And environmentalists studying global warming are right to largely ignore the movement of people across arbitrary borders. But what is wrong with other environmentalists studying the health of the U.S.? Through other lenses? Are The Nature Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, Save the Redwoods League, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, American Bird Conservancy, Adirondack Mountain Club, Riverkeeper, Sand County Foundation, and National Wildlife Federation, and the scores of other environmental groups with thousands of individuals all “fake environmentalists” because they are not focused on the the big one, i.e., climate change? Population is one of the factors determining the environmental health of an area, a country. Why is it forbidden to be dicussed?
The Sierra Club did, when a large donor threatened to withhold all his millions unless they dropped the immigration issue.Reread the link supplied by Chen .
magellan01:
And environmentalists studying global warming are right to largely ignore the movement of people across arbitrary borders. But what is wrong with other environmentalists studying the health of the U.S.? Through other lenses? Are The Nature Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, Save the Redwoods League, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, American Bird Conservancy, Adirondack Mountain Club, Riverkeeper, Sand County Foundation, and National Wildlife Federation, and the scores of other environmental groups with thousands of individuals all “fake environmentalists” because they are not focused on the the big one, i.e., climate change? Population is one of the factors determining the environmental health of an area, a country. Why is it forbidden to be dicussed?
It is not, and as many articles show (like even the last one posted by Chen) immigration is not even mentioned.
Also the OP did go almost intermediately to the carbon footprint issue, and that is why we are here.
And once again, that was known by all before the 2005 vote, as mentioned I do not think the members where convinced just by money issues. What took place was that hate watch groups and other environmentalists reported to the members what was going on, it is more logical to then realize that the large donor was convinced by them to not follow that path.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-the-hypocrisy-of-hate
A quarter of a century ago, John Tanton, a white nationalist who would go on to almost single-handedly construct the contemporary, hard-line anti-immigration movement, wrote about his secret desire to bring the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest environmental organization, into the nativist fold. He spelled out his motive clearly: Using an organization perceived by the public as part of the liberal left would insulate nativists from charges of racism — charges that, given the explicitly pro-“European-American” advocacy of Tanton and many of his allies over the years, would likely otherwise stick.
In the ensuing decades, nativist forces followed Tanton’s script, making several attempts to win over the Sierra Club and its hundreds of thousands of members. That effort culminated in 2004, when nativists mounted a serious effort to take over the Sierra Club’s board of directors, an attempt that was beaten back only after a strenuous campaign by Sierra Club members and groups including the Southern Poverty Law Center. The attempt was a classic case of “greenwashing” — a cynical effort by nativist activists to seduce environmentalists to join their cause for purely strategic reasons.
**Population growth in the US is largely driven by immigration. That is why I’m asking why environmentalists are silent on this issue. **
It is clear why you are - your argument is that you are an immigrant therefore it would be immoral to reduce immigration.
The rule here is ‘attack the argument, not the poster.’ Keep the personal commentary out of it.
Chen019:
**Population growth in the US is largely driven by immigration. That is why I’m asking why environmentalists are silent on this issue. **
It is clear why you are - your argument is that you are an immigrant therefore it would be immoral to reduce immigration.
JAQ.
Not convincing at all.
Others have noticed already why population growth is an issue, but immigration is not as important to the big picture.
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=guilt_by_association
“Immigration control is a foolish way to create an environmental perspective,” says Adam Werbach, who was the president of the Sierra Club in 1998. “It attacks people who are suffering, it allows people who are rich to be unaccountable, it’s out of touch with the realities of changing demographics, and it’s terrifically unpopular.” According to FAIR, of the 25 largest U.S. environmental organizations, only three advocate for restricting immigration, and Tanton served as the president of one of them before it changed its name from Zero Population Growth to Population Connection. FAIR, and other Tanton-affiliated organizations, argue that environmentalists “want to avoid the controversy that comes from discussing immigration reform.”
But, Freudenburg says, overpopulation is finally being put into context. “There are not many areas of science where we’re still using the logic from 40 years ago,” he says.
His fellow panelist Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a professor at George Mason University, seemed befuddled by the whole event. “I’m actually going to adopt as a guiding assumption something which I actually don’t believe, which is that environmental considerations should be the most important driver of immigration policy,” he said, squinting and looking uneasily at the other panelists. Light went on to refute Cafaro’s points. Urban sprawl, he said, is related to population growth but is certainly not its byproduct – Detroit and St. Louis have shrunk population-wise while their city lines continue to inch closer to the suburbs. Much of the midsection of the United States is actually depopulating, and while immigrants tend to settle along the coasts, it’s disingenuous to say that they’re the ones to blame for any environmental hazards. After all, immigrants are not consuming or driving at the same levels as most American citizens are.
Light also spoke about the recent G-8 resolution, through which the U.S. pledged to reduce its emissions by 80 percent before 2050. Limiting immigration, Light explained, wouldn’t make a dent. There might even be a global advantage to having a larger population in countries where such goals exist. “We’re the only ones in the current architecture of the international climate treaty where we actually have a motivation to put a price on carbon, to do whatever it takes to essentially start the economic machine to make it so that the emissions profile of Americans, whether they’re immigrants or not, necessarily has to go down,” Light said.
The moderator, CIS research director Steven Camarota, asked how Light expected to see those environmental restrictions passed through Congress. “It’s a huge political battle; the Democrats could lose control of the House because of things like this,” Camarota said. “If you ask me which is easier, I would say obviously the immigration battle is a lot easier than the environmental.”
Camarota’s argument assumes that limiting immigration would have the same environmental impact as a cap-and-trade bill. This is an absurd thought, not least because most lawmakers who support reduced immigration don’t even believe in climate change. NumbersUSA grades members of Congress based on their stance toward immigration; fewer than one out of five lawmakers who achieved a grade of B or higher voted in support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
There might be individuals among Tanton’s generation of environmentalists who are amenable to his cause – aging stalwarts of the population-control movement who have few organizations to which they can turn. However, it’s hard to imagine Durant having much success convincing younger environmentalists, who have never seen Paul Ehrlich on TV, that they should be concerned about immigration control.
Of course, that’s not to say she – and others in John Tanton’s network – won’t keep trying.
That actually is GIGO Buster’s argument - he/she mentioned earlier they were an immigrant in relation to my question why immigration was off the table as a policy option.
GIGObuster:
JAQ.
Not convincing at all.
If population growth is an issue and it is largely caused by immigration then it is logical to consider reducing immigration.
And that is not accurate, the post also included a reference to the already repeated opinion of the cited environmentalists. Incidentally you are still avoiding dealing with the reasons why they do not think immigration is the most important reason to deal with when dealing with the population will do.
GIGObuster:
And that is not accurate, the post also included a reference to the already repeated opinion of the cited environmentalists. Incidentally you are still avoiding dealing with the reasons why they do not think immigration is the most important reason to deal with when dealing with the population will do.
You seem hung up on strawmen. The “most important” or the “only way” of dealing with things. I. Am. Not. Saying. Immigration. Alone. Is. Enough.
I am asking why isn’t it on the table as part of a number of policy measures to address environmental issues in the US.
And as Camarota said. “If you ask me which is easier, I would say obviously the immigration battle is a lot easier than the environmental.”
Once again, environmentalists do not avoid the population issue, the numbers of immigrants are dealt with when the whole population is taken into account at the time new regulations finally come into place.
Of course, regardless how hard you try to deny it, once carbon footprints and global warming enter into the picture it becomes clear that nativist organizations are more in cahoots with the professional deniers of climate change. And they in reality are working to prevent any changes regarding how we deal with carbon footprints.
Meaning that in the end, if noting is done to control carbon emissions, we will get more immigrants.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
GIGObuster:
And as Camarota said. “If you ask me which is easier, I would say obviously the immigration battle is a lot easier than the environmental.”
Once again, environmentalists do not avoid the population issue, the numbers of immigrants are dealt with when the whole population is taken into account at the time new regulations finally come into place.
Of course, regardless how hard you try to deny it, once carbon footprints and global warming enter into the picture it becomes clear that nativist organizations are more in cahoots with the professional deniers of climate change. And they in reality are working to prevent any changes regarding how we deal with carbon footprints.
Meaning that in the end, if noting is done to control carbon emissions, we will get more immigrants.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I’m not denying anything. I’m pointing out the wilful blindness of so called environmentalists who are aware that population growth in the US is an environmental issue but don’t address the obvious cause of immigration.
Chen019:
You seem hung up on strawmen. The “most important” or the “only way” of dealing with things. I. Am. Not. Saying. Immigration. Alone. Is. Enough.
I am asking why isn’t it on the table as part of a number of policy measures to address environmental issues in the US.
I was replying to your sorry attempt at your declaration that it was only for what I was that then I arrived to my conclusions, not accurate indeed.
And the environmentalist cited already mentioned why it is not on the table, and you continue to avoid dealing with that.
Meh. it would be a worrisome challenge if the nativists you cite would convince most people, there was a chance around 2004, but after 2005 they are stuck only with the anti immigrant orgs.
And of course you are denying, you can not face the fact that, if you have any concern for the carbon footprint and global warming, the efforts of the nativists are in reality something that you should not support at all. Otherwise you are also denying that the efforts those nativist orgs are doing will make the immigration issue worse as the latest cites show.
In reality, taking care of the carbon footprint will also help push back an increase on immigration in the future.
You mean the comments from Andrew Light?
Light went on to refute Cafaro’s points. Urban sprawl, he said, is related to population growth but is certainly not its byproduct – Detroit and St. Louis have shrunk population-wise while their city lines continue to inch closer to the suburbs.
Those examples do not refute the point about urban sprawl. They show that middle classes move away from areas with high crime rates.
Also, the authors of this publication (are they evil nativists perhaps?) disagree with Light:
**Beyond increasing water demand, population growth across the region portends a range of negative impacts that include deteriorating air quality, additional urban “sprawl” **and congestion, reductions in open space, and increased levels of traffic and strained transportation systems. Each additional person entails an increase in water demand of, roughly, at least 140 gallons per day (and often more). p54
Light cont’d
Much of the midsection of the United States is actually depopulating, and while immigrants tend to settle along the coasts, it’s disingenuous to say that they’re the ones to blame for any environmental hazards. After all, immigrants are not consuming or driving at the same levels as most American citizens are.
Yes, and they’re running out of water . See the report on supplies from the Colorado Basin.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61
Does Light think immigrants & their descendants are not going to rise in SES over time?
Light also spoke about the recent G-8 resolution, through which the U.S. pledged to reduce its emissions by 80 percent before 2050. Limiting immigration, Light explained, wouldn’t make a dent. There might even be a global advantage to having a larger population in countries where such goals exist. “We’re the only ones in the current architecture of the international climate treaty where we actually have a motivation to put a price on carbon, to do whatever it takes to essentially start the economic machine to make it so that the emissions profile of Americans, whether they’re immigrants or not, necessarily has to go down,” Light said.
So increasing the population will simply be neutral in terms of emissions? Perhaps you can elaborate on that.
Chen019:
You mean the comments from Andrew Light?
Those examples do not refute the point about urban sprawl. They show that middle classes move away from areas with high crime rates.
Also, the authors of this publication (are they evil nativists perhaps?) disagree with Light:
Yes, and they’re running out of water . See the report on supplies from the Colorado Basin.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61
Does Light think immigrants & their descendants are not going to rise in SES over time?
So increasing the population will simply be neutral in terms of emissions? Perhaps you can elaborate on that.
Read carefully, the implication is that it will take place on an America that already has seen the ecological disruptions taken place and that there is a dedicated effort from all to switch to less polluting ways of living.
What he is referring to is what scientists also mentioned in this previous post:
One year ago, a pair of scientists, Sujatha Byravan and Sudhir Chella Rajan, made a slightly different argument in Nature: Because climate change is likely to be most disruptive to developing nations, in particular those with large populations living near sea level, the rich nations that have been the most responsible for pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere should be required to allow the future immigration of the hundreds of millions of people likely to be displaced from their homes in the next century by rising sea levels.
There is an elegant aspect to the proposition that the United States, responsible for 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, be forced to accept 20 percent of the climate-change displaced population, even if Byravan and Rajan’s suggestion does have something of a “modest proposal” tone. There’s no avoiding the conundrum: The richest, most developed countries that are largely responsible for causing climate change are also the countries with the resources to best adapt to climate change.
You think illegal immigration from Mexico now is a problem? Wait until drought caused by climate change wipes out the mostly rain-fed farms of Mexico and Central America. Pressure to move north will only increase, as millions more risk their lives to reach a land of low fuel economy standards and “voluntary” targets for emission cuts.
And who is stopping any efforts to prevent that kind of future? Anyone that has read the cites already knows.
Huh? Where’s the attack on the poster? Pointing out that he is an immigrant? How is that an attack? Not only is that not an attack, Gigo volunteered that information himself. Is there some other “attack” I’m not seeing?
GIGObuster:
Read carefully, the implication is that it will take place on an America that already has seen the ecological disruptions taken place and that there is a dedicated effort from all to switch to less polluting ways of living.
What he is referring to is what scientists also mentioned in this previous post:
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2006/05/05/immigration_and_climate_change
And who is stopping any efforts to prevent that kind of future? Anyone that has read the cites already knows.
It’s not an either/or proposition. You can switch to less polluting measures and restrict population growth via immigration. As the report points out:
Water transfers will no doubt continue to be used to meet increasing water demands, and municipalities, tribes, farmers, and other water users will continue to develop innovative means for effecting these transfers. But growing populations will nonetheless act to offset “gains” in water supplies achieved by transfers. It is recognized that population growth and higher water demands are reducing the region’s ability to cope with drought and increasing the potential for conflicts over limited water supplies (see, for example, the Department of Interior’s Water 2025 website: http://www.doi.gov/water2025/ ). The limits of Colorado River water supplies, increasing populations and water demands, warmer temperatures, and the specter of recurrent droughts point to a future in which tension and conflict among existing and prospective new users are likely to be endemic…p61
Technological and conservation options for augmenting or extending water supplies—although useful and necessary—**in the long run will not constitute a panacea for coping with the reality that water supplies in the Colorado River basin are limited and that demand is inexorably rising. **p132
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61
It came by his sorry attempt to say that that was **the **reason why I arrived to my conclusions, that was not accurate.
The first part of my reply was:
That was completely dropped by Chen. In any case, I did not report it as even I said it was a mild attack, more useful to demonstrate how silly Chen is by accusing others of being illogical.
Sorry, nowhere do they point at immigration. As reported already, the water authorities do not concentrate on immigrants as the future usage of water by them is not really predictable.
Refusing to address US population growth via immigration does seem rather illogical from an environmental perspective.