# 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:** 3
**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 13, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/41 "2011-06-13T00:45:33Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Hardly a cheap shot, population is part of any discussion of environmental impact as set out above in the Ehrlich & Holdren formula. > > Btw. Zuckerman edited this book on issues of [global warming & human population](http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=a1gW4uV-q8EC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=Ed+Zuckerman+Human+Population+and+Environmental+Crisis&source=bl&ots=t3seKBFb0M&sig=YbPxHYEetbvNDOHkAT7Ja2jw2c4&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false) in the 90’s (before Al Gore made global warming a cool political issue). He’s been entirely consistent on the issue. As the Brains example could tell you, being consistent does not mean he is right on all subjects. And scientists began to notice that global warming was becoming a problem since the Eisenhower administration. Incidentally, not much of immigration was mentioned on the book you linked too, he actually agrees with the maker of the report that debunks the latest anti-immigrant efforts on the part that if we don’t do anything, then the ecological disaster will lead to a wave of immigration. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/42 "2011-06-13T00:56:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That population level will depend on new developments in energy production and CO2 controls that will be in place in the near future. > > So that population level does matter, but not as much as the immigrants being a part of it, what matters is that we \*\*all \*\*have to reduce the carbon footprint, and the reality is that solutions like cap-and-trade or a tax on carbon are currently dead in the water thanks also to the support many tea partiers representatives got in the previous election from organizations involved with John Tanton. > > [http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/04/14/white-nationalists-tied-to-tea-parties/](http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/04/14/white-nationalists-tied-to-tea-parties/) > > As the results are in, the Republican House is busy refusing to even vote on doing something about the issue, and worse, they are attempting as we speak to underfund even the science organizations that keep track of the problem. > > So clearly, there was really no interest by nativists on doing something about the environment, the whole point was an attempt to create a wedge issue, and then to stop any efforts to do anything about the carbon footprint in the USA. My question is about environmentalists, who presumably would tend left? I don’t expect Republicans, who are probably beholden to big business, to do much. ---
**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 13, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/43 "2011-06-13T01:23:40Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > My question is about environmentalists, who presumably would tend left? I don’t expect Republicans, who are probably beholden to big business to do much. What I do know is that the Republicans who are scientists with relation to the issue are not worried at all on the immigration issue in relation to global warming. And yes, they are doing something by investigated the real causes of the problem. > **[Climate Asylum](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/)** > > A Republican Scientist Advocates Sane Energy Policies Barry Bickmore is a geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University, an active Mormon, and an active Republican. Not a word about immigration related to climate, but as an active Republican he had to declare the nativists “wackos”. > **[Do Wackos Control the Utah Republican Party?](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/do-wackos-control-the-utah-republican-party/)** > > I’m a Republican myself, but I have to admit that the local branch of the party is a bit over the edge. This week the Republican state convention in Utah voted on who would represent the part… > [@](#): > > About 800 delegates showed up to the convention, and most of the time was spent in district meetings and voting for candidates for particular offices. After the voting, maybe 200 or so delegates left, and the last item of business was to listen to arguments about the proposed resolution, and vote on it. Don Larson got up and gave a speech about how if we were to give amnesty to all the illegal aliens, they would almost all become Democrats, destroying the Republican party, and hence America. What’s more, he talked about how “certain races” have a much higher incidence of “illegitimate births,” and people born out of wedlock are much more likely to “vote Democrat”. I’m not kidding. > > To our credit, some of the delegates got up and gave compelling reasons not to vote for the resolution. E.g., they argued the resolution was a piece of offensive, racist crap. We did a voice vote, and the chair said the “Nays” had it, but someone demanded a vote by show of hands. It still turned out that the resolution was voted down, but I estimate that fully a THIRD of those present voted for it. That’s a quarter of the delegates that showed up at all that day. Richard Alley is the highly regarded expert on paleo-climate from Penn State, registered Republican, was invited by congress to testify in a recent hearing on the matter and made a fool of Pat Michaels (scientist that is filled with misleading info nowadays) and the dumb Republicans asking questions. I looked around, and no, immigration was not even a related issue for him. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/9S_82BUshM8/hqdefault.jpg "More Congressional Climate Testimony: Ben Santer and Richard Alley") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S_82BUshM8) [http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/04/09/richard-alley-pbs-special-on-climate-change-and-sustainable-energy-debuts-april-10/](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/04/09/richard-alley-pbs-special-on-climate-change-and-sustainable-energy-debuts-april-10/) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/44 "2011-06-13T03:18:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What I do know is that the Republicans who are scientists with relation to the issue are not worried at all on the immigration issue in relation to global warming. And yes, they are doing something by investigated the real causes of the problem. > > [http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/](http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/) > > Barry Bickmore is a geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University, an active Mormon, and an active Republican. Not a word about immigration related to climate, but as an active Republican he had to declare the nativists “wackos”. > > [Do Wackos Control the Utah Republican Party? | Climate Asylum](http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/do-wackos-control-the-utah-republican-party/) > > Richard Alley is the highly regarded expert on paleo-climate from Penn State, registered Republican, was invited by congress to testify in a recent hearing on the matter and made a fool of Pat Michaels (scientist that is filled with misleading info nowadays) and the dumb Republicans asking questions. I looked around, and no, immigration was not even a related issue for him. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S\_82BUshM8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S_82BUshM8) > > [http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/04/09/richard-alley-pbs-special-on-climate-change-and-sustainable-energy-debuts-april-10/](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/04/09/richard-alley-pbs-special-on-climate-change-and-sustainable-energy-debuts-april-10/) Thanks for the links, it’s not really clear though what their views are on population expansion and emissions. Or at least, why they don’t consider that an issue. ---
**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 13, 2011, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/45 "2011-06-13T03:53:24Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Thanks for the links, it’s not really clear though what their views are on population expansion and emissions. Or at least, why they don’t consider that an issue. That is because studies show that immigrants do not really have the big carbon footprints that your sources claim they do. PDF file: [![](https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2010/10/immigration_climate_change_onpage_span.jpg) ](https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2010/10/immigration_climate_change_onpage_span.jpg) > [@](#): > > Immigrants live in cities with lower per-person emissions > Cities with large immigrant populations do not have the highest levels > of greenhouse gas emissions. Los Angeles, a city with an immigrant > population of over 40 percent, had the second-lightest per capita > carbon footprint in the United States according to a 2008 Brookings > study. The fourth lightest, New York City, has an immigrant population > of 36 percent. > At the same time, the 10 cities in Brookings’ study with the highest > per capita emissions have immigrant populations averaging > 5.1 percent. > > “Residential density and the availability of public transit” are two of > the chief reasons for a city’s low per capita footprint, according to the > Brookings report. These characteristics are commonly found in large > cities and immigrant-rich neighborhoods. > > As it turns out, immigrants are actually helping cities lower their > carbon footprint. > [@](#): > > Immigrants live in compact cities > Another Brookings study notes that more than half of all U.S. immigrants live in > high-density, large metropolitan cities and suburbs. This tendency among immigrants > toward high-density, low-carbon living has also been noted by leading > demographer Dowell Myers who writes that Latinos, who comprise the largest > immigrant group in the United States, “lead lifestyles compatible with compact > cities … occupy fewer housing units and are twice as likely to commute via public > transit, bicycle, or carpool.” > Finally, it’s less frequently reported that immigrant communities practice sustainable > living habits like organic farming and recycling, illustrating lessons that all > Americans can learn about living greener The most likely reason why not even concerned Republican experts on climate think about immigration is that population on the whole is the main issue, when those groups that you think are a big deal are not right now banging on the doors of the Republican representatives or senators, that are currently de-funding or denying science and demand to those Republicans to change, then it is painfully clear that those anti-immigrant “environmental” guys or organizations cited by you are just astroturfing for the environment side. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/46 "2011-06-13T04:34:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is because studies show that immigrants do not really have the big carbon footprints that your sources claim they do. > > PDF file: > [http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/immigration\_climate\_change.pdf/](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/immigration_climate_change.pdf/) > > The most likely reason why not even concerned Republican experts on climate think about immigration is that population on the whole is the main issue, when those groups that you think are a big deal are not right now banging on the doors of the Republican representatives or senators, that are currently de-funding or denying science and demand to those Republicans to change, then it is painfully clear that those anti-immigrant “environmental” guys or organizations cited by you are just astroturfing for the environment side. See the comments above re overall population increase & increased energy consumption. In relation to whether new migrants from poorer countries will increase their emissions, a starting point could be to look at the US average and Mexico average. The UN’s International Energy Agency, residents of America in 2007 put out an average of 19.1 tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by fossil fuel combustion. The residents of, say, Mexico each emit 4.1 tons per year. I suppose then you have a two pronged dilemma a) that they won’t assimilate to middle class norms and the environment is saved but you have a growing underclass or b) they will assimilate to middle class norms, in which case their carbon footprint will necessarily increase and damage the environment more than would otherwise be the case. ---
**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 13, 2011, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/47 "2011-06-13T04:49:41Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > See the comments above re overall population increase & increased energy consumption. Where does it say that your quoted orgs are right now complaining to the do nothing congress? > [@Chen019](#): > > In relation to whether new migrants from poorer countries will increase their emissions, a starting point could be to look at the US average and Mexico average. The UN’s International Energy Agency, residents of America in 2007 put out an average of 19.1 tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by fossil fuel combustion. The residents of, say, Mexico each emit 4.1 tons per year. > > I suppose then you have a two pronged dilemma a) that they won’t assimilate to middle class norms and the environment is saved but you have a growing underclass or b) they will assimilate to middle class norms, in which case their carbon footprint will necessarily increase and damage the environment more than would otherwise be the case. You are now mostly grasping at straws, it does remain a false dilemma, compared to what it needs to be done regarding the carbon footprint. Better city planning and less use of fossil fuels will be an important part of the effort, as it is also population control, immigration is not much a part of the problem but it is also part of the solution as the report shows, so immigration is mostly a wash for the footprint issue, but it will become a moot issue if something is done about the problem. Now, if you can find a cite where those nativist “environmentalists” groups and leaders are telling the current crop of Republicans to do something for their inaction on dealing with the overall CO2 issue, then you may still have a valid point. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/48 "2011-06-13T05:03:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Where does it say that your quoted orgs are right now complaining to the do nothing congress? > > You are now mostly grasping at straws, it does remain a false dilemma, compared to what it needs to be done regarding the carbon footprint. Better city planning and less use of fossil fuels will be an important part of the effort, as it is also population control, immigration is not much a part of the problem but it is also part of the solution as the report shows, so immigration is mostly a wash for the footprint issue, but it will become a moot issue if something is done about the problem. Rubbish, population stabilization is a big part of the issue, unless Clinton’s group were completely off base. > [@](#): > > GOAL 8: POPULATION > Move toward stabilization of U.S. population… > > POPULATION GROWTH > Reduced rate of population growth in the United States and the world. > > IMMIGRATION > Decreased number of illegal immigrants. > … > > Chapter 6 U.S. Population and Sustainability > > … > > Based on current trends, efficiency in the use of all resources would have to increase by more than 50 percent over the next four or five decades just to keep pace with population growth. > > Managing population growth, resources, and wastes is essential to ensuring that the total impact of these factors is within the bounds of sustainability. Stabilizing the population without changing consumption and waste production patterns would not be enough, but it would make an immensely challenging task more manageable. In the United States, each is necessary; neither alone is sufficient." [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF\_Reports/amer-top.html](http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html) ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/49 "2011-06-13T05:08:49Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Rubbish, population stabilization is a big part of the issue, unless Clinton’s group were completely off base. > > [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF\_Reports/amer-top.html](http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html) > [@](#): > > On the issue of population, the emphasis of the Council’s recommendations is on enabling parents to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, based on the strongly held and unchallenged conviction that voluntary decision-making lies at the heart of all American family planning. The Council also recognizes that the issue of immigration is potentially explosive and urges that legal and illegal immigration be addressed with\*\* great sensitivity and recognition of long-standing American traditions of fairness, freedom, and asylum.\*\* A yes, the Chen019 specialty of not really reading the cite. Edited to add: and that is also what I said too, once overall population (that is the correct focus) is mentioned then it becomes clear how silly is to blame immigration as the big factor. So, where are your cites on your pet groups demanding the Republicans that got elected, thanks to the help of those “environmentalists” to do something about the carbon footprint now? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/50 "2011-06-13T06:38:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > A yes, the Chen019 specialty of not really reading the cite. > > Edited to add: and that is also what I said too, once overall population (that is the correct focus) is mentioned then it becomes clear how silly is to blame immigration as the big factor. > > So, where are your cites on your pet groups demanding the Republicans that got elected, thanks to the help of those “environmentalists” to do something about the carbon footprint now? Why do you have to be so obtuse? Do they advocate population stabilization? What is a major cause of the population increase in the US? Above replacement level immigration. ---
**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 13, 2011, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/51 "2011-06-13T06:58:59Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Why do you have to be so obtuse? The obtuseness is not mine. One of the references of that paper from the Clinton group was the Immigration Act of 1990, the latest report indirectly references that, it is clear that you are still avoiding reading it and understating the implications, the act of 1990 was one of the reasons that there are many immigrants that are involved in research to curb carbon emissions. Not to mention that most of the groups you like to get your citations from are opposed to immigrants that are not from an specific ethnic group. > [@Chen019](#): > > Do they advocate population stabilization? Yes, and as the obtuseness shows here, one has therefore to repeat that controlling the population is not equal to opposing immigration because of carbon footprint issues. Immigration should be controlled but not stopped. > [@Chen019](#): > > What is a major cause of the population increase in the US? Above replacement level immigration. :rolleyes: For the umpteenth time, you are then avoiding the main issue, it is not immigration, but the extraordinary carbon footprint that Americans have, and the big culprits are from the cities that have \*\*less \*\*immigrants. ---
**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 13, 2011, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/52 "2011-06-13T07:07:09Z")
And no, I have not forgotten your deftly attempts at ignoring this: I’m still waiting for your cites to show that your astroturf environmentalists are doing something against the “do nothing against CO2 emissions” Republican congress critters. ---
**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 13, 2011, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/53 "2011-06-13T08:04:55Z")
My bolding: > [@Chen019](#): > > 1. Environmentalists realise that increasing population \*\*necessarily \*\*involves greater resource and environmental depletion. That ain’t so. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/54 "2011-06-13T11:07:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not to mention that most of the groups you like to get your citations from are opposed to immigrants that are not from an specific ethnic group. > Yes, and as the obtuseness shows here, one has therefore to repeat that controlling the population is not equal to opposing immigration because of carbon footprint issues. Immigration should be controlled but not stopped. Hurray, finally you accept that it has to be controlled! 🙂 I’ve never said it needs to be stopped - reducing it to population replacement level would suffice. ---
**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 13, 2011, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/55 "2011-06-13T11:16:20Z")
Not if your actual problem is with greenhouse gas and global warming it isn’t, since there is a huge problem there _at the current US population levels_. So really, saying you want to reduce it to population replacement level “for the environment and shit” shows just how disingenuous you are about the whole issue. Like your boy Tanton, you start from “I don’t like immigration” and go from there to try and find a reason, any reason to convince other people who don’t buy into your nativist narrative that immigration is really really bad even according to their ideologies. But a) that’s disingenuous and b) to make that tactic convincing, you would have to actually understand the fundamentals of said ideologies and care about \*their \*goals. Which you just demonstrated you did not. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/56 "2011-06-13T11:46:59Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Not if your actual problem is with greenhouse gas and global warming it isn’t, since there is a huge problem there _at the current US population levels_. > > So really, saying you want to reduce it to population replacement level “for the environment and shit” shows just how disingenuous you are about the whole issue. Like your boy Tanton, you start from “I don’t like immigration” and go from there to try and find a reason, any reason to convince other people who don’t buy into your nativist narrative that immigration is really really bad even according to their ideologies. > But a) that’s disingenuous and b) to make that tactic convincing, you would have to actually understand the fundamentals of said ideologies and care about \*their \*goals. Which you just demonstrated you did not. Interesting, so you actually agree that population stabilization is important. You presumably realise that immigration at current levels makes that impossible: > [@](#): > > Should America’s population continue to grow indefinitely, perhaps doubling to 600 million by the end of the century? Clearly, any answer to this vital demographic question has serious and far-reaching economic, political, social and environmental consequences for America as well as for the international community of nations… > > Contrary to popular thought, the dominant force fueling America’s demographic growth is not natural increase, but immigration. This is because immigrants not only add their own numbers to the nation’s overall population, but also contribute a disproportionate number of births whose effects are compounded over time. You realise that this creates various problems, including environmental ones: > [@](#): > > These projections raise the fundamental question of how much larger should America’s population be. Over the past several decades, the White House and Congress established various commissions to comprehensively address the future size of America’s population. In general, these high-level advisory bodies concluded that in the long run, no substantial benefits would result from the further growth of the nation’s population. And in particular, they recognized that America cannot grow indefinitely and recommended that the country welcome and plan for a gradual stabilization of its population. > > Also, they concluded that there is hardly any problem confronting America whose solution would be easier with a larger population. Moving toward population stabilization would contribute significantly to America’s ability to solve its domestic problems as well as many of those abroad, especially energy and resource consumption, climate change and environmental sustainability. Moreover, without US leadership as demonstrated by domestic efforts to stabilize its population and thereby mitigate further damage to the environment, other nations would be reluctant to adopt policies and practices to stabilize their populations and work toward developmental and ecological sustainability. [| Yale and the World](http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/us-immigration-policy-likely-boost-population) However, you can’t agree to simply reducing immigration to replacement levels because that would lead to people saying “like your boy **Tanton** ”, and calling you a **nativist**? Is that right? ---
**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 13, 2011, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/57 "2011-06-13T12:00:22Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Interesting, so you actually agree that population stabilization is important. I don’t, actually. I don’t give the most token of fucks about population stabilization, the environment, or even global warming. Whether the rest of you chuckleheads finally get a clue or wipe yourselves out through your own lack of foresight is of no importance to me whatsoever. I do care about being openly bullshitted at, though. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/58 "2011-06-13T12:07:52Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I don’t, actually. I don’t give the most token of fucks about population stabilization, the environment, or even global warming. Whether the rest of you chuckleheads finally get a clue or wipe yourselves out through your own lack of foresight is of no importance to me whatsoever. > > I do care about being openly bullshitted at, though. I’m not sure what you mean by chuckleheads, but I’m reporting it to the moderator’s in case. In any event, it seems that you have adopted a nihilistic position which is fine, a lot of people do. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/59 "2011-06-13T12:29:23Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Whether the rest of you chuckleheads finally get a clue or wipe yourselves out through your own lack of foresight is of no importance to me whatsoever. Please save terms of endearment like “chuckleheads” for the Pit. ---
**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 13, 2011, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/60 "2011-06-13T12:31:18Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > In any event, it seems that you have adopted a nihilistic position which is fine, a lot of people do. It seems you have adopted a patronizing tone which is fine, a lot of people find smarm endearing. ETA@ **Marley** : eh, I meant little by it and it wasn’t directed at anyone in particular but got it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=4)