Are environmentalists cowards on immigration?

Inaccurate as the cite is not showing what you are claiming.

Once again, do not avoid the current issue:

The Sierra Club can look at population control now and it calls to action to deal with congress for not doing anything regarding the carbon emissions side. You are not capable of producing any cite that shows SUSPS, or other source like that, doing even a token gesture to tell congress now to do something about carbon emissions.

This is, once again, a demonstratively way to see who is an environmentalist and who is not.

The point is that population growth is a US environmental issue. Immigration reductions are a potential and sensible way of addressing it.

In other words, you are clearly conceding the point. Fake environmentalists can only get you so far.

In reality they will make the immigration issue worse by ignoring the carbon emission issue.

There you go with your strawman again :smiley:

I keep agreeing with you that the carbon emission issue needs to be addressed and that there are many things that need to be done.

Cheap talk, if you were consistent you would condemn groups like SUSPS, FAIRUS or FAIR for not doing anything now on the carbon emission issue, if you claim to know about how dangerous the situation is getting thanks to the current inaction in congress, you would.

And if you were consistent you would wonder why groups like Sierra have dropped the ball on population growth in the US. They have gone from having a sensible policy, to abandoning it for money & political expediency.

I already linked to their efforts regarding population control, you may claim that that is not enough, but they are doing something, that can not be denied as others can clearly check.

Once again, ANY current fig leaf effort, at least, from those sources you like, complaining on the lack of progress with carbon emission controls from the current congress?

I thought they ditched their position regarding US population growth? Or is that not the case?

In any event, the point is that it makes sense for environmentalists in the US to view population growth as an issue. So silence in terms of immigration appears to be due to political concerns.

In case you’ve forgotten, we’ve already gone over the “political concerns” in that fight, and only the non-nativist side had any legitimate political concerns or any genuine environmental concerns. Tanton and his faction are environmentalists like they’re Communists. (I.e., they’d join the Party if that would keep America white.)

http://www.sierraclub.org/population/overview/
Now, as mentioned you may claim that is not enough, but that is only playing the avoiding game. That population cite was not hard to find.

So, ANY current fig leaf efforts, at least, from those sources you like, complaining on the lack of progress with carbon emission controls from the current congress? What are they doing right now?

BTW, your attitude shown so far still leads me to think that you are not really aware of how important global warming is for real environmentalists.

Bullsh1t. So the issue of US population growth highlighted by Lester Brown, the Clinton sustainability council & the report on the Colorado Basin, aren’t environmental issues?

  1. I do not say there are no genuine population-related environmental concerns. I say nobody on the anti-immigration side of the Sierra Club fight had any. Nor does anybody singing the same song today or in this thread have any.

  2. One again: Population control and immigration control are not synonymous.

  1. Bullsh1t. So someone like Professor Ben Zuckerman had no environmental concerns? That is a disgusting and unfounded allegation. Apologize.

  2. Population growth in the US is significantly due to immigration. Look at the Pew data. Perhaps you think population control could be carried out via a one child policy instead?

It would be for you to apologize that this point – Ben Zuckerman is on the board of Progressives for Immigration Reform, yet another Tanton front-group.

In the U.S. it should not be carried out at all. China has a population problem; the U.S. does not. What we have here – not nearly so bad as Europe and Japan, but we do have it – is a “grayby boom” problem, which immigration helps like nothing else does.

If you really want to lessen Americans’ environmental impact (and you don’t), look away from our numbers – for that matter, look away from our “lifestyles” – and towards our built environments, where the real problem is.

  1. Again, it is f8cking disgusting that you can sit there and smugly say someone like Zuckerman doesn’t have legitimate environmental concerns.

  2. In relation to immigration and population replacement that is in fact what is meant by population stabilization. It doesn’t mean no immigration.

What has he published on environmental issues that doesn’t focus on immigration? And not the proceedings he edited, but stuff he’s published himself.

His essay ‘How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin’ is about population growth (globally) and environmental issues.

I doubt he has been a member of the Sierra Club since 1969 simply to restrict immigration and without any real concern for the environment.

So that’s a “No”, is it?

Maybe he likes the walks?

But that’s besides the point - he could be as concerned for the Environment as Al Gore and yet he doesn’t seem to be showing it in his writings in any way other than … writing on population. Guy’s a trained scientist, where are his comments on CO[sub]2[/sub] or alien invasives or anything like that? I’m not saying he hasn’t written those, BTW, but I can’t find them. And your cite isn’t it.

ETA: I found this. That’s the kind of writing I mean - stuff that shows he isn’t just fronting. Even if it is just a co-authered op-ed, there’s not word one in there about immigration. Of course, there’s nothing in there about Global Warming either. And that’s enough of me doing your work for you.

I should say, IMO, population stabilization,* in whatever form it takes*, is a red herring. Malthus was wrong, so was Ehrlich, and a country the size of the USA, with its natural resource base, could easily support a population at least twice its current size. But not with the current stereotypical US lifestyle, and not in the places its people currently live.

Focusing on population can’t happen hand-in-hand with focusing on footprint reduction, because any effort spent on the former reduces the message of the latter. Population is not the problem, resource use is.

ETA: I believe that the more immigrants make it to America, the better for the world. In the US, they and their children will get to the demographic shift that much quicker, and that’s what the world needs for us to get over it globally by 2050.

What “demographic shift”?