# 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:** 24
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/461 "2011-06-20T17:53:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Yes, but the footprint that is eliminated in Mexico is not just transferred to the U.S. That would be a wash, from a global standpoint. When people move to the U.S. their footprint goes up in size. They use more AC, heating oil, electricity; they buy more TVs, cars, appliances, etc. Even at not the level of the average American. > [@Bricker](#): > > 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? Yes, I’ve acknowledged more than once that there are two different things to look at: global warming, which cares not an iota about arbitrarily drawn borders, and environmental efforts that are more local, regional, national. Now, I know that there are people who would like to dispense with all borders, and for them the question of how concerned a country should be about its environment is a non-starter. I am not one of those people. And there is no point having the discussion with them (which I don’t think is happening). So, while I do think all people—particularly Americans—should focus on shrinking their carbon footprint (both individually and collectively), I think it also sensible that we understand the limits of the resources we have and the number of people our environment can sustain without it being threatened. All of which makes it sensible that organizations like the Sierra Club look at U.S. sustainability and the role immigration, as well as other factors, effects the equation. ---
**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, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/462 "2011-06-20T18:05:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Now, I know that there are people who would like to dispense with all borders, and for them the question of how concerned a country should be about its environment is a non-starter. Actually, no, it isn’t. ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/463 "2011-06-20T18:07:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. So far, the only indication that environmentalists aren’t is **Chen** ’s seminal claim, which appears to boil down to "John Tanton is saying immigration should be stopped and he’s an environmentalist, why are other environmentalists not saying the same thing ? They must have other, possibly nefarious reasons for not saying this. " Which is a stupid argument from the Glenn Beck school of rhetoric. > [@](#): > > I don’t think ANYONE put forth that position. You jumped to that extreme position. It’s simply straw. It’s called exaggerating for effect. The point is that if much higher population concentrations have proven viable and not particularly damaging to their own environment, then it’s silly to argue on the basis that the US can’t do it and must instead restrict immigration to be able to… whatever it is you and \*\*Chen \*\*are arguing it’s doing now. > [@](#): > > 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? The problem with common sense is that more often than not it’s just plain **wrong**. Which is why we rely on scientists and not common sensists. In this case for example, “more people would put greater stress on resources than fewer people” is not correct if, as you yourself recognize down the post, the individual resource use of those people was toned down enough that more people would in fact consume less. Which goes back to that “all other things being equal” thing - my point is that environmentalists don’t spend much time forming and formulating opinions on what should be done if all other things remain equal, because they’ve already established that if all other things remain equal the planet is screwed no matter what\*. > [@](#): > > Two things: 1) that is where many immigrants choose to go. 2) It’s just one example showing that resources are finite, not infinite. 1. And ? The water woes affect both immigrants and non-immigrants. If it really becomes a problem, immigrants will go elsewhere. Non-immigrants might go elsewhere too. Which isn’t an environmental issue, BTW. It would be if more population in the SW negatively impacted the \*total \*water available, so that even after they’ve moved the local environment would stay dry. But they don’t, so it’s not. It’s “just” an economic/demographic issue. Of course, there _is_ a factor which negatively impacts the overall dryness of the SW on a permanent basis - global warming, emphasis on global. Which has very little to do with where the populations causing it live at any given time. 2. Which cannot be extrapolated from to inform opinions at the national level. > [@](#): > > I think you continue to miss that **Chen** , and I, are in favor of the average American reducing their footprint.[…] Instead your position seem to be, “well you can’t trust those guys, so just forget it and move on”. Nope. I do want those blanks filled (well, in the context of this debate - in actual fact I really don’t give a hoot either way). And we already agreed that more studying would be good, certainly couldn’t be bad. But that’s not what \*\*Chen \*\*wants, and that’s not what John Tanton is lobbying for either. They’re asking for immigration reforms, not for cool-headed studies. > [@](#): > > 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? I don’t think it’s premature per se (although I do think it’s on the alarmist side), but on the whole there are much more pressing concerns to tackle and if analysing immigration impacts detracts from addressing those then the analysis is a net loss. In short, I think it’s premature to _act_ on the immigration issue now. Worrying about it ? Knock yourself right out. Worry all you want, brother. In absolute terms I don’t see anything wrong with analysing population effects per se, if only to better understand how to mitigate them without having to mitigate the population itself. [size]BTW, if any Pentagon mook is reading this: “mitigating population” is my euphemism for killing people. You can’t have it ![/size] > [@](#): > > 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. _guffaw_ Regardless, I’m not playing the blame game here. Immigration (and population control) is an issue mired in political undercurrents, and taking a stance on it in either direction would be a political move no matter whether the reasons for it are purely partisan, philosophical, xenophobic or environmental. Which is the stated reason the SC has decided not to set foot there for the time being (which, again, does not indicate they are turning a blind eye to population _at all_), because they feel trying to cross that particular minefield would put their other, more pressing efforts in jeopardy by splitting their base. And since those other efforts are what really matters… - well, that’s not 100% correct. As George Carlin wisely said, “the planet is fine. The \*people \*are fucked.” ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/464 "2011-06-20T18:07:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, but the footprint that is eliminated in Mexico is not just transferred to the U.S. That would be a wash, from a global standpoint. When people move to the U.S. their footprint goes up in size. They use more AC, heating oil, electricity; they buy more TVs, cars, appliances, etc. Even at not the level of the average American. I saw a cite above that suggested this goes up very slowly. So my question to you is: is the increase significant enough to warrant attention? How do you know? ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/465 "2011-06-20T18:14:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Actually, no, it isn’t. How so? If you don’t believe the planet should have borders, surely the question of whether a country should be concerned with the environment bounded by those borders—for the sake of that country—is meaningless, no? ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/466 "2011-06-20T18:20:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I saw a cite above that suggested this goes up very slowly. So my question to you is: is the increase significant enough to warrant attention? How do you know? It depends what you mean by attention. I don’t know what the numbers are, which is why I have only been arguing that environmental groups should be studying this. My guess is that there is no immediate crisis. But my guess is also that numbers like **Kobal’s** claim that the U.S. could handle 5 times the population is ridiculous. I simply want environmental groups to be looking at the issue from a purely environmental/national standpoint and see what the numbers are. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/467 "2011-06-20T18:21:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How so? If you don’t believe the planet should have borders, surely the question of whether a country should be concerned with the environment bounded by those borders—for the sake of that country—is meaningless, no? Not to an environmentalist, who sees how the global ecosystem is made up of its parts. Nor are internationalists in general indifferent to local concerns in general. ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/468 "2011-06-20T23:09:57Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > The immigration angle is purely political, and a misdirection from the real environmental issues. **That’s right, you suggested it would be ok if the US continued on to have at least the population of India**. That’s about how serious your arguments are 😃 btw. Lester R Brown (who you might consider to be a rather [distinguished environmentalist](http://www.earth-policy.org/about_epi/C32)) disagrees with your naive & thoughtless assessment. > [@](#): > > . . . > 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.) > > . . . > > 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. . . . > > 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. > > . . . > > 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:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/469 "2011-06-20T23:59:21Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > **That’s right, you suggested it would be ok if the US continued on to have at least the population of India**. That’s about how serious your arguments are 😃 > > btw. Lester R Brown (who you might consider to be a rather [distinguished environmentalist](http://www.earth-policy.org/about_epi/C32)) disagrees with your naive & thoughtless assessment. > > [Session Verification](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) That’s all fine and well, but didn’t he once eat in the same restaurant as Tanton? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2011, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/470 "2011-06-21T00:08:57Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > **That’s right, you suggested it would be ok if the US continued on to have at least the population of India**. That’s about how serious your arguments are 😃 > > btw. Lester R Brown (who you might consider to be a rather [distinguished environmentalist](http://www.earth-policy.org/about_epi/C32)) disagrees with your naive & thoughtless assessment. > > [Session Verification](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) [Wiki confirms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Brown#Primary_concerns) U.S. immigration control **is** one of Brown’s causes. (No mention of him taking sides in the Sierra Club fight, or even being a member.) So, here you have an environmentalist who in your terms is **not** a coward on immigration, and who has not in any sense been silenced, but enjoys a very prominent position in the environmental movement without coming under lefty attack over his immigration views, so far as I can see (otherwise his Wiki bio almost certainly would have a “Controversies” section) – this proves your thesis **how?!** ---
**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 21, 2011, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/471 "2011-06-21T00:33:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Wiki confirms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Brown#Primary_concerns) U.S. immigration control **is** one of Brown’s causes. (No mention of him taking sides in the Sierra Club fight, or even being a member.) > > So, here you have an environmentalist who in your terms is **not** a coward on immigration, and who has not in any sense been silenced, but enjoys a very prominent position in the environmental movement without coming under lefty attack over his immigration views, so far as I can see (otherwise his Wiki bio almost certainly would have a “Controversies” section) – this proves your thesis **how?!** As I noticed before, by looking at this article, the author is taking \*\*all \*\*the population to task. Of course the cites are less dividing the longer they stay outside nativist sources. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/472 "2011-06-21T01:30:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As I noticed before, by looking at this article, the author is taking \*\*all \*\*the population to task. Of course the cites are less dividing the longer they stay outside nativist sources. Yes, he talks about the total population, but he also talks about population _growth_, and comments specifically on immigration: > [@](#): > > \*\* In times past, reaching such a demographic milestone might have been a cause for celebration. In 2006, it is not.\*\* > > **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.) > > **More people require more of everything,** including water. … > > 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. all this agrees with what **Chen** and I have been saying. ---
**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 21, 2011, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/473 "2011-06-21T01:55:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, he talks about the total population, but he also talks about population _growth_, and comments specifically on immigration: > > all this agrees with what **Chen** and I have been saying. Nowhere in the article he talks about concentrating on immigration, As mentioned, > [@](#): > > U.S. population grows by almost 1.8 million each year, or 0.6 percent. Adding nearly 1 million immigrants per year You will notice that if one then looks for solutions that apply to all then why the fuss of concentrating in the lesser problem when it is included \*\*already \*\*in reference to the environment? Clearly the main reason why some try that to be the focus is not the environment, as focusing on immigrants is avoiding a big chunk of the population equation. Of course, after so much avoidance, it is clear that it has been granted that on top of everything, the nativist groups do not do much of anything else for the environment, both locally or globally. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/474 "2011-06-21T02:08:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nowhere in the article he talks about concentrating on immigration, As mentioned, > You will notice that if one then looks for solutions that apply to all then why the fuss of concentrating in the lesser problem when it is included \*\*already \*\*in reference to the environment? > > Clearly the main reason why some try that to be the focus is not the environment, as focusing on immigrants is avoiding a big chunk of the population equation. Of course, after so much avoidance, it is clear that it has been granted that on top of everything, the nativist groups do not do much of anything else for the environment, both locally or globally. Maybe a 1 child policy as practiced in China would help prevent the population going over 400 million. Maybe that is what he has in mind? ---
**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 21, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/475 "2011-06-21T02:12:16Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Maybe a 1 child policy as practiced in China would help prevent the population going over 400 million. Maybe that is what he has in mind? I guess you should ask him. But can see that my points stand. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/476 "2011-06-21T02:15:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You will notice that if one then looks for solutions that apply to all then why the fuss of concentrating in the lesser problem when it is included \*\*already \*\*in reference to the environment? Because of this: > [@](#): > > 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.) So, assuming that immigration is just 1,000,000 per year, a third of the growth in population comes from immigration. so, if one wanted to look at ways to stabilize the population, immigration is a great place to look. If population stabilization were of interest to you, where else would you suggest we look? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2011, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/477 "2011-06-21T02:18:16Z")
What appears to be the case is not that American environmentalists are “cowards” on immigration, but that they are **divided.** All consider overpopulation a problem; but most do not seem to consider immigration a big or determinative enough factor for immigration control to be a high-priority issue. Then we have those like Lester Brown, who do give it a high priority – but **don’t** make it the focus of their entire careers in the movement. And that’s **the whole lineup,** as far as genuine environmentalists are concerned. Then, over there to one side of all of that, we have pseudogreen crypto-nativist\* opportunists-entryists-astroturfers, like [Progressives for Immigration Reform,](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progressives_For_Immigration_Reform) and the Tanton faction who tried to take over the Sierra Club. But environmentalists are not such cowards as to put up with **that.** One sees the difference? - I **love** having the chance to make a serious political “crypto-” formation that actually fits and is not a self-lampshading joke! How often does it come along these days?! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/478 "2011-06-21T02:26:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then, over there to one side of all of that, we have pseudogreen crypto-nativist opportunists-entryists-astroturfers, like [Progressives for Immigration Reform,](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progressives_For_Immigration_Reform) and the Tanton faction who tried to take over the Sierra Club. But environmentalists are not such cowards as to put up with **that.** Let’s reword that for reality, shall we?: “Then, over to one side we have concerned environmentalists trying to _take back_ the Sierra Club from the cowardly faction who kowtowed to a blackmailer.” Don’t mention it. Really. Glad to help. ---
**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 21, 2011, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/479 "2011-06-21T02:48:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s reword that for reality, shall we?: > > “Then, over to one side we have concerned environmentalists trying to _take back_ the Sierra Club from the cowardly faction who kowtowed to a blackmailer.” > > Don’t mention it. Really. Glad to help. The full background was that that was not a secret by 2005, you would think then that if it was blackmail then most members would had voted in protest, the vote was even worse for the ones pushing to make an environmentalist group to focus on immigrants. It was more likely that the Sierra Club members were convinced by the information they got regarding the intentions of the proponents of the change from the neutral position and what you see as blackmail is in reality just one important member that complained thanks to the information that they found and provided regarding those groups. [http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200405/ways\_printable.asp](http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200405/ways_printable.asp) Blaming the loss on a single donor is just sour grapes. ---
**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 21, 2011, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/480 "2011-06-21T03:01:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because of this: > > So, assuming that immigration is just 1,000,000 per year, a third of the growth in population comes from immigration. so, if one wanted to look at ways to stabilize the population, immigration is a great place to look. If population stabilization were of interest to you, where else would you suggest we look? Already mentioned, I agree with more secure borders and more incentives for family planning. And already mentioned: There was no need to attempt to change an organization, whose focus is the environment as a whole, for me to have those ideas, neither it was necessary for nativist organizations to go out of their scope into organizations that, thanks to science, are going for a different set of priorities. [http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/global-warming/our-work/what-is-global-warming](http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/global-warming/our-work/what-is-global-warming) And as much as you want to ignore it, the clear position of almost all politicians favored by the nativists groups is to deny global warming. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=25)