# 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:** 20
**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, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/381 "2011-06-19T23:08:00Z")
The Clinton Sustainability Taskforce clearly identify population stabilization as important. It is also clearly obvious in terms of water sustainability in the [Southwest](http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61). There are a [number of cities at risk of running out of water](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water), with LA at the top of the list. > [@](#): > > This presents a major problem for city officials: how does the limited water supply continue to meet demand for one of the fastest-growing regions in the state? It is estimated that water usage in the Orlando area will increase from 526 million gallons per day in 1995 to 866 million in 2020. On the city website, the mayor is quoted, saying: “Orlando Utilities Commission water usage trends show Orlando water demand exceeding the supply by approximately 2014 if no action is taken.” There are plans in the works to tap the St. John’s River for irrigation, and eventually drinking water. Many, however, are skeptical that even this will be enough to meet Orlando’s growing demand… > > The NRDC study rates Pima County, Ariz., where Tuscon is located, as an area with extreme risk of water shortage. The city is in the Sonoran Desert, an extremely arid region that receives less than 12 inches of rainfall each year. Currently, the Tucson region uses about 350,000 acre-feet of water per year. At this rate, Tucson’s groundwater supply, which now provides the majority of the city’s water, has a very limited life span. In addition to this, the city is currently bringing in 314,000 acre-feet per year from the Colorado River under the Central Arizona Project. However, Tuscon is growing rapidly. This, combined with the political uncertainty of the Central Arizona Project allocation, places Tucson at extreme risk for future water shortages… > > In the 1980’s, Los Angeles suffered a major crisis when the city was forced to stop using 40% of its drinking water due to industrial runoff contamination. Like Las Vegas, the city now relies on importing water from the Colorado River via hundreds of miles of aqueducts. The Colorado may only be a temporary solution, however, as the city continues to increase its demand at an unsustainable rate. In its utility risk rating, Ceres gave the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power the highest likelihood of risk among the cities it assessed. That list included Atlanta and the Forth Worth area. On top of this, the Hoover Dam, which is the main source of electricity for L.A. and much of the greater Southwest, is also producing at a lower rate than it has historically. Some scientists suspect this drop-off will continue to a point where its electricity production is too small to sustain the dam economically. Los Angeles, even if the dam doesn’t cease production in 2013, as some predict, still faces serious water shortages. ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/382 "2011-06-19T23:09:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Threatened ? By whom ? On the one hand, it seems to me any scientist worth his Ph.D couldn’t care less and would let the truth ring though the heavens fall. When W. tried to get \*his \*scientists to cook the books and put the brakes on that global warming thang, or had his cronies simply go at it with a bottle of Wite Out the truth was out before the door could hit his arse on the way out. In my experience, academic types have little patience for malarkey. Literary critics excepted, of course 🙂 On the other hand, the Sierra Club is not the be all, end all of environmental thinking & eco science. Unless you’re suggesting there’s a conspiracy at hand to keep every green thinktank away from examining population numbers & sustainability, I don’t really see what it has to do with anything. Hell, any up-and-coming green tank would just love to expose any such manipulation, if only to get the rest of the Sierra Club’s backers for themselves. Or one could simply go global and look at what eco experts in other countries (who surely don’t give the slightest bit of a toss about US immigration politics) think and assess regarding their own countries. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, clearly \*\*Chen \*\*at least seems to think it’s a very urgent problem that needs a very urgent solution. > [@](#): > > 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. I wouldn’t agree, actually (although your sentence lacks the part defining what I should agree on - but I get what you meant, I think). I was asking the question quite literally: why on Earth wouldn’t they ? What would environmental scientists have to gain from ignoring a large aspect of their life’s work ? I’m not talking about the politicos here (who have to keep fellating their constituents, and as such are of dubious credibility on all subjects), but the eggheads who feed them the numbers. Those who do live on the credibility of their work, their standing with their (international) peers and their dreams of a Nobel prize. What’s in it for them ? Come to that, it seems to me the “build a wall on the Mexican border!” types would just soil their shorts at the idea of funding the work of a credible scientist or ten who would prove their pet cause righteous, and put egg on the Left’s face. That would be a nice change of pace from the hoaxed & spammed lists of “scientists who doubt climate change !!”\*. Same if there was indeed bribery at work within the Sierra Club, or some kind of pressure to massage reports: any whistleblower would have it made. They’d parade him like the Messiah. He’d be bigger than \*Palin \*! 😃 > [@](#): > > 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. Yup. - list may or may not include scientists. Batteries not included. ---
**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, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/383 "2011-06-19T23:15:04Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Yup. > > - list may or may not include scientists. Batteries not included. It does include real scientists - see above. ---
**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, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/384 "2011-06-19T23:37:43Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > The Clinton Sustainability Taskforce clearly identify population stabilization as important. It is also clearly obvious in terms of water sustainability in the [Southwest](http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61). There are a [number of cities at risk of running out of water](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water), with LA at the top of the list. And that once again shows how ignorant you are on global warming, that will not be an issue in the north east of the United States. You are really denying that no solution can be implemented on the population as a whole that does not depend on impractical ones, like focusing on immigrants. BTW once again what you did was to ignore the cites posted and just continue to repeat your tired old cites with no updates. ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/385 "2011-06-19T23:41:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that once again shows how ignorant you are on global warming, that will not be an issue in the north east of the United States. You are really denying that no solution can be implemented on the population as a whole that does not depend on impractical ones, like focusing on immigrants. It is one of many things that can be done to sustain the environment & local water supplies. Certainly it is an easy and logical option in terms of alleviating population growth pressures. ---
**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, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/386 "2011-06-19T23:50:41Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > It is one of many things that can be done to sustain the environment & local water supplies. Certainly it is an easy and logical option in terms of alleviating population growth pressures. No, it is easy for the ones who are demagogues in the leadership positions of the nativists and industry that generates most of the emissions. It is clear the environmentalists are right, the nativists groups focus remains with the easy target, but it is because it is a scapegoat. Nowhere, so far in this thread, have you shown any of your navitist sources also doing something about the local well to do people and big industry that locally have the biggest carbon footprints in town. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/387 "2011-06-20T00:01:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, it is easy for the ones who are demagogues in the leadership positions of the nativists and industry that generates most of the emissions. > > It is clear the environmentalists are right, the nativists groups focus remains with the easy target, but it is because it is a scapegoat. Nowhere, so far in this thread, have you shown any of your navitist sources also doing something about the local well to do people and big industry that locally have the biggest carbon footprints in town. I agree. Nonetheless, population growth in the US is also a material issue. This is painfully clear from the issue of water sustainability alone. Therefore, it is logical for environmentalists to consider immigration restriction as one of many policy options. ---
**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 20, 2011, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/388 "2011-06-20T00:03:15Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I agree. Nonetheless, population growth in the US is also a material issue. This is painfully clear from the issue of water sustainability alone. > > Therefore, it is logical for environmentalists to consider immigration restriction as one of many policy options. Therefore it is logical to realize that you are out of new good sources or ideas. What is it denied: The ugly reality that not focusing on the proper thing, the carbon emissions of all, means that your pet issue will get worse. > **[Climate change linked to possible mass Mexican migration to U.S.](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jul-26-la-na-immig-climate-20100727-story.html)** > > Climate change linked to possible mass Mexican migration to U.S. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/389 "2011-06-20T00:07:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Therefore it is logical to realize that you are out of new good sources or ideas. If no one can refute my position why would I need further evidence? 1. Population growth remains a material issue in terms of environmental sustainability in the US. 2. One easy and logical way to alleviate population pressure & resource demand is to reduce immigration levels (unless you want to end up with the population of India?). 3. I agree with you regarding global warming and other policy options. However, it doesn’t follow that you therefore cannot consider immigration reduction. ---
**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 20, 2011, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/390 "2011-06-20T00:21:07Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > If no one can refute my position why would I need further evidence? Refuted already but ignored on purpose by you. > [@Chen019](#): > > 1. Population growth remains a material issue in terms of environmental sustainability in the US. When this is included here it is clear that it is done only for staw maning. > [@Chen019](#): > > 1. One easy and logical way to alleviate population pressure & resource demand is to reduce immigration levels (unless you want to end up with the population of India?). > Ignores other options. Impractical specially because it is not only the future immigrants the ones the nativist groups cited want in reality to inconvinience. > [@Chen019](#): > > 1. I agree with you regarding global warming and other policy options. However, it doesn’t follow that you therefore cannot consider immigration reduction. And showing nothing for it, the point is that then the leaders of the nativist groups are taking you for a ride. You are also skipping out of the focus, the issue was the number of immigrants. Once we get around to imposing climate change solutions, like for example a carbon tax and population reduction incentives, it will be a way to pressure immigrants to reduce their numbers. Perhaps the big stumbling block is that you are not aware that controlling immigration is the realm of politicians and the executive, in the scientific community the immigration issue is out of its scope and most environmentalists are also in that camp. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/391 "2011-06-20T00:24:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Impractical specially because it is not only the future immigrants the ones the nativist groups cited want in reality to inconvinience. We’re talking about population growth in the future. This is largely from immigration. That is why it makes sense to reduce immigration levels. > [@](#): > > 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:** ![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 20, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/392 "2011-06-20T00:42:04Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > We’re talking about population growth in the future. This is largely from immigration. That is why it makes sense to reduce immigration levels. > > [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85) If current tends continue, that cite… already got old. As noticed before, there is no word whatsoever of that being a bad thing as it is not an environmental paper, there is no information of where the immigrants would be. And did I mention before that it assumes that no other non environmentalist solutions will be ever used? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/393 "2011-06-20T00:52:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > If current tends continue, that cite… already got old. > > As noticed before, there is no word whatsoever of that being a bad thing as it is not an environmental paper, there is no information of where the immigrants would be. And did I mention before that it assumes that no other non environmentalist solutions will be ever used? I agree with you about other solutions being used. My point is that it is logical to also consider reducing immigration to address population growth. > [@](#): > > The ten cities on this list are the ones with the most acute exposure to problems that could cause large imbalances of water supply and demand. There are a number of metropolitan areas that could face similar problems but their risks are not quite as high. The water problem for U.S. cities is, although it may not be evident, one of the largest issues that faces urban areas over the next ten years. [http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water) ---
**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 20, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/394 "2011-06-20T00:58:56Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I agree with you about other solutions being used. My point is that it is logical to also consider reducing immigration to address population growth. > > [http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water) No mention of immigrants there, but it does reference climate change. Running out of good cites? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/395 "2011-06-20T01:01:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No mention of immigrants there, but it does reference climate change. > > Running out of good cites? 1. Population growth leads to increasing demand on [water supplies](http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61). 2. [Population growth in the US is largely driven by immigration](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85). 3. Therefore it makes sense to consider reducing immigration to address population growth. ---
**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 20, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/396 "2011-06-20T01:07:43Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. Population growth leads to increasing demand on [water supplies](http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61). > > 2. [Population growth in the US is largely driven by immigration](http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85). > > 3. Therefore it makes sense to consider reducing immigration to address population growth. Yep. ---
**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 20, 2011, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/397 "2011-06-20T01:14:10Z")
Lets look at the what the nativist sources were up to with the misuse of the cites: > **[On the Inside](https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/inside/)** > > Early this year, a Klan group known as the Knight Riders closed up shop after one of its members who was allegedly planning racist violence pleaded guilty to weapons charges. The former Klan member and FBI informant who made the case discusses his... > [@](#): > > The group’s latest campaign relies on outdated numbers, since the ads’ projection of 600 million Americans by 2100 is based on the 1990 Census. (The Census has published more up-to-date projections based on the 2000 Census, but they only go up to 2050.) The ads also cite statistics without fully explaining them: the Pew Hispanic Research Center does predict that 82% of the increase in U.S. population from 2005 to 2050 will result from immigration, but that figure includes the U.S.-born descendants of immigrants. And it doesn’t represent a departure from recent decades, during which immigrants have accounted for most of the country’s population growth. > > Of course, the real message of the ads is that immigrants are bad for the environment, and therefore bad for America. According to the ad that appeared in Wednesday’s Times, “For every four new U.S. residents whether from births or immigration, approximately three more cars are added to our roads, increasing gridlock, energy use and greenhouse emissions.” > > But this premise is flawed because the transportation habits of immigrants are different from those of native-born Americans, according to professors at the University of California, Los Angeles. > > David Hayes-Bautista, a professor of medicine and health services, co-authored a 2005 study that found recent Latino immigrants in California—and to a lesser extent long-term Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos—are much more likely to carpool or use public transportation than non-Hispanic whites. “If everyone (in California) went to work the way recently arrived immigrants did—by carpooling or using public transportation—that would reduce the number of cars on the road by nearly half,” he told the Intelligence Report. > > “Recent immigrants are in fact substantially less responsible for sprawl (they live in the highest density communities) and traffic (they disproportionately take transit and walk), as they are poor,” UCLA urban planning professor Randall Crane E-mailed the Report. “Eventually, they better assimilate into the population and will be more like everyone else, which is to say they are no worse than anyone else.” ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/398 "2011-06-20T01:15:47Z")
Immigration restriction is a possible means of alleviating demand on resources created by population growth. As has been repeated above, that doesn’t mean that other environmental policies should not be pursued. A whole suite of options need to be considered, including restriction of immigration levels to 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 20, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/399 "2011-06-20T01:20:19Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > There is no misuse. It’s obvious that immigration restriction is a possible means of alleviating demand on resources created by population growth. > > As has been repeated above, that doesn’t mean that other environmental policies should not be pursued. A whole suite of options need to be considered, including restriction of immigration levels to the US. Oh, those shrinking possibilities, you mean. No biggie. The focus **will be** the population and city planning on the whole, and carbon emission controls. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/400 "2011-06-20T01:24:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh, those shrinking possibilities, you mean. No biggie. The focus **will be** the population and city planning on the whole, and carbon emission controls. Right, so avoiding population growth via revised immigration levels should be on the table. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=21)