing for that) outside of the context of the cite, reeks of the efforts of nativists groups to remove the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is only a tangentially related issue. It’s a valid part of the discussion only to the degree that it increases illegal immigration. Whether that is teensy-weensy or mega-high is for another discussion. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/368 "2011-06-19T18:21:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It is not a dig. Read your own posts, you _have_ been emotional about this. And remembering that you said you were an immigrant, I simple pointed out that that made sense to me. That the emotionalism was not out of the blue. Still, if you took it as a dig, I’ll apologize, as it was not intended to be. > > And believe me, if I want to take a shot at you, you’ll know it. 😉 Read it again, the moderator was not amused when the other poster did reach for the same tactic. As demonstrated here the tactic is used to avoid dealing with the points I made. And to continue to ignore what other environmentalists, scientists and academics said about the issue. > [@magellan01](#): > > The 14th amendment is only a tangentially related issue. It’s a valid part of the discussion only to the degree that it increases illegal immigration. Whether that is teensy-weensy or mega-high is for another discussion. Unfortunately when dealing with nativist organizations that is part of the baggage. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/369 "2011-06-19T18:32:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And remembering that you said you were an immigrant, I simple pointed out that that made sense to me. That the emotionalism was not out of the blue. Still, if you took it as a dig, I’ll apologize, as it was not intended to be. And with that, let’s continue discussion of the issue- but please leave **GIGObuster** ’s emotional state out 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 19, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/370 "2011-06-19T18:36:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And with that, let’s continue discussion of the issue- but please leave **GIGObuster** ’s emotional state out of it. HA! Unbelievable. Comedy gold. Roger. Wilco. But thanks for the guffaw. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/371 "2011-06-19T18:52:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But isn’t that what the Sierra Club _was_ doing? And Clinton’s council? That is the concern. As pointed in the other thread, the cites used are not exactly what your side needs. The Clinton Council had this to say: > [@](#): > > The Council has not examined the full range of difficult and sensitive issues associated with immigration in the United States. **Little information on the effects of immigration on various aspects of American society and sustainable development is available.** And that is why it was clear that as more information on the effects are here: [http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/immigration\_climate\_change.html](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/immigration_climate_change.html) > [@](#): > > ``` > The assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the U.S. carbon footprint is false. The 10 highest carbon-emitting cities have an average immigrant population below 5 percent, according to a 2008 Brookings Institution study. > > ``` > > - The cities with the lowest carbon footprint, on the other hand, have an average immigrant population of 26 percent. > > - Immigrants, especially recent immigrants, tend to lead “greener” lifestyles than the native-born and are more likely to use public transportation and practice sustainable habits like compact living, conservation, and recycling. > > \*Immigrants, who are largely low income, are also more likely to have their lives disrupted by extreme weather events and other adverse effects of climate change. > > \*Addressing climate change and poverty on a global scale will help stabilize immigration flows from undeveloped countries. > > \*Immigrants are disproportionately hurt by the dirty energy economy and face unique environmental challenges. Consequently, they fight for greener solutions, including challenging the use of hazardous pesticides in the agricultural fields where many immigrants work. A successful campaign by immigrant farm workers during the 1960s led to the banning of the dangerous pesticide DDT. > > \*2010 polls of key electoral states find that immigrant-rich communities overwhelmingly favor policy that will create green jobs and tend to support congressional candidates who back efforts to fight global warming. > > \*Immigrants are integral to driving clean energy innovation. They accounted for 70 percent of men and women who entered the engineering and science fields from 1995 to 2006 and 40 percent of all high-tech venture-backed companies. We can see why there is something called the march of time, that give us new data. BTW, this was pointed before, just so you know. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2011, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/372 "2011-06-19T21:13:01Z")
> [@](#): > > The assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the U.S. carbon footprint is false. Yeah, great \*\*strawman \*\*. The point is it is a material factor. Also, I completely agree and support efforts to address global warming. In terms of sustainability in the US, population growth is a material issue. This is acknowledged in the Clinton sustainability report and and with the obvious example of [water supplies](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). US population growth is largely driven by immigration. Therefore it is logical from an environmental perspective to reduce US immigration to alleviate population growth: > [@](#): > > 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. [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/373 "2011-06-19T21:17:36Z")
Having scrolled back a little further in this thread, I can see there are other posts I could have moderated earlier. It’s a bit late but I’ll do so here: > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But it is clear enough that you are not posting from the Earth with the **blue** sky. > [@Kobal2](#): > > I also love how you’re now quoting yourself as a proof that your position is supported. Like your usual barrage of repeating the same crap over and over and over ad nauseam isn’t enough, now you’ve gone full recursion. My cardboard cutout can barely keep up ! Both of you need to dial it back here. Take the personal remarks to another forum. > [@RaleighRally](#): > > The man behind the Sierra Club’s sudden change is a Jewish donor. But no one checks his **real** motive behind the action… Nothing more about Jews, thank you. This is only going to take the thread off-topic and it could easily be interpreted as anti-Semitic. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/374 "2011-06-19T21:19:58Z")
> [@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? Indeed, according to \*\*GIGO Buster \*\*the concept of reducing immigration levels is magical 😃 ---
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/375 "2011-06-19T21:48:01Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Yeah, great \*\*strawman \*\*. The point is it is a material factor. Also, I completely agree and support efforts to address global warming. Since the moderator has reigned on the thread, might as well continue. So where are the quotes from your heroes demanding the current congress, that they helped elect, to stop being obstructionists on carbon emissions controls? Because it is by their efforts that one can recognize if they are indeed doing it for the environment. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2011, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/376 "2011-06-19T21:51:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Since the moderator has reigned on the thread, might as well continue. > > So where are the quotes from your heroes demanding the current congress, that they helped elect, to stop being obstructionists on carbon emissions controls? > > Because it is by their efforts that one can recognize if they are indeed doing it for the environment. I’m talking about environmentalists generally. From an environmental POV it makes sense to address population growth in the US. Immigration is one logical policy option to address 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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/377 "2011-06-19T21:54:29Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I’m talking about environmentalists generally. Avoiding the question. > [@Chen019](#): > > From an environmental POV it makes sense to address population growth in the US. Duh. > [@Chen019](#): > > Immigration is one logical policy option to address this. Impractical, besides all the other points mentioned before. “Immigration control is a foolish way to create an environmental perspective,” says Adam Werbach, who was the president of the Sierra Club in 1998. “It attacks people who are suffering, it allows people who are rich to be unaccountable, it’s out of touch with the realities of changing demographics, and it’s terrifically unpopular.” ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/378 "2011-06-19T22:07:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Impractical, besides all the other points mentioned before. > > “Immigration control is a foolish way to create an environmental perspective,” says Adam Werbach, who was the president of the Sierra Club in 1998. “It attacks people who are suffering, it allows people who are rich to be unaccountable, it’s out of touch with the realities of changing demographics, and it’s terrifically unpopular.” Those are non-environmental reasons. Which goes back to my original point, why are environmentalists turning a blind eye to such a damaging environmental issue? It seems that there must be strong **non-environmental** reasons. Because logically, it would make sense to reduce population growth via reducing immigration levels. Easy. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/379 "2011-06-19T22:30:56Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Those are non-environmental reasons. Sorry, you would have to explain. Otherwise you are just avoiding dealing with it. Perceptive is one of the big reasons why environmentalists do not see immigration as a big item as you want. ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/380 "2011-06-19T22:39:18Z")
Claiming that perspective is not a quality that an environmentalist needs to have is not accurate, population experts also have it. [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) > [@](#): > > First, some facts to put population growth and immigration into perspective. The U.S. population is currently 308 million and could reach between 399 million and 458 million by 2050. While immigration accounts for approximately one-third of U.S. population growth, natural increase accounts for the other two-thirds. Because the U.S. has a relatively youthful population, births continue to outnumber deaths, though that could change as the population ages. Future levels of immigration are hard to predict and will depend to a large extent on the state of the U.S. economy. For example, immigration levels have decreased since the beginning of the current recession. > > On a global scale, it’s worth noting that the population “explosion” of the previous century is over. In the last few decades, population growth rates have come down all over the world so that the average number of children per woman in the developing world is less than three and predicted to drop to two by 2050. The momentum built into our present numbers means that world population will continue to grow to about nine billion in 2050, after which it is expected to stabilize. The challenge before us is to plan for the addition of that three billion people, wherever they are located, in environmentally sustainable ways. > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=20)