Yes, but the footprint that is eliminated in Mexico is not just transferred to the U.S. That would be a wash, from a global standpoint. When people move to the U.S. their footprint goes up in size. They use more AC, heating oil, electricity; they buy more TVs, cars, appliances, etc. Even at not the level of the average American.
Yes, I’ve acknowledged more than once that there are two different things to look at: global warming, which cares not an iota about arbitrarily drawn borders, and environmental efforts that are more local, regional, national. Now, I know that there are people who would like to dispense with all borders, and for them the question of how concerned a country should be about its environment is a non-starter. I am not one of those people. And there is no point having the discussion with them (which I don’t think is happening). So, while I do think all people—particularly Americans—should focus on shrinking their carbon footprint (both individually and collectively), I think it also sensible that we understand the limits of the resources we have and the number of people our environment can sustain without it being threatened. All of which makes it sensible that organizations like the Sierra Club look at U.S. sustainability and the role immigration, as well as other factors, effects the equation.
So far, the only indication that environmentalists aren’t is Chen’s seminal claim, which appears to boil down to "John Tanton is saying immigration should be stopped and he’s an environmentalist, why are other environmentalists not saying the same thing ? They must have other, possibly nefarious reasons for not saying this. "
Which is a stupid argument from the Glenn Beck school of rhetoric.
It’s called exaggerating for effect. The point is that if much higher population concentrations have proven viable and not particularly damaging to their own environment, then it’s silly to argue on the basis that the US can’t do it and must instead restrict immigration to be able to… whatever it is you and **Chen **are arguing it’s doing now.
The problem with common sense is that more often than not it’s just plain wrong. Which is why we rely on scientists and not common sensists. In this case for example, “more people would put greater stress on resources than fewer people” is not correct if, as you yourself recognize down the post, the individual resource use of those people was toned down enough that more people would in fact consume less.
Which goes back to that “all other things being equal” thing - my point is that environmentalists don’t spend much time forming and formulating opinions on what should be done if all other things remain equal, because they’ve already established that if all other things remain equal the planet is screwed no matter what*.
And ? The water woes affect both immigrants and non-immigrants. If it really becomes a problem, immigrants will go elsewhere. Non-immigrants might go elsewhere too. Which isn’t an environmental issue, BTW. It would be if more population in the SW negatively impacted the *total *water available, so that even after they’ve moved the local environment would stay dry. But they don’t, so it’s not. It’s “just” an economic/demographic issue.
Of course, there is a factor which negatively impacts the overall dryness of the SW on a permanent basis - global warming, emphasis on global. Which has very little to do with where the populations causing it live at any given time.
Which cannot be extrapolated from to inform opinions at the national level.
Nope. I do want those blanks filled (well, in the context of this debate - in actual fact I really don’t give a hoot either way). And we already agreed that more studying would be good, certainly couldn’t be bad.
But that’s not what **Chen **wants, and that’s not what John Tanton is lobbying for either. They’re asking for immigration reforms, not for cool-headed studies.
I don’t think it’s premature per se (although I do think it’s on the alarmist side), but on the whole there are much more pressing concerns to tackle and if analysing immigration impacts detracts from addressing those then the analysis is a net loss. In short, I think it’s premature to act on the immigration issue now. Worrying about it ? Knock yourself right out. Worry all you want, brother.
In absolute terms I don’t see anything wrong with analysing population effects per se, if only to better understand how to mitigate them without having to mitigate the population itself.
[size]BTW, if any Pentagon mook is reading this: “mitigating population” is my euphemism for killing people. You can’t have it ![/size]
guffaw
Regardless, I’m not playing the blame game here. Immigration (and population control) is an issue mired in political undercurrents, and taking a stance on it in either direction would be a political move no matter whether the reasons for it are purely partisan, philosophical, xenophobic or environmental.
Which is the stated reason the SC has decided not to set foot there for the time being (which, again, does not indicate they are turning a blind eye to population at all), because they feel trying to cross that particular minefield would put their other, more pressing efforts in jeopardy by splitting their base. And since those other efforts are what really matters…
well, that’s not 100% correct. As George Carlin wisely said, “the planet is fine. The *people *are fucked.”
I saw a cite above that suggested this goes up very slowly. So my question to you is: is the increase significant enough to warrant attention? How do you know?
How so? If you don’t believe the planet should have borders, surely the question of whether a country should be concerned with the environment bounded by those borders—for the sake of that country—is meaningless, no?
It depends what you mean by attention. I don’t know what the numbers are, which is why I have only been arguing that environmental groups should be studying this. My guess is that there is no immediate crisis. But my guess is also that numbers like Kobal’s claim that the U.S. could handle 5 times the population is ridiculous. I simply want environmental groups to be looking at the issue from a purely environmental/national standpoint and see what the numbers are.
That’s right, you suggested it would be ok if the US continued on to have at least the population of India. That’s about how serious your arguments are
btw. Lester R Brown (who you might consider to be a rather distinguished environmentalist) disagrees with your naive & thoughtless assessment.
Wiki confirms U.S. immigration control is one of Brown’s causes. (No mention of him taking sides in the Sierra Club fight, or even being a member.)
So, here you have an environmentalist who in your terms is not a coward on immigration, and who has not in any sense been silenced, but enjoys a very prominent position in the environmental movement without coming under lefty attack over his immigration views, so far as I can see (otherwise his Wiki bio almost certainly would have a “Controversies” section) – this proves your thesis how?!
As I noticed before, by looking at this article, the author is taking **all **the population to task. Of course the cites are less dividing the longer they stay outside nativist sources.
Nowhere in the article he talks about concentrating on immigration, As mentioned,
You will notice that if one then looks for solutions that apply to all then why the fuss of concentrating in the lesser problem when it is included **already **in reference to the environment?
Clearly the main reason why some try that to be the focus is not the environment, as focusing on immigrants is avoiding a big chunk of the population equation. Of course, after so much avoidance, it is clear that it has been granted that on top of everything, the nativist groups do not do much of anything else for the environment, both locally or globally.
So, assuming that immigration is just 1,000,000 per year, a third of the growth in population comes from immigration. so, if one wanted to look at ways to stabilize the population, immigration is a great place to look. If population stabilization were of interest to you, where else would you suggest we look?
What appears to be the case is not that American environmentalists are “cowards” on immigration, but that they are divided. All consider overpopulation a problem; but most do not seem to consider immigration a big or determinative enough factor for immigration control to be a high-priority issue. Then we have those like Lester Brown, who do give it a high priority – but don’t make it the focus of their entire careers in the movement.
And that’s the whole lineup, as far as genuine environmentalists are concerned.
Then, over there to one side of all of that, we have pseudogreen crypto-nativist* opportunists-entryists-astroturfers, like Progressives for Immigration Reform, and the Tanton faction who tried to take over the Sierra Club. But environmentalists are not such cowards as to put up with that.
One sees the difference?
I love having the chance to make a serious political “crypto-” formation that actually fits and is not a self-lampshading joke! How often does it come along these days?!
“Then, over to one side we have concerned environmentalists trying to take back the Sierra Club from the cowardly faction who kowtowed to a blackmailer.”
The full background was that that was not a secret by 2005, you would think then that if it was blackmail then most members would had voted in protest, the vote was even worse for the ones pushing to make an environmentalist group to focus on immigrants.
It was more likely that the Sierra Club members were convinced by the information they got regarding the intentions of the proponents of the change from the neutral position and what you see as blackmail is in reality just one important member that complained thanks to the information that they found and provided regarding those groups.
Already mentioned, I agree with more secure borders and more incentives for family planning.
And already mentioned: There was no need to attempt to change an organization, whose focus is the environment as a whole, for me to have those ideas, neither it was necessary for nativist organizations to go out of their scope into organizations that, thanks to science, are going for a different set of priorities.
