# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/441 "2011-06-20T13:58:57Z")
OK, I have just waded through this entire thread. **magellan** ’s post 312 seemed like a cogent set of questions to ask: > [@magellan01](#): > > Now, here’s where I have a hard time following you. You agree that it is valid for environmentally concerned people to look at issues other than global warming. You also agree that it is more valid for them to look at more local issues. Given those two positions (which I agree with), why is it not valid for a group to look at immigration as it relates to population growth and the effects it has on the sustainability equation for a particular country or region? > > It seems to me that it’s great to have groups looking at a bunch of stuff: global warming, health of a particular bay or river, rainforests, honey bees, aquifers, pesticides/farm run-off, the conditions animals are raised in and what their fed, how many people a water basin can sustain, the rate of population growth—and immigration, as a contributing factor. etc. > > If I understand you, you seem to hold that all those things are valid—except the last one. That it is the purview of “fake environmentalists” and nativists. Now, I grant that that may be the case for some individuals, that they are just what you say. But that doesn’t change the fact that the issue is a real one. If it’s valid to look at sustainability of a region (or country), surely it’s equally valid to look to see how the sustainability equation might change, e.g., loos of farmland, wetlands, erosion of top soil, forest fires, and increases in population, both with immigration and without. > > Where, specifically, do we part ways? I will repeat the admonition that I made in the Pit thread that led me here: let’s all assume, for the moment, that we agree that the claims about immigration reducing environmental impact are being made by a group with the moral depravity of Casey Anthony and Idi Amin’s love children. It’s not enough to simply say that because they are “nativist” their claims should be ignored. I would again ask for a simple set of contrary citations, with no mention of the evil nativist nature of the opposing cites. An evil nativist may claim we need oxygen to survive. That doesn’t magically relieve us of the need to draw breath. ---
**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, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/442 "2011-06-20T14:29:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, I have just waded through this entire thread. > > **magellan** ’s post 312 seemed like a cogent set of questions to ask: > > I will repeat the admonition that I made in the Pit thread that led me here: let’s all assume, for the moment, that we agree that the claims about immigration reducing environmental impact are being made by a group with the moral depravity of Casey Anthony and Idi Amin’s love children. > > It’s not enough to simply say that because they are “nativist” their claims should be ignored. I would again ask for a simple set of contrary citations, with no mention of the evil nativist nature of the opposing cites. > > An evil nativist may claim we need oxygen to survive. That doesn’t magically relieve us of the need to draw breath. Sound thinking. OTOH, please reread [post #199](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13918101&highlight=hominem#post13918101) and [post #311](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13928117&highlight=hominem#post13928117). It does sometimes happen that people who are extremely vocal, and extremely wrong about every **other** thing they are vocal about that distinguishes them from the non-vocal or the opposing-vocal, can, for extremely wrong reasons, hit on a truth that better minds miss or ignore. But it is very, very rare. I say “It does sometime happen” because it is theoretically possibly in a way too obvious to rule out, but I cannot think of a single specific example at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/443 "2011-06-20T14:43:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Sound thinking. OTOH, please reread [post #199](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13918101&highlight=hominem#post13918101) and [post #311](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13928117&highlight=hominem#post13928117). > > It does sometimes happen that people who are extremely vocal, and extremely wrong about every **other** thing they are vocal about that distinguishes them from the non-vocal or the opposing-vocal, can, for extremely wrong reasons, hit on a truth that better minds miss or ignore. > > But it is very, very rare. I say “It does sometime happen” because it is theoretically possibly in a way too obvious to rule out, but I cannot think of a single specific example at the moment. Here are the posts in question: > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :rolleyes: I’d say **I** expect better, but I wouldn’t want . . . > > Look, **Chen.** _Argumentum ad hominem_ is **not** always a fallacy. That is, it is always a logical fallacy but not a rhetorical fallacy. **The single most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger.** > > E.g.: If someone tries to sell you a Holocaust-denial theory, it does not matter how much hitherto-undisclosed solid evidence he appears to have in his bag. The appropriate thing for you to do first, **before** settling down to listen respectfully, is to determine where this person is coming from, and what are his actual motives in expounding this theory, and make certain he is not **in any sense** (other than that of Holocaust-denial as such) a Nazi sympathizer. If so, he can hardly be worth listening to on that particular subject. > > Calling out Tanton on his association with the Pioneer Fund and calling out the Pioneer Fund on its . . . origins is no different. > > Godwinization is not always a fallacy either, and the above is a perfect illustration of why it is not. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Now, **Chen,** do you finally understand what everyone is getting at? > > Never mind your water-resources figures, your demographic stats, etc., for the moment. Remember my little lecture about how ad hominem is not always a fallacy? This is one of the situations where it applies. What we have here is a serious policy dispute within the Sierra Club, with one faction backed by John Tanton and associated organizations, and the other side backed by Morris Dees and the SPLC. Now, the average American of any color, presented with this situation (and sufficient background on the persons and organizations involved), would have two quite reasonable reactions: > > 1. **Of course** it’s about motherfucking **race,** are you trying to be funny or something?! :dubious: > > 2. The SPLC must be in the right here. Not because the SPLC is always in the right, but because, historically, its opponents **are** always in the wrong; and “racial realists” or “nativists” or whatever you call it what Tanton is are **never** right. > > And **you** look at the same series of events and you see environmentalists being “cowed” into “silence” by . . . the “by” part isn’t all that clear. But it is clear enough that you are not posting from the Earth with the **blue** sky. Both of them seek to defend ad hominem rebuttals on the grounds that they are rhetorically effective. That’s precisely why trained debaters are taught to identify these types of arguments. Both of these posts seek to justify the ad hominem argument on the grounds that the other side is really bad. Um… yes, that’s the essence of the ad hominem argument. Congratulations – you have proved that we don’t need oxygen, because the SPLC’s opponents say we need it. No. What are your FACTUAL arguments? ---
**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, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/444 "2011-06-20T14:52:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What “demographic shift”? [This one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition). ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/445 "2011-06-20T15:34:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What “demographic shift”? He means the dispossession of whites, which he seems to think is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/446 "2011-06-20T15:40:11Z")
Thank goodness, the Polecat posts in this abortion of thread to clear the air once and for all. You see, this whole falderall has nothing to do with the environment. It’s the oppressed white people we need to protect. ---
**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, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/447 "2011-06-20T15:42:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Both of them seek to defend ad hominem rebuttals on the grounds that they are rhetorically effective. No, sir, on the grounds, explained in what I thought more than sufficient detail, that this is one of those very many situations where ad hominem rebuttals are identical with common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/448 "2011-06-20T16:02:36Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, sir, on the grounds, explained in what I thought more than sufficient detail, that this is one of those very many situations where ad hominem rebuttals are identical with common sense. I don’t agree. The underlying issue is not a matter of common sense. To the contrary, “common sense” dictates the opposite: the more people we let in, the more the environment will be despoiled! I am confident this is not correct, but it’s hardly a matter of common sense. Now, it may well be “common sense” to look at the _bona fides_ (or lack) of these proponents, and say, “Hey, they’re just a bunch of poorly concealed racists!” Sure, I get that… but that doesn’t invalidate their statement. This is what I was trying to point out with the oxygen thing. If Sarah Palin announced we needed oxygen to survive, I assume you wouldn’t say, “Look, we all know what an idiot Sarah Palin is, so clearly, as a matter of common sense, we cna discount her view.” No one should say, “We must believe it, because Palin said it’s true.” That’s the fallacy of appeal to authority. Equally, we must not say, “We must _disbelieve_ it, because Palin said it’s true.” So, too, here. I accept that the proponents of this claim are nefarious, barely concealed racists, who have a hidden agenda. Now let’s move on and rebut their actual arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/449 "2011-06-20T16:07:14Z")
An argument I’d like to see fleshed out, from the Pit thread: The general approach by Chen is to say that we, Americans, use such-and-so much per capita resource, and that if we add immigrants to the picture, our total population will grow by such-and-so predictable percentage X, and thus we will in the future use X% more natural resources. The rebuttal to that point was that immigrants, both recent and of a longer standing, tend to use much less in the way of resources (for example, they are more likely to carpool or use public transportation) and it is thus flawed to assume that once they arrive, they will contribute to increased resource usage in equal proportion to the extant US citizens’ average. What am I missing? ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/450 "2011-06-20T16:15:08Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > He means the dispossession of whites, which he seems to think is a good thing. Actually, he seems to be referring to a process that occurs in all industrializing societies regardless of racial composition. ---
**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 20, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/451 "2011-06-20T16:16:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. What are your FACTUAL arguments? My own rebuttal is thus: Chen asserts (over and over and over) that: a) natural growth + immigration \> natural growth and b) more population has strictly more impact on the environment than less population. Both of these are tautologically true. The logic breakdown happens when he (and his cites) jumps from there to: c) therefore there is a problem, and we must curb population growth. That does not follow, because as I pointed in post [#361](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13932914&postcount=361), “it’s more!” is also meaningless without a frame of reference. And once you’ve got the frame of reference provided by other first world countries, you cannot but come to the conclusion that the idea the US is packed to capacity is ridiculous on its face. Now, if John Tanton and his buddies backed up their claim that American growth is currently absatively unsustainable and will wreck the environment something fierce with some actual facts & figures, they might have a hint of something to stand on, their baby eating notwithstanding. But as of now, all \*\*Chen \*\*has brought to the table in terms of facts are some humdrum “it’s just common sense !” and reiterating over and over that the American population is, in fact, growing. No shit. Oh, and the water woes of the SW, which as concerning as they may be a) DUH! It’s a desert ! and b) cannot be extrapolated into there being a problem at the national level, which would require solving at the national immigration level. There is also the argument that immigrants who come from low carbon footprint countries into the US will have a much higher one when the move into the US. Which, again, is presumably true (to an extent - not every immigrant will end up driving a Hummer), but there is some measure of retardation in drawing the conclusion “therefore they should stay home !” from that fact instead of “therefore we should work on reducing the average guy’s carbon footprint here” - because _that_’s the root of the problem, no matter whether in this equation the average guy is a born and bred "Muhrikunfuckyeah or a filthy unwashed foreigner. Think that about sums it up. The immigration angle is purely political, and a misdirection from the real environmental issues. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/452 "2011-06-20T16:20:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, it may well be “common sense” to look at the _bona fides_ (or lack) of these proponents, and say, “Hey, they’re just a bunch of poorly concealed racists!” Sure, I get that… but that doesn’t invalidate their statement. This is what I was trying to point out with the oxygen thing. If Sarah Palin announced we needed oxygen to survive, I assume you wouldn’t say, “Look, we all know what an idiot Sarah Palin is, so clearly, as a matter of common sense, we cna discount her view.” We can if it is out of step with what one might call “consensus reality.” The present situation is more like Sarah Palin insisting we need **nitrogen** to survive. Air does have nitrogen in it; and one who hears about “nitrogen narcosis,” or hears something about Jacques Cousteau breathing a heliox mix instead, might absorb confused ideas about what happens without it. Come to think of it, that’s **exactly** the kind of thing I – and every single one of you including her supporters – can well imagine Sarah Palin saying. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/453 "2011-06-20T16:22:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > An argument I’d like to see fleshed out, from the Pit thread: > > The general approach by Chen is to say that we, Americans, use such-and-so much per capita resource, and that if we add immigrants to the picture, our total population will grow by such-and-so predictable percentage X, and thus we will in the future use X% more natural resources. > > The rebuttal to that point was that immigrants, both recent and of a longer standing, tend to use much less in the way of resources (for example, they are more likely to carpool or use public transportation) and it is thus flawed to assume that once they arrive, they will contribute to increased resource usage in equal proportion to the extant US citizens’ average. > > What am I missing? I don’t know what you feel you are missing, but I don’t think Chen’s argument is based on immigrants necessarily having the same footprint of the typical American. Even if it is smaller, it is still a net gain to the U.S. Each additional person within our borders increases our footprint by some amount. Call the collective U.S. footprint X. When immigrants come it becomes X + some number, even if they have a smaller footprint that the average American. ---
**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, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/454 "2011-06-20T16:36:06Z")
More on that [Demographic Transition:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition) > [@](#): > > The demographic transition (DT) is the transition from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates as a country develops from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economic system. The theory is based on an interpretation of demographic history developed in 1929 by the American demographer Warren Thompson (1887–1973).[1] Thompson observed changes, or transitions, in birth and death rates in industrialized societies over the previous 200 years. Most developed countries are in stage 3 or 4 of the model; the majority of developing countries have reached stage 2 or stage 3. The major (relative) exceptions are some poor countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and some Middle Eastern countries, which are poor or affected by government policy or civil strife, notably Pakistan, Palestinian Territories, Yemen and Afghanistan.[2] Back in 2004 I ran a thread: [Can nine billion people enjoy the standard of living of the rich?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264849) (Asking whether that is, not socially or economically or politically, but **materially** possible to do so in an environmentally sustainable way.) If the answer is, or can be made to be, “yes,” then that’s what we ought to shoot for, isn’t it? **That’s** what stabilizes population growth. Or not. Same article: > [@](#): > > Although this model predicts ever decreasing fertility rates, recent data show that beyond a certain level of development fertility rates increase again.[3] But we can burn that bridge when we come to it. First **get** the whole world to that “certain level of development”. Somehow the “problems of affluence,” however horrifying, always seem to fade into insignificance when compared to the problems of poverty. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/455 "2011-06-20T16:52:53Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > My own rebuttal is thus: Chen asserts (over and over and over) that: > > a) natural growth + immigration \> natural growth > > and > > b) more population has strictly more impact on the environment than less population. > > Both of these are tautologically true. > The logic breakdown happens when he (and his cites) jumps from there to: > > c) therefore there is a problem, and we must curb population growth. I don’t think this is his position. (I know it’s not mine.) I think the general point is that given the two facts you listed, it make sense that immigration be taken into account, that it be looked at—from a purely environmental standpoint. The Sierra Club used to do this. Clinton’s council did this. It seems irresponsible that environmentalists are not looking into the issue as they once were. > [@Kobal2](#): > > That does not follow, because as I pointed in post [#361](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13932914&postcount=361), “it’s more!” is also meaningless without a frame of reference. And once you’ve got the frame of reference provided by other first world countries, you cannot but come to the conclusion that the idea the US is packed to capacity is ridiculous on its face. I don’t think ANYONE put forth that position. You jumped to that extreme position. It’s simply straw. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Now, if John Tanton and his buddies backed up their claim that American growth is currently absatively unsustainable and will wreck the environment something fierce with some actual facts & figures, they might have a hint of something to stand on, their baby eating notwithstanding. > But as of now, all \*\*Chen \*\*has brought to the table in terms of facts are some humdrum “it’s just common sense !” and reiterating over and over that the American population is, in fact, growing. No shit. What he is actually arguing IS common sense. You even agreed to most of it with your numbers 1 and 2 above. Now, it is common sense that, all things remaining equal, the footprint will go up by some number, X. The unknowns are what is X and what is the relationship between the collective U.S. footprint and how much our environment is stressed. It certainly is common sense to start from the position that more people in the U.S. will put greater stress on our resources and environment than fewer people. No? > [@Kobal2](#): > > Oh, and the water woes of the SW, which as concerning as they may be a) DUH! It’s a desert ! and b) cannot be extrapolated into there being a problem at the national level, which would require solving at the national immigration level. Two things: 1) that is where many immigrants choose to go. 2) It’s just one example showing that resources are finite, not infinite. > [@Kobal2](#): > > There is also the argument that immigrants who come from low carbon footprint countries into the US will have a much higher one when the move into the US. Which, again, is presumably true (to an extent - not every immigrant will end up driving a Hummer), but there is some measure of retardation in drawing the conclusion “therefore they should stay home !” from that fact instead of “therefore we should work on reducing the average guy’s carbon footprint here” - because _that_’s the root of the problem, no matter whether in this equation the average guy is a born and bred "Muhrikunfuckyeah or a filthy unwashed foreigner. I think you continue to miss that **Chen** , and I, are in favor of the average American reducing their footprint. The point is that even of we do that, an increase in people means an increase in our footprint. Now, it may very well be that the 300,000,000 people in the U.S. can reduce their footprint substantially, so much so that in 30 years 350,000,000 Americans will have a smaller collective footprint. I’d say that is not only a possibility but something we should strive for. But the fact remains that on the day a person is added to the U.S. (birth or immigration) our footprint goes up. How concerned should we be about this? I don’t know. We have to fill in the unknowns. Which is what groups like the SIerra Club of historically done,and what clinton’s council begins to do. I think the major point of confusion for me is why you don’t want those blanks filled in. Right now, the only groups attempting to do so are groups you don’t trust. And that’s fine. Given that, I would think that your position, as someone who cares about the environment, would be to demand that the Sierra Club and other organizations look at the issue. And look at it purely from the concern of U.S. environment and its limited resources. Instead your position seem to be, “well you can’t trust those guys, so just forget it and move on”. I really don’t see how an environmentalist would argue for keeping ourselves ignorant about an issue that in fact, concerns our environment. Maybe it’s you position that the U.S. could easily sustain a population 5X larger than we have now. I guess if that is your position, then worrying about the immigration issue now seems a bit premature. Is that it? > [@Kobal2](#): > > Think that about sums it up. The immigration angle is purely political, and a misdirection from the real environmental issues. The immigration issue has been politicized from the left. From the people who bought off the Sierra Club. Which makes them complicit in its politicization. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/456 "2011-06-20T17:04:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The immigration issue has been politicized from the left. From the people who bought off the Sierra Club. Which makes them complicit in its politicization. 😕 Have you read the details of that story **at all?!** The anti-immigration faction made several attempts to change Sierra Club policy, including a club-wide ballot, they got 3%. Nobody on the other side “bought off” shit. And the very idea that a lefty organization like the SC might be a puppet for forces still leftier is, in and of itself, rather bizarre. There was a definite attempt at [entryism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism) here, a classic Trotskyist tactic (not invented by them; as old as any politics more complicated than “Do what the King says”); but it was perpetrated from the **right.** And immigration was “politicized” by the Americans who thought up the first immigration-control laws. What had leftists to do with **that?!** ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/457 "2011-06-20T17:22:58Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > My own rebuttal is thus: Chen asserts (over and over and over) that: > > a) natural growth + immigration \> natural growth > > and > > b) more population has strictly more impact on the environment than less population. > > Both of these are tautologically true. > The logic breakdown happens when he (and his cites) jumps from there to: > > c) therefore there is a problem, and we must curb population growth. > > That does not follow, because as I pointed in post [#361](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13932914&postcount=361), “it’s more!” is also meaningless without a frame of reference. Extremely valid point. I guess I thought that the “environmental types” would accept _a priori_ the claim that more impact on the environment creates a problem. As it happens, I agree with your claim: yes, immigrants create more of a footprint, and no, it’s not a problem now or in the foreseeable future. I was looking more for an argument that a true-green enviromentalist would accept – and I am not one, to be sure. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/458 "2011-06-20T17:31:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > We can if it is out of step with what one might call “consensus reality.” The present situation is more like Sarah Palin insisting we need **nitrogen** to survive. Air does have nitrogen in it; and one who hears about “nitrogen narcosis,” or hears something about Jacques Cousteau breathing a heliox mix instead, might absorb confused ideas about what happens without it. Come to think of it, that’s **exactly** the kind of thing I – and every single one of you including her supporters – can well imagine Sarah Palin saying. Sure. But then the appropriate response is not to say, “I don’t need to rebut it,” but rather to provide a brief factual summary of nitrogen’s behavior under higher pressure. Obstinate refusal to respond to that information does not obligate you to keep repeating it, of course, but you can’t bow out without at least once answering with fact. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/459 "2011-06-20T17:36:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t know what you feel you are missing, but I don’t think Chen’s argument is based on immigrants necessarily having the same footprint of the typical American. Even if it is smaller, it is still a net gain to the U.S. Each additional person within our borders increases our footprint by some amount. Call the collective U.S. footprint X. When immigrants come it becomes X + some number, even if they have a smaller footprint that the average American. Sure. But of course the immigrants also leave behind an area which then presumably flourishes to some greater aggregate value due to their departure. As I understood it, the claim was that X number of Mexicans produce Y damage to the environment in Mexico, but when moving to the United States produce Y+delta damage. I can easily imagine environmentalists unmoved by the claim that they should prioritize US-centric effects more than world effects. In other words, if the damage is the same and the only thing that’s changed is what national borders enclose the damage, why are environmentalists obligated to care? Don’t they view the environment as a global issue, not a national one? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/460 "2011-06-20T17:38:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 Have you read the details of that story **at all?!** The anti-immigration faction made several attempts to change Sierra Club policy, including a club-wide ballot, they got 3%. Nobody on the other side “bought off” shit. > > And the very idea that a lefty organization like the SC might be a puppet for forces still leftier is, in and of itself, rather bizarre. There was a definite attempt at [entryism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism) here, a classic Trotskyist tactic (not invented by them; as old as any politics more complicated than “Do what the King says”); but it was perpetrated from the **right.** > > And immigration was “politicized” by the Americans who thought up the first immigration-control laws. What had leftists to do with **that?!** You mean [this one](http://www.susps.org/), based on the LA Times article? Yeah, I read it. But I think you might be referring to what transpired afterwards, as concerned members tried to put the Sierra Club back on the course they had been on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=24)