# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/141 "2011-06-14T19:12:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What it is clear is that you can’t show how dedicated the fake environmentalists are to main issue now. Unbelievable. Again, it does not matter how dedicated they are to the main issue. If a doctor tells you to stop smoking because it’s bad for your health, that’s a legitimate piece of advice, even if he doesn’t tell you to lose the extra 50 pounds you’re carrying. ---
**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 14, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/142 "2011-06-14T19:24:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > From a pure global environmental standpoint, it would not be good for planet earth if every person had a carbon footprint of an American. So it would be better for the planet if more new Americans were the lower-footprint immigrant types and not the higher-footprint non-immigrant types, no? ---
**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 14, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/143 "2011-06-14T19:26:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Another facet he ignores is that even if it is true that immigrants will have and continue to have lower consumption levels, those levels are in addition to whatever is used by the native (:eek:) population. Whatever the collective footprint of 300 million people, the footprint for 350,000 people is greater. Regardless of where the increase comes from. Not true - if the increase is more something like 100-million low footprint immigrants and a negative growth for the non-immigrants, from 300- to 250-million, your total footprint might well decrease. All you need is to get over the Demographic Shift…NPG is your friend! ---
**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 14, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/144 "2011-06-14T19:27:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Specifically, what situation? Already mentioned: [http://www.campusprogress.org/articles/environmentalists\_shouldnt\_be\_anti-immigration/](http://www.campusprogress.org/articles/environmentalists_shouldnt_be_anti-immigration/) > [@](#): > > Population growth is a hard issue to grapple with, but when it comes to Tanton’s anti-immigrant groups, there can be no doubt that their lobbying and mobilizing efforts have been completely counterproductive to the goals of the green movement. These groups have focused their efforts on defeating legislation that would legally normalize the status of the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country (amnesty!), rather than working together with bipartisan coalitions to achieve comprehensive reform that would legally assimilate the undocumented. They have pushed for policies of “attrition through enforcement” like Arizona’s SB 1070 law, the objective of which is concisely summarized by Adam Serwer: “Make life as miserable as possible for undocumented immigrants, and they’ll leave and never come back.” > > These policies haven’t caused immigration to stop or slow down (that’s mostly determined by the economy); all they’ve done is solidified the second-class status of the undocumented in America. > > > [@](#): > > > > That’s a problem for anyone who wants to enact effective green policies. How are undocumented immigrants supposed to take advantage of government subsidies for home weatherization or energy efficiency tax credits if they aren’t legally recognized by the government? How are they supposed to obtain education about avoiding population-increasing unplanned pregnancies if they are excluded from both public education and the health system? If a carbon pricing scheme is ever passed by Congress, how will it regulate the underground economy that employs undocumented workers? > > For green policies to work, the government should be able to regulate the economy and provide environmentally-friendly social services and information to everyone who participates in it. By concentrating on stigmatizing and legal isolating the undocumented immigrants already in the country, Tanton’s groups have made the unsustainable environmental trends that he was worried about in the 1970s even worse. And lets see if you can explain why is that not logical, instead of doing like Chen and just dismissing it because just because of his biases. What it is clear to me is that you are quick to blame others for using tactics that in reality your side is using with gusto. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/145 "2011-06-14T19:28:41Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So it would be better for the planet if more new Americans were the lower-footprint immigrant types and not the higher-footprint non-immigrant types, no? Not really. Immigrants become Americans, for good and for ill. If you want to look at it from a pure global standpoint, fewer Americans would be better. And they should lower their footprint across the board. ---
**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 14, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/146 "2011-06-14T19:29:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Unbelievable. Again, it does not matter how dedicated they are to the main issue. If a doctor tells you to stop smoking because it’s bad for your health, that’s a legitimate piece of advice, even if he doesn’t tell you to lose the extra 50 pounds you’re carrying. So you are defending unethical doctors that would ignore telling a patient about the bigger problem? Do tell. ---
**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 14, 2011, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/147 "2011-06-14T19:55:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not really. Immigrants become Americans, for good and for ill. If you want to look at it from a pure global standpoint, fewer Americans would be better. And they should lower their footprint across the board. And as it should be painfully obvious by many, but it has to be repeated as some continue to miss it, all people will have to learn to do more effective birth control. At the same time there are already technologies that will reduce the carbon footprint. A solution for this issue has to include the adoption of new technologies and efficiency that are already available and can be implemented, the big problem remains that most fake environmentalists got us people in government that are preventing any changes. > **[A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs](https://skepticalscience.com/real-world-example-carbon-pricing-benefits-outweigh-costs.html)** > > NOTE: This article has also been republished on Treehugger > [@](#): > > The myth that carbon pricing will result in much higher energy bills is based on the premise that utilities will pass on the price of carbon emissions to consumers. However, this assumption fails to account for the re-investment of the funds generated through carbon pricing. For example, as discussed above, the RGGI states invested two-thirds of their carbon funds into energy efficiency and energy bill payment assistance programs. As a result, the report found that individuals and businesses which took advantage of these programs saw their energy bills drop: > > > [@](#): > > > > “At the household and business level, energy efficiency investments enhance consumers’ control over their energy use, typically reducing energy bills by 15 to 30 percent.” > > Overall, the RGGI program has provided us with a real-world example that carbon pricing can be successfully implemented at a minimal cost, and that its benefits can exceed its costs several times over. > > Unfortunately, the New Hampshire House of Representatives recently voted to withdraw the state from RGGI. This despite the fact that New Hampshire used $3.1 million of their carbon allocation funds to reduce their state deficit, and invested another $24.4 million in energy efficency programs. The state had used those funds to help businesses and schools become more energy efficient, weatherize low-income homes, provide energy efficiency job training for more than 170 workers, and so on. New Hampshire Speaker William O’Brien justified the state’s RGGI withdrawal: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Eliminating RGGI sends a clear signal to the business community that we are reversing the direction that the state is taking in terms of creating a regulatory environment that is pro-business. That’s critical in terms of sending a strong message that we are open for business and ready to work with employers to help grow our economy and create good, new jobs here.” > > Apparently Mr. O’Brien considers it “pro-business” to eliminate a system which had created loans to help New Hampshire businesses lower energy expenses, and provided energy efficiency job training for hundreds of workers in the state. Unfortunately, New Hampshire serves as a reminder that myths about the effects of carbon pricing tend to have more impact than reality. > **[Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs](https://skepticalscience.com/carter-confusion-2-green-jobs.html)** > > In his recent Gish Gallop article arguing against implementation of a carbon tax in Australia, marine geologist Bob Carter repeated a fairly widespread myth that investing in renewable energy kills jobs, based on a flawed Spanish study: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/148 "2011-06-14T21:35:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So you are defending unethical doctors that would ignore telling a patient about the bigger problem? Do tell. Oh, please. The point is that being overweight and being a smoker both have negative impacts on one’s health. If someone tells me to lose weight and quit smoking, great. If someone tells me to do either one, that’s great, too. There, I told. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/149 "2011-06-14T21:39:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And as it should be painfully obvious by many, but it has to be repeated as some continue to miss it, all people will have to learn to do more effective birth control. > > At the same time there are already technologies that will reduce the carbon footprint. A solution for this issue has to include the adoption of new technologies and efficiency that are already available and can be implemented,… True. But it also remains true that immigration will also have an effect on the degree to which we put stress on the nation’s environment. Why you seem so intent to fight that fact points to an ideological position so strong that it is preventing you from accepting a basic fact. Like I said, that’s some good irony. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/150 "2011-06-14T21:49:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > A quibble: people who live in the U.S tend to have higher carbon footprints. So, as the immigrant adopted all things American his footprint would increase. So, globally, no it is not a wash. Perhaps we should criticize the Sierra Club for not advocating mandatory asceticism. The difference in carbon footprints isn’t due to anything inherent about location. If Mexico had a similar standard of living, economy, and environmental policy, their average carbon footprint would be similar to ours. Or put another way, if a potential immigrant stayed in their home country but somehow experienced the same type of life changes that likely would’ve happened with immigrating, their carbon footprint would similarly rise. Immigration itself is incidental. Suppose tomorrow a new study comes out which incontrovertibly demonstrates that people in one part of the country experiencing population growth, say Texas, have much higher carbon footprints and worse impacts on the environment in other ways, compared to the rest of the country. Would you expect environmental groups to take a position on Americans moving to Texas? ---
**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 14, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/151 "2011-06-14T21:50:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, please. The point is that being overweight and being a smoker both have negative impacts on one’s health. If someone tells me to lose weight and quit smoking, great. If someone tells me to do either one, that’s great, too. > > There, I told. Still defending the unethical one, I see. ---
**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 14, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/152 "2011-06-14T22:12:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > True. But it also remains true that immigration will also have an effect on the degree to which we put stress on the nation’s environment. Why you seem so intent to fight that fact points to an ideological position so strong that it is preventing you from accepting a basic fact. Like I said, that’s some good irony. No that is just repeating the same old useless retort. As we already established, you can not even show a tweet 🙂 from the fake environmentalist as doing anything about the big issue. That is the real funny thing, the nativists already have plenty of outlets to continue to push their sorry rhetoric, environmentalists look at the big picture and it was bananas to attempt to reverse the course of environmentalist groups when they began to notice that immigration was not where the main focus should be. I’m glad to see though that you looked at the money people to explain why the Sierra Club got to the position that they have today, because it means that it is really silly not to take a look at the people and groups organizing this wedge issue, and to see if they are actually doing anything for the environment: [http://news.change.org/stories/open-letter-to-john-tanton-on-global-warming](http://news.change.org/stories/open-letter-to-john-tanton-on-global-warming) > [@](#): > > The NRDC believes that ACES, also known as cap-and-trade legislation or the Waxman-Markey bill, “has the major ingredients to generate millions of jobs, break our dependence on oil and reduce the pollution that causes global warming.” To date, the U.S. is increasingly isolated among developed countries by its failure to pass national legislation to combat global warming. ACES would change that. > > Yet I couldn’t find much about the bill on your websites: NumbersUSA doesn’t mention it at all, and FAIR mentions it once, to condemn the bill for failing to include new immigration restrictions. > > I analyzed the House vote on ACES and found that the Representatives who scored highest on NumbersUSA’s Immigration Report Cards, with a grade of a “B” or higher, voted against ACES at a rate of more than 5 to 1 (168-31). These numbers indicate that most House Representatives support either immigration restrictions or legislation to combat global warming,\*\* but not both.\*\* > > So my question for you is this: Will you ask Congress to support ACES and other environmentally-friendly legislation? Or will you continue to assert that policies that limit immigration, rather than those that limit carbon emissions, are the key to slowing climate change? > > Regards, > > Dave Bennion > [immigration.change.org](http://immigration.change.org) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/153 "2011-06-14T22:13:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Still defending the unethical one, I see. A Doctor who fails to mention possible treatments due to his ideological beliefs is acting unethically. ---
**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 14, 2011, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/154 "2011-06-14T22:29:04Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > An unethical Doctor would avoid mentioning possible treatments due to his ideological beliefs. Very silly retort, to begin with, I already pointed out at the reason why time and recent evidence show that concentrating on population and emission controls are the keys to deal with this issue. (Immigrants are part of the population) When groups that only pretend to be environmentalists refuse to deal with one of the most important parts of the solution, it is clear that they are part of the problem. The ideology involved here is not coming from me. If one loses weight, it has been demonstrated that one will be less likely to develop diabetes, what your doctors are doing is to ignore the big picture and then wait for you to eventually depend on insulin shots. Because what is clear is that you are, thanks to ideology, continuing to deny that not doing anything against CO2 emissions will eventually make immigration worse. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/155 "2011-06-14T22:47:28Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > Perhaps we should criticize the Sierra Club for not advocating mandatory asceticism. > > The difference in carbon footprints isn’t due to anything inherent about location. If Mexico had a similar standard of living, economy, and environmental policy, their average carbon footprint would be similar to ours. Or put another way, if a potential immigrant stayed in their home country but somehow experienced the same type of life changes that likely would’ve happened with immigrating, their carbon footprint would similarly rise. Immigration itself is incidental. > [@gatorslap](#): > > In your hypothetical, yes. In reality, no. > > Suppose tomorrow a new study comes out which incontrovertibly demonstrates that people in one part of the country experiencing population growth, say Texas, have much higher carbon footprints and worse impacts on the environment in other ways, compared to the rest of the country. Would you expect environmental groups to take a position on Americans moving to Texas? I have no idea what your asking or why. I fear you are conflating two different issues, the environment on a global scale—what matters to planet earth, and the degree that Americans should care about stresses on their own environment. But I could be wrong. As I said, I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/156 "2011-06-14T22:48:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Still defending the unethical one, I see. :rolleyes: Try rereading what I wrote. Better yet, try rereading it and comprehending it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/157 "2011-06-14T22:51:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As we already established, you can not even show a tweet 🙂 from the fake environmentalist as doing anything about the big issue. It does not matter. The issue raised is either valid or it is not. Whether they weighed in on another valid issue is immaterial. You have taken a logic course, haven’t you. If not, I think we may have identified the problem. ---
**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 14, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/158 "2011-06-14T23:03:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes: Try rereading what I wrote. Better yet, try rereading it and comprehending it. This I would like to see, clearly you are ignoring that your diagnostic is incorrect. The unethical part comes by ignoring to tell to the patient that there is yet another overwhelming problem that needs to be taken care of. The unethical part comes by telling the patient that everything will be ok by taking care of of a single part of the problem. And ignore the smoke. ---
**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 14, 2011, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/159 "2011-06-14T23:05:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It does not matter. The issue raised is either valid or it is not. Whether they weighed in on another valid issue is immaterial. Try irrelevant. (To be fair, I’m talking about proportions here, the cities with less immigrants are the ones with the largest carbon footprints. But the irrelevance is also political as it is really a dead issue among serious researchers, it is population on the whole and the control of the emissions that counts) > [@magellan01](#): > > You have taken a logic course, haven’t you. If not, I think we may have identified the problem. There are more than 2 reasons why it is irrelevant, the second one is shown by the acts of the deniers/fake environmentalists. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/160 "2011-06-14T23:17:10Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > It seems to me that they might be. Where is the Sierra Club on this [issue](http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0721-staples.shtm)? [All over the place.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club#Population_control_and_immigration) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=9)