Are environmentalists cowards on immigration?

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

1. They are a problem for your position if your position is that US population growth (largely driven by immigration) isn’t an environmental issue.

Swing and a miss!

@Chen019

2. Bill Clinton was a nativist?

Swing and a miss! (If you don’t know the difference between a nativist site and a good one * it is really sad.)

• • The Clinton cite was good but old and it acknowledged that there were no good numbers for the immigrants. And it also referenced the immigrations reforms that nativists condemned.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Swing and a miss!
Swing and a miss! (If you don’t know the difference it is really sad.)

It’s hard sometimes to make sense of your comments. Let’s go through them again:

Originally Posted by **GIGObuster **I guess you do not understand, I said already that you are assuming that those cites are a problem for my position, on the contrary. They will be useful to crack some stubborn members of the community that do not plan their families.

wtf?

Originally Posted by **GIGObuster **Once again, I do not think the politicians elected with the help of the nativists will remain forever in office. the evidence of climate change disruptions will be overwhelming and people will demand a change.

This comment was made in response to me citing the Sustainability report commissioned by Clinton. Now, perhaps you could explain what you mean here. What change are the people going to demand?

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

• • The Clinton cite was good but old and it acknowledged that there were no good numbers for the immigrants. And it also referenced the immigrations reforms that nativists condemned.

Right, so population stabilization is no longer an issue. You have to be wilfully blind to any contrary evidence to believe this.

**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

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

In the 1980’s, Los Angeles suffered a major crisis when the city was forced to stop using 40% of its drinking water due to industrial runoff contamination. Like Las Vegas, the city now relies on importing water from the Colorado River via hundreds of miles of aqueducts. The Colorado may only be a temporary solution, however, as the city continues to increase its demand at an unsustainable rate. In its utility risk rating, Ceres gave the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power the highest likelihood of risk among the cities it assessed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water

Anyway, I have to go. I will look forward to reading more of your comments at a later stage.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Right, so population stabilization is no longer an issue. You have to be wilfully blind to any contrary evidence to believe this.

I’m still dealing with the silly idea that when dealing with carbon footprints (global warming) we should concentrate on immigrants.

No, population stabilization is not ignored.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

This comment was made in response to me citing the Sustainability report commissioned by Clinton. Now, perhaps you could explain what you mean here. What change are the people going to demand?

No, it was on response of the Colorado River Basin Water Management water cite, then you mentioned that the Clinton report emphasized that report.

I’m still concentrating on the carbon footprint, but as mentioned before, water is also going to be affected in the west because of global warming.

And that is why I said that I do not think the politicians elected with the help of the nativists will remain forever in office. The evidence of climate change and the disruptions coming from it will be overwhelming and people will demand a change, a change from doing nothing regarding carbon emissions.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

No, it was on response of the Colorado River Basin Water Management water cite, then you mentioned that the Clinton report emphasized that report.

I’m still concentrating on the carbon footprint, but as mentioned before, water is also going to be affected in the west because of global warming.

And that is why I said that I do not think the politicians elected with the help of the nativists will remain forever in office. The evidence of climate change and the disruptions coming from it will be overwhelming and people will demand a change, a change from doing nothing regarding carbon emissions.

They may well do. They may also demand that immigration be reduced to avoid demand exceeding supply in terms of resources. The issue of conflict in relation to dwindling water resources is of course mentioned in the Colorado Basin report:

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

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

They may well do. They may also demand that immigration be reduced to avoid demand exceeding supply in terms of resources. The issue of conflict in relation to dwindling water resources is of course mentioned in the Colorado Basin report:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11857&page=61

[Looks at other posters]
Eh, he don’t know me very well, do he folks?
[/laop]

I will have to warn you that I have only just began to fight.

You see, while I have experience in immigration recent discussions on global warming have made me aware of many other things, suffice to say is that you already are demonstrating a colossal ignorance on the issue.

The best projections I know do tell that while the south west in the US will become drier thanks to global warming, there will be more water on the north east.

Immigrants are not usually willing to stay put when hate or lack of opportunity reaches it’s ugly head. Many, and many other citizens, will move when there is no other option; however, I think it will be more likely that the adaptation changes that will be made will benefit all, not only thanks to the population reduction due to more family planning, but also thanks to the reduction of sprawl and better city planning.

Of course, it would be better to prevent further deterioration of the water situation in the south west, as this reports and others point out, it is a very stupid gamble what the recently elected officials, that got elected thanks in part to the nativist organizations, are doing.

Once again: The hypocrisy is demonstrated by the nativists when they are not willing to lift a finger on what it should be the main issue. Climate Change is real, and the fake environmentalists just concentrate cynically on a part of the issue, and at the same time they deny the rest with their blocking actions (in government) and their inaction (in their organizations).

[magellan01]

Gigo, two simple questions, which might help me, and others in understanding your position:

1. Do you think it is valid for any environmentally concerned group or citizen to expend energy looking at any environmental issue other than global warming?

2. Do you think it sensible that an environmentally concerned group or citizen expend energy on local environmental issues, like various “Save the Bay”, “Save the XXXXX River”, etc.?

It would be helpful if you could answer with a definitive “yes” or “no”, then expand your answer as you think it necessary or helpful

Thanks…

[Kobal2]

@straight_man

Of course, there are also other comparatively simple fixes you could support. For example, why on earth should lawns even be legal in, say, Phoenix?

Illegal might be pushing it, but there certainly could be incentives put in place so that people stop wasting water. A water tax for example, plus a heavy swimming pool tax.

That way the wringing hands immigration population boom AAAAH! would likely move to areas where water shortages are not yet heard of, while the wasteful bastards & hollywood pool party types who put their lawns ahead of actual people & crops get to pay for new desalination plants and the like. Bi-winning !

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Gigo, two simple questions, which might help me, and others in understanding your position:

1. Do you think it is valid for any environmentally concerned group or citizen to expend energy looking at any environmental issue other than global warming?

Yes, but the nativists also use the carbon footprint issue to get to denounce immigration, and Chen did quote them first.

@magellan01

2. Do you think it sensible that an environmentally concerned group or citizen expend energy on local environmental issues, like various “Save the Bay”, “Save the XXXXX River”, etc.?

I could answer just the same as the other one as you seem to miss that they do not stick to those issues.

Unfortunately, as reported by civil and hate watch groups, the pretend environmentalists do not stick to local issues.

[BrainGlutton]

@GIGObuster

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

Now, Chen, do you finally understand what everyone is getting at?

Never mind your water-resources figures, your demographic stats, etc., for the moment. Remember my little lecture about how ad hominem is not always a fallacy? This is one of the situations where it applies. What we have here is a serious policy dispute within the Sierra Club, with one faction backed by John Tanton and associated organizations, and the other side backed by Morris Dees and the SPLC. Now, the average American of any color, presented with this situation (and sufficient background on the persons and organizations involved), would have two quite reasonable reactions:

1. Of course it’s about motherfucking race, are you trying to be funny or something?! :dubious:

2. The SPLC must be in the right here. Not because the SPLC is always in the right, but because, historically, its opponents are always in the wrong; and “racial realists” or “nativists” or whatever you call it what Tanton is are never right.

And you look at the same series of events and you see environmentalists being “cowed” into “silence” by . . . the “by” part isn’t all that clear. But it is clear enough that you are not posting from the Earth with the blue sky.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Yes, but the nativists also use the carbon footprint issue to get to denounce immigration, and Chen did quote them first.

Okay. So, if it is valid for environmentally concerned groups or people to look at issues other than global warming, I assume that looking at sustainability is a valid thing to look into. For instance, it’s okay to evaluate how much rainforest that needs to be protected in order that that ecosystem can continue to play the role it does in the earth’s eco-helath. Or to look at how much of a strain eating meat causes the environment. We seem to agree on that, right?

@GIGObuster

I could answer just the same as the other one as you seem to miss that they do not stick to those issues.

Unfortunately, as reported by civil and hate watch groups, the pretend environmentalists do not stick to local issues.

Now, here’s where I have a hard time following you. You agree that it is valid for environmentally concerned people to look at issues other than global warming. You also agree that it is more valid for them to look at more local issues. Given those two positions (which I agree with), why is it not valid for a group to look at immigration as it relates to population growth and the effects it has on the sustainability equation for a particular country or region?

It seems to me that it’s great to have groups looking at a bunch of stuff: global warming, health of a particular bay or river, rainforests, honey bees, aquifers, pesticides/farm run-off, the conditions animals are raised in and what their fed, how many people a water basin can sustain, the rate of population growth—and immigration, as a contributing factor. etc.

If I understand you, you seem to hold that all those things are valid—except the last one. That it is the purview of “fake environmentalists” and nativists. Now, I grant that that may be the case for some individuals, that they are just what you say. But that doesn’t change the fact that the issue is a real one. If it’s valid to look at sustainability of a region (or country), surely it’s equally valid to look to see how the sustainability equation might change, e.g., loos of farmland, wetlands, erosion of top soil, forest fires, and increases in population, both with immigration and without.

Where, specifically, do we part ways?

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

If I understand you, you seem to hold that all those things are valid—except the last one. That it is the purview of “fake environmentalists” and nativists. Now, I grant that that may be the case for some individuals, that they are just what you say. But that doesn’t change the fact that the issue is a real one. If it’s valid to look at sustainability of a region (or country), surely it’s equally valid to look to see how the sustainability equation might change, e.g., loos of farmland, wetlands, erosion of top soil, forest fires, and increases in population, both with immigration and without.

Where, specifically, do we part ways?

On the fruits that the nativist groups produce.

http://www.splcenter.org/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-the-hypocrisy-of-hate/the-greening-of-hate-an-essay

All over the world, in rich and poor countries alike, people are using the climate crisis as an opportunity to link ecological goals with new kinds of economic and technological development that raise living standards without razing the environment.

But the anti-immigrant movement has only one solution for global warming: stop immigration

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.”

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.

[Chen019]

@magellan01

Okay. So, if it is valid for environmentally concerned groups or people to look at issues other than global warming, I assume that looking at sustainability is a valid thing to look into. For instance, it’s okay to evaluate how much rainforest that needs to be protected in order that that ecosystem can continue to play the role it does in the earth’s eco-helath. Or to look at how much of a strain eating meat causes the environment. We seem to agree on that, right?

Now, here’s where I have a hard time following you. You agree that it is valid for environmentally concerned people to look at issues other than global warming. You also agree that it is more valid for them to look at more local issues. Given those two positions (which I agree with), why is it not valid for a group to look at immigration as it relates to population growth and the effects it has on the sustainability equation for a particular country or region?

It seems to me that it’s great to have groups looking at a bunch of stuff: global warming, health of a particular bay or river, rainforests, honey bees, aquifers, pesticides/farm run-off, the conditions animals are raised in and what their fed, how many people a water basin can sustain, the rate of population growth—and immigration, as a contributing factor. etc.

If I understand you, you seem to hold that all those things are valid—except the last one. That it is the purview of “fake environmentalists” and nativists. Now, I grant that that may be the case for some individuals, that they are just what you say. But that doesn’t change the fact that the issue is a real one. **If it’s valid to look at sustainability of a region (or country), surely it’s equally valid to look to see how the sustainability equation might change, e.g., loos of farmland, wetlands, erosion of top soil, forest fires, and increases in population, both with immigration and without. **

Where, specifically, do we part ways?

Of course it’s valid and quite sensible to look at that. That is why people have to try and morally manipulate the issue and smear anyone who mentions immigration restriction as a racist.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Of course it’s valid and quite sensible to look at that. That is why people have to try and morally manipulate the issue and smear anyone who mentions immigration restriction as a racist.

As demonstrated, that is not really what they look at only. What nativist groups do is also to manipulate people that think they are looking at a “winning” environmental issue, only to get people elected that will make that situation worse in the end.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

As demonstrated, that is not really what they look at only.

You don’t seem to grasp the idea that has been spelled out to you repeatedly - you can address environmental concerns via various approaches.

You seem to have an objection with restricting population growth via immigration. And you seem to think pointing that mentioning that sensible and logical policy option is evil.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

You don’t seem to grasp the idea that has been spelled out to you repeatedly - you can address environmental concerns via various approaches.

You seem to have an objection with restricting population growth via immigration. And you seem to think pointing that mentioning that sensible and logical policy option is evil.

If it had been only that approach, but that is not the case, the evidence is that others (that are not nativists) are manipulating that shrinking movement into electing politicians that refuse to do anything about global warming.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

If it had been only that approach, but that is not the case, the evidence is that others (that are not nativists) are manipulating that shrinking movement into electing politicians that refuse to do anything about global warming.

You’re missing the point - I’m talking about environmentalists and the issue of immigration. What is your objection to population growth being reduced via immigration reductions to the US?

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

You’re missing the point - I’m talking about environmentalists and the issue of immigration. What is your objection to population growth being reduced via immigration reductions to the US?

The fact that it would not make a dent with the main issue, and that is also because only with magic one would remove the descendants of the immigrants.

And as mentioned many times before:

“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.”

Hence the need to deal with population as a whole. And at the same time tackle the issue globally.

The evil, as it is sad for you for some reason, is not really coming from the nativists, as they have lost support I say “meh” to their efforts, the nativists are nowadays being used by truly devious merchants of doubt.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/2010-06-01-deathmerchants01_ST_N.htm

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

The fact that it would not make a dent with the main issue, and that is also because only with magic one would remove the descendants of the immigrants. url]

Again - how many times do you need something explained to you before you grasp it - I’m not suggesting there is one single solution. I’m asking why, amongst a suite of policy options, it is forbidden to consider restricting immigration?