magellan’s post 312 seemed like a cogent set of questions to ask:
I will repeat the admonition that I made in the Pit thread that led me here: let’s all assume, for the moment, that we agree that the claims about immigration reducing environmental impact are being made by a group with the moral depravity of Casey Anthony and Idi Amin’s love children.
It’s not enough to simply say that because they are “nativist” their claims should be ignored. I would again ask for a simple set of contrary citations, with no mention of the evil nativist nature of the opposing cites.
An evil nativist may claim we need oxygen to survive. That doesn’t magically relieve us of the need to draw breath.
It does sometimes happen that people who are extremely vocal, and extremely wrong about every other thing they are vocal about that distinguishes them from the non-vocal or the opposing-vocal, can, for extremely wrong reasons, hit on a truth that better minds miss or ignore.
But it is very, very rare. I say “It does sometime happen” because it is theoretically possibly in a way too obvious to rule out, but I cannot think of a single specific example at the moment.
Both of them seek to defend ad hominem rebuttals on the grounds that they are rhetorically effective. That’s precisely why trained debaters are taught to identify these types of arguments.
Both of these posts seek to justify the ad hominem argument on the grounds that the other side is really bad.
Um… yes, that’s the essence of the ad hominem argument. Congratulations – you have proved that we don’t need oxygen, because the SPLC’s opponents say we need it.
No, sir, on the grounds, explained in what I thought more than sufficient detail, that this is one of those very many situations where ad hominem rebuttals are identical with common sense.
The underlying issue is not a matter of common sense. To the contrary, “common sense” dictates the opposite: the more people we let in, the more the environment will be despoiled! I am confident this is not correct, but it’s hardly a matter of common sense.
Now, it may well be “common sense” to look at the bona fides (or lack) of these proponents, and say, “Hey, they’re just a bunch of poorly concealed racists!” Sure, I get that… but that doesn’t invalidate their statement. This is what I was trying to point out with the oxygen thing. If Sarah Palin announced we needed oxygen to survive, I assume you wouldn’t say, “Look, we all know what an idiot Sarah Palin is, so clearly, as a matter of common sense, we cna discount her view.”
No one should say, “We must believe it, because Palin said it’s true.” That’s the fallacy of appeal to authority. Equally, we must not say, “We must disbelieve it, because Palin said it’s true.”
So, too, here. I accept that the proponents of this claim are nefarious, barely concealed racists, who have a hidden agenda.
Now let’s move on and rebut their actual arguments.
An argument I’d like to see fleshed out, from the Pit thread:
The general approach by Chen is to say that we, Americans, use such-and-so much per capita resource, and that if we add immigrants to the picture, our total population will grow by such-and-so predictable percentage X, and thus we will in the future use X% more natural resources.
The rebuttal to that point was that immigrants, both recent and of a longer standing, tend to use much less in the way of resources (for example, they are more likely to carpool or use public transportation) and it is thus flawed to assume that once they arrive, they will contribute to increased resource usage in equal proportion to the extant US citizens’ average.
My own rebuttal is thus: Chen asserts (over and over and over) that:
a) natural growth + immigration > natural growth
and
b) more population has strictly more impact on the environment than less population.
Both of these are tautologically true.
The logic breakdown happens when he (and his cites) jumps from there to:
c) therefore there is a problem, and we must curb population growth.
That does not follow, because as I pointed in post #361, “it’s more!” is also meaningless without a frame of reference. And once you’ve got the frame of reference provided by other first world countries, you cannot but come to the conclusion that the idea the US is packed to capacity is ridiculous on its face.
Now, if John Tanton and his buddies backed up their claim that American growth is currently absatively unsustainable and will wreck the environment something fierce with some actual facts & figures, they might have a hint of something to stand on, their baby eating notwithstanding.
But as of now, all **Chen **has brought to the table in terms of facts are some humdrum “it’s just common sense !” and reiterating over and over that the American population is, in fact, growing. No shit.
Oh, and the water woes of the SW, which as concerning as they may be a) DUH! It’s a desert ! and b) cannot be extrapolated into there being a problem at the national level, which would require solving at the national immigration level.
There is also the argument that immigrants who come from low carbon footprint countries into the US will have a much higher one when the move into the US. Which, again, is presumably true (to an extent - not every immigrant will end up driving a Hummer), but there is some measure of retardation in drawing the conclusion “therefore they should stay home !” from that fact instead of “therefore we should work on reducing the average guy’s carbon footprint here” - because that’s the root of the problem, no matter whether in this equation the average guy is a born and bred "Muhrikunfuckyeah or a filthy unwashed foreigner.
Think that about sums it up. The immigration angle is purely political, and a misdirection from the real environmental issues.
We can if it is out of step with what one might call “consensus reality.” The present situation is more like Sarah Palin insisting we need nitrogen to survive. Air does have nitrogen in it; and one who hears about “nitrogen narcosis,” or hears something about Jacques Cousteau breathing a heliox mix instead, might absorb confused ideas about what happens without it. Come to think of it, that’s exactly the kind of thing I – and every single one of you including her supporters – can well imagine Sarah Palin saying.
I don’t know what you feel you are missing, but I don’t think Chen’s argument is based on immigrants necessarily having the same footprint of the typical American. Even if it is smaller, it is still a net gain to the U.S. Each additional person within our borders increases our footprint by some amount. Call the collective U.S. footprint X. When immigrants come it becomes X + some number, even if they have a smaller footprint that the average American.
Back in 2004 I ran a thread: Can nine billion people enjoy the standard of living of the rich? (Asking whether that is, not socially or economically or politically, but materially possible to do so in an environmentally sustainable way.) If the answer is, or can be made to be, “yes,” then that’s what we ought to shoot for, isn’t it? That’s what stabilizes population growth.
Or not. Same article:
But we can burn that bridge when we come to it. First get the whole world to that “certain level of development”. Somehow the “problems of affluence,” however horrifying, always seem to fade into insignificance when compared to the problems of poverty.
I don’t think this is his position. (I know it’s not mine.) I think the general point is that given the two facts you listed, it make sense that immigration be taken into account, that it be looked at—from a purely environmental standpoint. The Sierra Club used to do this. Clinton’s council did this. It seems irresponsible that environmentalists are not looking into the issue as they once were.
I don’t think ANYONE put forth that position. You jumped to that extreme position. It’s simply straw.
What he is actually arguing IS common sense. You even agreed to most of it with your numbers 1 and 2 above. Now, it is common sense that, all things remaining equal, the footprint will go up by some number, X. The unknowns are what is X and what is the relationship between the collective U.S. footprint and how much our environment is stressed. It certainly is common sense to start from the position that more people in the U.S. will put greater stress on our resources and environment than fewer people. No?
Two things: 1) that is where many immigrants choose to go. 2) It’s just one example showing that resources are finite, not infinite.
I think you continue to miss that Chen, and I, are in favor of the average American reducing their footprint. The point is that even of we do that, an increase in people means an increase in our footprint. Now, it may very well be that the 300,000,000 people in the U.S. can reduce their footprint substantially, so much so that in 30 years 350,000,000 Americans will have a smaller collective footprint. I’d say that is not only a possibility but something we should strive for. But the fact remains that on the day a person is added to the U.S. (birth or immigration) our footprint goes up. How concerned should we be about this? I don’t know. We have to fill in the unknowns. Which is what groups like the SIerra Club of historically done,and what clinton’s council begins to do.
I think the major point of confusion for me is why you don’t want those blanks filled in. Right now, the only groups attempting to do so are groups you don’t trust. And that’s fine. Given that, I would think that your position, as someone who cares about the environment, would be to demand that the Sierra Club and other organizations look at the issue. And look at it purely from the concern of U.S. environment and its limited resources. Instead your position seem to be, “well you can’t trust those guys, so just forget it and move on”. I really don’t see how an environmentalist would argue for keeping ourselves ignorant about an issue that in fact, concerns our environment. Maybe it’s you position that the U.S. could easily sustain a population 5X larger than we have now. I guess if that is your position, then worrying about the immigration issue now seems a bit premature. Is that it?
The immigration issue has been politicized from the left. From the people who bought off the Sierra Club. Which makes them complicit in its politicization.
Have you read the details of that story at all?! The anti-immigration faction made several attempts to change Sierra Club policy, including a club-wide ballot, they got 3%. Nobody on the other side “bought off” shit.
And the very idea that a lefty organization like the SC might be a puppet for forces still leftier is, in and of itself, rather bizarre. There was a definite attempt at entryism here, a classic Trotskyist tactic (not invented by them; as old as any politics more complicated than “Do what the King says”); but it was perpetrated from the right.
And immigration was “politicized” by the Americans who thought up the first immigration-control laws. What had leftists to do with that?!
Extremely valid point. I guess I thought that the “environmental types” would accept a priori the claim that more impact on the environment creates a problem. As it happens, I agree with your claim: yes, immigrants create more of a footprint, and no, it’s not a problem now or in the foreseeable future. I was looking more for an argument that a true-green enviromentalist would accept – and I am not one, to be sure.
Sure. But then the appropriate response is not to say, “I don’t need to rebut it,” but rather to provide a brief factual summary of nitrogen’s behavior under higher pressure. Obstinate refusal to respond to that information does not obligate you to keep repeating it, of course, but you can’t bow out without at least once answering with fact.
But of course the immigrants also leave behind an area which then presumably flourishes to some greater aggregate value due to their departure. As I understood it, the claim was that X number of Mexicans produce Y damage to the environment in Mexico, but when moving to the United States produce Y+delta damage.
I can easily imagine environmentalists unmoved by the claim that they should prioritize US-centric effects more than world effects. In other words, if the damage is the same and the only thing that’s changed is what national borders enclose the damage, why are environmentalists obligated to care? Don’t they view the environment as a global issue, not a national one?
You mean this one, based on the LA Times article? Yeah, I read it. But I think you might be referring to what transpired afterwards, as concerned members tried to put the Sierra Club back on the course they had been on.
Have you read the details of that story at all?! The anti-immigration faction made several attempts to change Sierra Club policy, including a club-wide ballot, they got 3%. Nobody on the other side “bought off” shit.