# 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:** 22
**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, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/421 "2011-06-20T05:03:47Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Not in terms of the US population - it has dropped the ball on that issue. Inaccurate as the cite is not showing what you are claiming. Once again, do not avoid the current issue: The Sierra Club can look at population control now and it calls to action to deal with congress for not doing anything regarding the carbon emissions side. You are not capable of producing any cite that shows SUSPS, or other source like that, doing even a token gesture to tell congress now to do something about carbon emissions. This is, once again, a demonstratively way to see who is an environmentalist and who is not. ---
**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, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/422 "2011-06-20T05:05:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > This is, once again, a demonstratively way to see who is an environmentalist and who is not. The point is that population growth is a US environmental issue. Immigration reductions are a potential and sensible way of addressing it. ---
**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, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/423 "2011-06-20T05:11:01Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > The point is that population growth is a US environmental issue. Immigration reductions are a potential and sensible way of addressing it. In other words, you are clearly conceding the point. Fake environmentalists can only get you so far. In reality they will make the immigration issue worse by ignoring the carbon emission issue. ---
**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, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/424 "2011-06-20T05:16:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > In other words, you are clearly conceding the point. Fake environmentalists can only get you so far. > > In reality they will make the immigration issue worse by ignoring the carbon emission issue. There you go with your strawman again 😃 I keep agreeing with you that the carbon emission issue needs to be addressed and that there are many things that need to be done. ---
**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, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/425 "2011-06-20T05:29:45Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > There you go with your strawman again 😃 > > I keep agreeing with you that the carbon emission issue needs to be addressed and that there are many things that need to be done. Cheap talk, if you were consistent you would condemn groups like SUSPS, FAIRUS or FAIR for not doing anything now on the carbon emission issue, if you claim to know about how dangerous the situation is getting thanks to the current inaction in congress, you would. ---
**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, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/426 "2011-06-20T05:37:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Cheap talk, if you were consistent you would condemn groups like SUSPS, FAIRUS or FAIR for not doing anything now on the carbon emission issue, if you claim to know about how dangerous the situation is getting thanks to the current inaction in congress, you would. And if you were consistent you would wonder why groups like Sierra have dropped the ball on population growth in the US. They have gone from having a sensible policy, to abandoning it for money & political expediency. ---
**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, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/427 "2011-06-20T05:43:41Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > And if you were consistent you would wonder why groups like Sierra have dropped the ball on population growth in the US. They have gone from having a sensible policy, to abandoning it for money & political expediency. I already linked to their efforts regarding population control, you may claim that that is not enough, but they are doing something, that can not be denied as others can clearly check. Once again, ANY current fig leaf effort, at least, from those sources you like, complaining on the lack of progress with carbon emission controls from the current congress? ---
**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, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/428 "2011-06-20T05:45:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I already linked to their efforts regarding population control, you may claim that that is not enough, but they are doing something, that can not be denied as others can clearly check. > > Once again, ANY current fig leaf effort, at least, from those sources you like, complaining on the lack of progress with carbon emission controls from the current congress? I thought they ditched their position regarding US population growth? Or is that not the case? In any event, the point is that it makes sense for environmentalists in the US to view population growth as an issue. So silence in terms of immigration appears to be due to political concerns. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/429 "2011-06-20T05:58:08Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > In any event, the point is that it makes sense for environmentalists in the US to view population growth as an issue. So silence in terms of immigration appears to be due to political concerns. In case you’ve forgotten, we’ve already gone over the “political concerns” in that fight, and only the non-nativist side had any legitimate political concerns **or** any genuine environmental concerns. Tanton and his faction are environmentalists like they’re Communists. (I.e., they’d join the Party if that would keep America white.) ---
**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, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/430 "2011-06-20T06:00:39Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I thought they ditched their position regarding US population growth? Or is that not the case? [http://www.sierraclub.org/population/overview/](http://www.sierraclub.org/population/overview/) Now, as mentioned you may claim that is not enough, but that is only playing the avoiding game. That population cite was not hard to find. So, ANY current fig leaf efforts, at least, from those sources you like, complaining on the lack of progress with carbon emission controls from the current congress? What are they doing right now? BTW, your attitude shown so far still leads me to think that you are not really aware of how important global warming is for real environmentalists. ---
**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, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/431 "2011-06-20T06:05:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In case you’ve forgotten, we’ve already gone over the “political concerns” in that fight, and only the non-nativist side had any legitimate political concerns **or** any genuine environmental concerns. Tanton and his faction are environmentalists like they’re Communists. (I.e., they’d join the Party if that would keep America white.) Bullsh1t. So the issue of US population growth highlighted by Lester Brown, the Clinton sustainability council & the report on the Colorado Basin, aren’t environmental issues? > [@](#): > > Sometime this month, the U.S. population is projected to reach 300 million. In times past, reaching such a demographic milestone might have been a cause for celebration. In 2006, it is not. Population growth is the ever expanding denominator that gives each person a shrinking share of the resource pie. It contributes to water shortages, cropland conversion to non-farm uses, traffic congestion, more garbage, overfishing, crowding in national parks, a growing dependence on imported oil, and other conditions that diminish the quality of our daily lives. > > With births exceeding deaths by nearly two to one, the U.S. population grows by almost 1.8 million each year, or 0.6 percent. Adding nearly 1 million immigrants per year brings the annual growth rate up to 0.9 percent, raising the total addition to 2.7 million. As things now stand, we are headed for 400 million Americans by 2043. (See data.) > > U.S. population growth contrasts with the situation in other industrial countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Japan, where populations are either essentially stable or declining slightly. In virtually every industrial society where women are well educated and have ready access to jobs, they have on average two children or fewer. > > More people require more of everything, including water. In our highly urbanized society, we fail to recognize how much water one person uses. While we drink close to a gallon of water each day as water, juice, pop, coffee, tea, beer, or wine, it takes some 500 gallons a day to produce the food we consume. > > The U.S. annual population growth of nearly 3 million contributes to the water shortages that are plaguing the western half of the country and many areas in the East as well. Water tables are now falling throughout most of the Great Plains and in the U.S. Southwest. Lakes are disappearing and rivers are running dry. It has been years since the Colorado River, the largest river in the U.S. Southwest, reached the Gulf of Mexico. > > As water supplies tighten, the competition between farmers and cities intensifies. In this contest, farmers almost always lose. Scarcely a day goes by in the western United States without another farmer or an entire irrigation district selling their water rights to cities like Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles, or San Diego. > > The seafood appetite of 300 million Americans is also outgrowing the sustainable yield of its coastal fisheries. Long-time seafood staples such as cod off the New England coast, red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, and salmon in the U.S. Northwest are threatened by overfishing. > > In the United States, more people means more cars. And that in turn means paving more land for roads and parking lots. Each U.S. car requires nearly one fifth of an acre of paved land for roads and parking space. For every five cars added to the U.S. fleet, an area the size of a football field is covered with asphalt. > > More often than not, this land being paved is cropland simply because the flat, well-drained soils that are good for farming are also ideal for building roads and parking lots. Once paved, land is not easily reclaimed. As environmentalist Rupert Cutler once noted, “Asphalt is the land’s last crop.” > > The United States, with its 226 million motor vehicles, has paved some 4 million miles of roads—enough to circle the Earth at the equator 157 times. In addition to roads, cars require parking space. Imagine a parking lot for 226 million cars and trucks. If that is too difficult, try visualizing a parking lot for 1,000 cars and then imagine what 226,000 of these would look like. (See Paving the Planet.) > > More cars also translates into more traffic congestion. Americans are spending more and more time sitting in their cars going nowhere as freeways and streets become, in effect, parking lots. As cities sprawl, commuter distance lengthens. > > Longer commuting distances and more congestion en route combine to increase the time spent in automobiles. In 1982 the average motorist experienced 16 hours of delay; by 2003 this had virtually tripled to 47 hours. Car commuting time is increasing in nearly every U.S. metropolitan area. “Rush hour” everywhere is becoming longer as commuters attempt to beat it by leaving work early or delaying their commute until traffic eventually wanes. > > The costs of increasing congestion and longer commuting times are high. Traffic congestion in the United States in 2003 caused 3.7 billion hours of travel delay and wasted 2.3 billion gallons of fuel. The total bill for all of this was $63 billion. > > Some corporations have begun to consider congestion costs when deciding where to establish a new plant or office building. They are concerned about both the effects of traffic congestion on their employees and the costs for the company itself when the movement of raw materials and finished products is slowed. > > More people mean that not only are our home towns more crowded, but so too are the “get away” spots where we go for relaxation. National parks, wilderness areas, and beaches are seeing more visitors each year. U.S. national parks sometimes have to turn tourists away. In 1906 when Yosemite National Park was young and when we were a far less mobile population, the park had 5,000 visitors. Today, more than 3 million people (and their cars) visit the park each year. > > More people also usually means more garbage. New York City, for example, generates 12,000 tons of garbage a day, a flow that requires 600 tractor-trailers—fully loaded—to leave the city each day headed for remote landfills in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio. Trucking garbage to ever more distant landfills makes us more dependent on distant sources of oil. > > As population grows, so does energy consumption. The United States, richly endowed with oil, has largely depleted its petroleum reserves within two generations. The use of oil has exceeded new discoveries in the United States for some 25 years. As reserves shrink, U.S. production falls and imports climb, helping to drive up world oil prices. And as population increases, so do the emissions of the Earth-warming gas carbon dioxide. > \*\* > Given the negative effects of continuing population growth on our daily lives, it may be time to establish a national population policy, one that would lead toward population stabilization sooner rather than later. As noted earlier, almost all other industrial countries now have stable or declining populations. Perhaps it’s time for us to stabilize the U.S. population as well, so that we never have to ask whether 400 million Americans is a cause for celebration.\*\* > **[Plan B Updates - 59: U.S. Population Reaches 300 Million, Heading for 400...](https://wayback.archive-it.org/22906/20240418014450/https://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59)** ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/432 "2011-06-20T06:51:29Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Bullsh1t. So the issue of US population growth highlighted by Lester Brown, the Clinton sustainability council & the report on the Colorado Basin, aren’t environmental issues? > > [Session Verification](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) 1. I do not say there **are** no genuine population-related environmental concerns. I say nobody on the anti-immigration side of the Sierra Club fight **had** any. Nor does anybody singing the same song today or in this thread have any. 2. One again: Population control and immigration control are **not** synonymous. ---
**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, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/433 "2011-06-20T07:07:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 1. I do not say there **are** no genuine population-related environmental concerns. I say nobody on the anti-immigration side of the Sierra Club fight **had** any. Nor does anybody singing the same song today or in this thread have any. > > 2. One again: Population control and immigration control are **not** synonymous. 1. Bullsh1t. So someone like [Professor Ben Zuckerman](http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/09/magazine/tm-45400) had no environmental concerns? That is a disgusting and unfounded allegation. Apologize. 2. Population growth in the US is significantly due to immigration. Look at the Pew data. Perhaps you think population control could be carried out via a one child policy instead? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/434 "2011-06-20T07:26:52Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. Bullsh1t. So someone like [Professor Ben Zuckerman](http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/09/magazine/tm-45400) had no environmental concerns? That is a disgusting and unfounded allegation. Apologize. It would be for **you** to apologize that this point – [Ben Zuckerman](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ben_Zuckerman) is on the board of [Progressives for Immigration Reform,](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progressives_for_Immigration_Reform) yet another Tanton front-group. > [@Chen019](#): > > 1. Population growth in the US is significantly due to immigration. Look at the Pew data. Perhaps you think population control could be carried out via a one child policy instead? In the U.S. it should not be carried out at **all.** China has a population problem; the U.S. does not. What we have here – not nearly so bad as Europe and Japan, but we do have it – is a “grayby boom” problem, which immigration **helps** like nothing else does. If you really want to lessen Americans’ environmental impact (and you don’t), look away from our numbers – for that matter, look away from our “lifestyles” – and towards our built environments, where the real problem is. ---
**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, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/435 "2011-06-20T08:45:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It would be for **you** to apologize that this point – [Ben Zuckerman](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ben_Zuckerman) is on the board of [Progressives for Immigration Reform,](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progressives_for_Immigration_Reform) yet another Tanton front-group. > > In the U.S. it should not be carried out at **all.** China has a population problem; the U.S. does not. What we have here – not nearly so bad as Europe and Japan, but we do have it – is a “grayby boom” problem, which immigration **helps** like nothing else does. > > If you really want to lessen Americans’ environmental impact (and you don’t), look away from our numbers – for that matter, look away from our “lifestyles” – and towards our built environments, where the real problem is. 1. Again, it is f8cking disgusting that you can sit there and smugly say someone like Zuckerman doesn’t have legitimate environmental concerns. 2. In relation to immigration and population replacement that is in fact what is meant by population stabilization. It doesn’t mean no immigration. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/436 "2011-06-20T10:01:51Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. Again, it is f8cking disgusting that you can sit there and smugly say someone like Zuckerman doesn’t have legitimate environmental concerns. What has he published on environmental issues that doesn’t focus on immigration? And not the proceedings he edited, but stuff he’s published himself. ---
**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, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/437 "2011-06-20T11:07:33Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > What has he published on environmental issues that doesn’t focus on immigration? And not the proceedings he edited, but stuff he’s published himself. His essay [‘How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin’](http://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a1gW4uV-q8EC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Ben+Zuckerman+environment&ots=t3sfHEEc1N&sig=d6uHKzgGFc6-EZ2xxytRxM_wt-Y#v=onepage&q=Ben%20Zuckerman%20&f=false) is about population growth (globally) and environmental issues. I doubt he has been a member of the Sierra Club since 1969 simply to restrict [immigration](http://www.susps.org/candidates/bz_cand.html) and without any real concern for the environment. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/438 "2011-06-20T12:17:35Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > His essay [‘How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin’](http://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a1gW4uV-q8EC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Ben+Zuckerman+environment&ots=t3sfHEEc1N&sig=d6uHKzgGFc6-EZ2xxytRxM_wt-Y#v=onepage&q=Ben%20Zuckerman%20&f=false) is about population growth (globally) and environmental issues. So that’s a “No”, is it? > [@](#): > > I doubt he has been a member of the Sierra Club since 1969 simply to restrict [immigration](http://www.susps.org/candidates/bz_cand.html) and without any real concern for the environment. Maybe he likes the walks? But that’s besides the point - he could be as concerned for the Environment as Al Gore and yet he doesn’t seem to be showing it in his writings in any way other than … writing on population. Guy’s a trained scientist, where are his comments on CO[sub]2[/sub] or alien invasives or anything like that? I’m not saying he hasn’t written those, BTW, but I can’t find them. And your cite isn’t it. ETA: I found [this](http://www.caglecartoons.com/column.asp?columnID=%7B3C5FC17E-CAB0-49FF-9718-004BE725D3D8%7D). That’s the kind of writing I mean - stuff that shows he isn’t just fronting. Even if it is just a co-authered op-ed, there’s not word one in there about immigration. Of course, there’s nothing in there about Global Warming either. And that’s enough of me doing your work for you. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/439 "2011-06-20T12:49:11Z")
I should say, IMO, population stabilization,\* in whatever form it takes\*, is a red herring. Malthus was wrong, so was Ehrlich, and a country the size of the USA, with its natural resource base, could easily support a population _at least_ twice its current size. But not with the current stereotypical US lifestyle, and not in the places its people currently live. Focusing on population _can’t_ happen hand-in-hand with focusing on footprint reduction, because any effort spent on the former reduces the message of the latter. Population is _not_ the problem, resource use is. ETA: I believe that the more immigrants make it to America, the better for the world. In the US, they and their children will get to the demographic shift that much quicker, and that’s what the world needs for us to get over it globally by 2050. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/440 "2011-06-20T13:32:57Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > ETA: I believe that the more immigrants make it to America, the better for the world. In the US, they and their children will get to the demographic shift that much quicker, and that’s what the world needs for us to get over it globally by 2050. What “demographic shift”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=23)