The Clinton Sustainability Taskforce clearly identify population stabilization as important. It is also clearly obvious in terms of water sustainability in the Southwest. There are a number of cities at risk of running out of water, with LA at the top of the list.
Threatened ? By whom ?
On the one hand, it seems to me any scientist worth his Ph.D couldn’t care less and would let the truth ring though the heavens fall. When W. tried to get *his *scientists to cook the books and put the brakes on that global warming thang, or had his cronies simply go at it with a bottle of Wite Out the truth was out before the door could hit his arse on the way out. In my experience, academic types have little patience for malarkey. Literary critics excepted, of course
On the other hand, the Sierra Club is not the be all, end all of environmental thinking & eco science. Unless you’re suggesting there’s a conspiracy at hand to keep every green thinktank away from examining population numbers & sustainability, I don’t really see what it has to do with anything. Hell, any up-and-coming green tank would just love to expose any such manipulation, if only to get the rest of the Sierra Club’s backers for themselves.
Or one could simply go global and look at what eco experts in other countries (who surely don’t give the slightest bit of a toss about US immigration politics) think and assess regarding their own countries.
Well, clearly **Chen **at least seems to think it’s a very urgent problem that needs a very urgent solution.
I wouldn’t agree, actually (although your sentence lacks the part defining what I should agree on - but I get what you meant, I think).
I was asking the question quite literally: why on Earth wouldn’t they ? What would environmental scientists have to gain from ignoring a large aspect of their life’s work ? I’m not talking about the politicos here (who have to keep fellating their constituents, and as such are of dubious credibility on all subjects), but the eggheads who feed them the numbers. Those who do live on the credibility of their work, their standing with their (international) peers and their dreams of a Nobel prize. What’s in it for them ?
Come to that, it seems to me the “build a wall on the Mexican border!” types would just soil their shorts at the idea of funding the work of a credible scientist or ten who would prove their pet cause righteous, and put egg on the Left’s face. That would be a nice change of pace from the hoaxed & spammed lists of “scientists who doubt climate change !!”*.
Same if there was indeed bribery at work within the Sierra Club, or some kind of pressure to massage reports: any whistleblower would have it made. They’d parade him like the Messiah. He’d be bigger than *Palin *!
Yup.
list may or may not include scientists. Batteries not included.
And that once again shows how ignorant you are on global warming, that will not be an issue in the north east of the United States. You are really denying that no solution can be implemented on the population as a whole that does not depend on impractical ones, like focusing on immigrants.
BTW once again what you did was to ignore the cites posted and just continue to repeat your tired old cites with no updates.
It is one of many things that can be done to sustain the environment & local water supplies. Certainly it is an easy and logical option in terms of alleviating population growth pressures.
No, it is easy for the ones who are demagogues in the leadership positions of the nativists and industry that generates most of the emissions.
It is clear the environmentalists are right, the nativists groups focus remains with the easy target, but it is because it is a scapegoat. Nowhere, so far in this thread, have you shown any of your navitist sources also doing something about the local well to do people and big industry that locally have the biggest carbon footprints in town.
If no one can refute my position why would I need further evidence?
Population growth remains a material issue in terms of environmental sustainability in the US.
One easy and logical way to alleviate population pressure & resource demand is to reduce immigration levels (unless you want to end up with the population of India?).
I agree with you regarding global warming and other policy options. However, it doesn’t follow that you therefore cannot consider immigration reduction.
When this is included here it is clear that it is done only for staw maning.
Impractical specially because it is not only the future immigrants the ones the nativist groups cited want in reality to inconvinience.
And showing nothing for it, the point is that then the leaders of the nativist groups are taking you for a ride.
You are also skipping out of the focus, the issue was the number of immigrants. Once we get around to imposing climate change solutions, like for example a carbon tax and population reduction incentives, it will be a way to pressure immigrants to reduce their numbers.
Perhaps the big stumbling block is that you are not aware that controlling immigration is the realm of politicians and the executive, in the scientific community the immigration issue is out of its scope and most environmentalists are also in that camp.
If current tends continue, that cite… already got old.
As noticed before, there is no word whatsoever of that being a bad thing as it is not an environmental paper, there is no information of where the immigrants would be. And did I mention before that it assumes that no other non environmentalist solutions will be ever used?
Immigration restriction is a possible means of alleviating demand on resources created by population growth.
As has been repeated above, that doesn’t mean that other environmental policies should not be pursued. A whole suite of options need to be considered, including restriction of immigration levels to the US.
