I begin to think that you do not like the answer that environmentalists, specially when dealing with global warming, are also dealing with the population of immigrants. The reason why I do say yes is because there are many more factors that are ignored when immigration is the only one issue that in practice the nativists are dealing with.
What I see now regarding the big picture: one side is worrying about population increase as a whole, and it worries also about carbon emissions.
The other side worries about immigration alone, and what is tragic, is that they are also missing that ignoring in practice the emissions part of the equation will mean that we will get a bigger rise of future displacements, in other words, more immigrants but this time as refugees.
Yes, the nativists try to say that they work for the environment, but it has been shown that the favored elected officials by the nativists are just busy now blocking any efforts to deal with carbon emissions.
As someone said: By their fruits you shall know them.
Until you’ve got numbers showing that there are water shortages across the US and that the projected 470something million blokes **Chen **keeps whinging about would make a dent, I still fail to see what this has to do with anything.
Yes. Water is finite. Resources are finite. Got that. There is a ceiling. Got that too. That is immaterial in absolute. If you’ve got a cite that these limits have been or will be reached in the projectable future, bring it. If not, you’re just spreading alarmism and FUD.
The part where more people = more wilderness turned into fields. It is not correct, because a) the US is already farmed exhaustively and b) that exhaustive farming is not used to capacity. So more people does not, in fact, imply more farming.
Just like Chen, you must be made aware that people can scroll up and see what you fucking wrote.
Yes, it does. Your argument it is not valid because what you base it on is not factual, i.e. not true.
Also, I’m the linguistic pedant here ! Know your place !
My evidence is that these levels of population density have proven viable and sustainable elsewhere without tanking the environment. That’s about it. I’m not on the Sierra Club board. If you want a more factual number, go dig it up.
We’ve been there. No additional farmland is required.
Yup. Switzerland is a post-apocalyptic desert where mutant ghouls choke on diesel fumes while they’re forced to build roads, roads, roads everywhere.
Now, do you have any *actual *counter-data, or do you feel JAQing off is an actual counter-argument ?
More illogical comments. Population growth is placing a huge strain on water supplies in the US. Population growth is largely fueled by immigration. Why is this off the table for you? Again, you’ve said you are not in favour of open borders. So would you support any reduction in immigration? It seems logical for environmentalists to point out that reducing population growth via reduced immigration is a sensible policy option.
Dealing with population as a whole means that automatically the immigrants are also included and they will be inconvenienced and will have to follow new regulations like a carbon tax.
What is really illogical is to continue to pretend that the cites that are not coming from nativists do not give too much weight to your “solution”.
Another illogical comment which manages to misrepresent what I’ve said. I haven’t talked about a single “solution”. I’ve called you out previously on this strawman.
Now, will you please explain why immigration is simply out of bounds for you?
Neither have I said on the quote that it was a “single” solution, as mentioned before, immigration is where you demand the focus to be and then you ignore what the focus of the fake environmentalists really is, hint: it is not about water.
Their focus is also to laugh all the way to the bank and at people like you.
As it should go without saying, it is only by your magic thinking that my points also do not fit points 1
Point 2 is really just denying that most of the descendants are American citizens already or that no further immigration reform will take place.
And you are thinking that there is no way that environmentalists are also dealing with the immigrants by dealing with the population as a whole. It is not smart because, as demonstrated by your fake environmentalists, they are not lifting a finger to what will cause more refugees in the future.
And that is clear when you dismissed the cites that show that thanks to global emissions the west is getting drier.
I don’t demand that the focus is solely on immigration. I want to know why it is off the table for you. Why isn’t it an obvious policy option for environmentalists and others to alleviate the pressure of popution growth in the US?
Again, it seems this is due to a deep ideological commitment on your part to never reduce immigration under any circumstances. Because you think that would be inhumane. Have I understood you correctly?
I already pointed to environmentalists and why they do not consider immigration the priority, and I agree with them. Population and other issues are, otherwise you are just beating around the bush.
Personal angle: What it is really astonishing is that even when I told you already that I’m an immigrant, and it seems that that fact also sailed through you.
But that is typical.
All people, all the world, will have to take their medicine, and I would rather deal with all trees on the forest rather that misleadingly assume that the carbon footprint issue will be taken care of just by dealing with immigrants.
There comes a time to say that you are only JAQing to appeal to a shrinking audience.
Once again, it is not an obvious policy because there is no followup whatsoever from the fake environmentalists. Even if by a miracle they put all stops to immigration the immigration situation will get worse if nothing is done on the fronts you are trying to ignore (yes, the same ones you are trying to claim that they are red herrings)
No, as usual. If you had some imagination you would realize that moving to control population will also mean that there will be less descendants of the immigrants.
What it is clearer now is that your ideology is the one that is preventing you to notice that fake environmentalists are just pandering to you, they have no intentions to do anything about the carbon footprint, and if that means that we will get more immigrants thanks to the inaction of their elected congress critter, they do not care. They have other sugar daddies on the denialist oil industry, you are just being played like a fiddle by them.
So that explains your personal ideological opposition to any restriction in immigration. I didn’t see you mention that previously. Your illogical opposition make a bit more sense now You have heartfelt emotional reasons for it.
Yes, it is an obvious and sensible policy option because it is a controllable way of directly addressing population growth in the US.
I never said or suggested ignoring other environmental approaches. For the 3rd (4th?) time, this is a strawman you are intent on beating.
And now just pretend I did not mention it before, and also the points presented by the environmentalists that you where scared to deal with.
Talk is cheap. If from the beginning your heroes had not pretended to be environmentalists then dealing with immigration was a more valid position, it is bananas when the issue is environmental and global.
And even more cheap talk, you are not capable of bringing any example of your nativists orgs making even some pretend pressure on the elected congress critters they helped elect to office to do something about the carbon footprint issue. The action then is not there on what is a very important part of the issue.
What this uncuriosity to examine the environmentalist actions of your heroes shows is that it is clear that they are continue to fool you.
I honestly did not see you mention that previously. As I say, it does confirm my impression that you had a strong ideological position on immigration that prevented you from accepting basic logic.
Regarding your other comments - please refer to the thread topic. It is my impression that the reluctance of some US environmentalists to address immigration as part of the suite of policy options is due to ideology.
Everyone should notice that he is claiming that I have illogically arrived to something only thanks to who I am, notice that he is then **illogically **dismissing all the points of the environmentalists cited just because of that.
So I guess I should thank him for that direct evidence of who is really not doing this on good faith.
I thought you admitted that your own background was a factor in your refusal to consider reducing immigration? You were unable to provide any other rational reason for refusing to consider it as a means to address population growth in the US.
And this was already demonstrated, real environmentalists are dealing with the issue on all fronts.
Fake environmentalists do not, and are fooling many by concentrating on issues that are important, but not as much when taking a big picture view.
Once we take into account the big picture, it is clear why the fake environmentalists are fake, they do not bother do do anything about the other interconnected problems. And this is denied by some in this thread.
As it is also the denial that even papers in major journals are reporting that by not doing anything on the other interconnected problems like carbon footprints, then immigration will get worse. Denial of this is a small problem in this thread.*
Small because just a few are supporting you in all your points. As as we are finding out, your nativist heroes are losing big where it counts, so I’m not worried about convincing you. I post to inform others.
And you should read it again, that was not the only reason why, what it is clear is that you already **demonstrated **that you will reach for personal (although mild) attacks in your efforts to ignore the points of others.
In other words - you’re an advocate not interested in discussing the thread topic. Perhaps you should start another debate thread on how to address environmental issues generally?
**Again - this thread is asking why environmentalists have been cowed into silence on immigration, when population growth is so clearly an issue. **
I also think your hostile comments about Professor Ben Zuckerman earlier perhaps provide some explanation. Who needs that kind of abuse?
Denying that the carbon footprint issue will not make immigration worse is what you are attempting to do. Not bothering to analyze what the consequences of the real actions of the nativists is foolish.
Anyone that is scapegoating others and only talking cheaply and not doing anything about the main issue needs it. (Really, a real environmentalist like James Hansen is willing to get arrested protesting government for not doing enough on carbon emissions, your heroes are not even producing a letter to the editor to denounce the current idiocy of conservative reps by attempting to stop emission controls)
The most obvious answer would be that environmentalists perceive that overpopulation is a global issue, and how or where the population is distributed around the globe is of secondary importance. No one adds a straw of burden to the planet’s carrying capacity by sneaking across a border fence.
The other answer would be that nobody cowed nobody for shit, what the fuck are you talking about?!
If you’re an environmentalist in the US it makes sense to be concerned about the local environment. Particularly, when you have the small matter of cities running out of water.
