Are environmentalists cowards on immigration?

[Chen019]

@BrainGlutton

What I oppose is loss of perspective. E.g., Pat Buchanan forgetting how his ancestors came to America and saw “No Irish Need Apply” signs whenever they looked for work.

The loss of perspective is made by those who consider it immoral to even consider revising immigration levels.

As for peoples ancestors, you could say that many countries have seen invasions, and are populated by the descendants of the invaders. I suppose they have no basis to have borders now either. It seems like a rather silly source of immigration policy.

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

You, as a member of the American ethnocultural nation, the American people, have no “right” to keep foreigners out of your country, no “right” that is violated when they cross the border, legally or illegally. The U.S. government has the authority to control the border – but not because you as a citizen/voter demand it;

I agree with this. But I’m sure that you would grant that I and similarly minded citizens can work to elect those who agree with our position. And if we are successful, the government will be doing as we “demand”. Though we have no personal right, we do have that collective right. Correct? That said, you lost me here: (bolding mine)

…

@BrainGlutton

every government, regardless of form or popularity, has the same authority to the same degree of legitimacy exactly.

If you meant to craft it’s own immigration and border policy, I agree. Did you mean something else? Because I don’t know why you would think anyone would possibly think otherwise.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

I agree with this. But I’m sure that you would grant that I and similarly minded citizens can work to elect those who agree with our position. And if we are successful, the government will be doing as we “demand”. Though we have no personal right, we do have that collective right. Correct? That said, you lost me here: (bolding mine)

…

If you meant to craft it’s own immigration and border policy, I agree. Did you mean something else? Because I don’t know why you would think anyone would possibly think otherwise.

It was all directed at the “Do nations have the right to control their own borders or not?!” States do, nations do not, and the two are not the same – and it is in nations that patriots/nationalists/whatever have all the emotional investment, even if they are accustomed to couching rhetoric in terms of the value of their country’s constitution or whatever.

[MrDibble]

@Chen019

The flipside is that you think countries have no right to exist.

That’s not the flipside, that’s what I actually said. If I think there should be no borders, of course I think there should be no countries, that’s kind of synonymous.

It’s the kind of thinking that makes people like the Dalai Lama nervous.
http://www.freetibet.org/about/migration

How is that an indictment of a borderless world? Note that the Tibetan situation is totally a result of nationalism, *not *a test case for internationalism. One country invades another, one country forces its population on another. That’s *not *natural migration. And that’s *not *a borderless state of affairs.

[BrainGlutton]

@MrDibble

That’s not the flipside, that’s what I actually said. If I think there should be no borders, of course I think there should be no countries, that’s kind of synonymous.

No, it means you think there should be no independent states. The countries would remain, with their territories, their peoples and their ever-changing-but-ever-the-same national cultures.

Of course, in a borderless world (at least in the sense that the U.S. is internally “borderless”), part of the ever-changing would be blurring the boundaries between national cultures – I read in [url=]The United States of Europe, by T.R. Reid, that many young Europeans today (practically all of whom speak English, at least as a second language) think of themselves as “Europeans” first and “French” or “German” second –

. . . and that, more than anything else, is what some people, for some reason, seem to be deeply afraid of.

[Chen019]

@MrDibble

How is that an indictment of a borderless world? Note that the Tibetan situation is totally a result of nationalism, *not *a test case for internationalism. One country invades another, one country forces its population on another. That’s *not *natural migration. And that’s *not *a borderless state of affairs.

It’s an indictment because it means one group with their culture & way of living, like the Tibetans, could simply be overwhelmed demographically. Why do you think places like India or Israel build walls on their boundaries?

[Kobal2]

@magellan01

Enter the Amazing Kreskin. Now, how about you answer those questions for yourself. I’d like to see where you come out.

Well, I got it right, didn’t I ?

As for me, I’m in the same bag as **MrDibble **is - In theory, I see borders and the concept of nationhood as a toxic exercise in Us vs. Them that ultimately has its roots in, and leads to, violence. The only claim any people have to the land they sit on was granted them by a sword.

I also recognize that in practice, since there still arebrutish, violent people out there who still wield swords and who still have yet to grok how stupid and counter-productive all of this nationalistic baggage is, it’s impractical to abolish borders altogether, least not overnight or even during my lifetime. More’s the pity.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@BrainGlutton

Of course, in a borderless world (at least in the sense that the U.S. is internally “borderless”), part of the ever-changing would be blurring the boundaries between national cultures – I read in [url=]The United States of Europe, by T.R. Reid, that many young Europeans today (practically all of whom speak English, at least as a second language) think of themselves as “Europeans” first and “French” or “German” second –

Haha, French youngsters speaking fluent English. What Bizarro world are you posting from?

[MrDibble]

@BrainGlutton

No, it means you think there should be no independent states.

Oh, Hastur, this is about Scotland again, isn’t it?

@Chen019

It’s an indictment because it means one group with their culture & way of living, like the Tibetans, could simply be overwhelmed demographically.

Meh.

It’s only if at the same time, they are coerced into abandoning their cultural practices (as they are in Tibet, as I noted).

Otherwise all you’re talking about is a change in the demographics of a region or a shift in the cultural marketplace. Neither of these are inherently bad things. If your culture isn’t attractive enough to your children when it competes on an open footing, tough noogies. No culture has an inherent “right” to have its memeplex coddled in a particular flavour of mind.

Do you raise the same objection to the spread of Western culture in all those ways it replaces local cultures? That has no element of coercion, yet consensus Western culture drives out other cultures all the time.

Why do you think places like India or Israel build walls on their boundaries?

It’s not fear of cultural loss, I can tell you that. Only WASP America does that. In Israel and India (India has a wall?) it’s fear of actual bombs and bullets.

[BrainGlutton]

@Chen019

It’s an indictment because it means one group with their culture & way of living, like the Tibetans, could simply be overwhelmed demographically.

The only time that ever happens through immigration is when the indigenous population is low and primitive – e.g., what happened to the American Indians. (No, nobody was “overwhelmed demographically” when Boston turned Irish.)

@Chen019

Why do you think places like India or Israel build walls on their boundaries?

Israel is, of course, a Very Special Case; and if India has built any border walls it is not for fear of being overwhelmed demographically by immigrants. That would take pretty much the whole of China packing up and moving west.

[Chen019]

@MrDibble

Do you raise the same objection to the spread of Western culture in all those ways it replaces local cultures? That has no element of coercion, yet consensus Western culture drives out other cultures all the time.It’s not fear of cultural loss, I can tell you that. Only WASP America does that. In Israel and India (India has a wall?) it’s fear of actual bombs and bullets.

Are you sure it’s not about fear of cultural loss?

“The problem of illegal infiltrators along the southwestern border is a threat to the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel,” the statement quoted Netanyahu as saying.

http://www.france24.com/en/20101027-israel-begin-work-egypt-barrier-november

[BrainGlutton]

Interesting:

CAP’s Jorge Madrid has a new report, “From a ‘Green Farce’ to a Green Future.” Here’s his summary:

Combating climate change and reforming our broken immigration system are two of the greatest challenges facing Congress and the Obama administration. Legislation to address these issues has come up short thus far. Both have been fiercely debated throughout the country and many Americans demand solutions.In the midst of these debates anti-immigrant groups are revamping their efforts to play these issues against each other using misinformation. These voices have long argued that immigrants destroy the environment, accelerate climate change, and undermine U.S. efforts to transition to a clean and green future.

Nativist organizations and hate groups are attempting to drive their political agenda using environmental concerns as a cover. And conservative lawmakers and opponents of clean energy and climate legislation who use phony environmental arguments as a political wedge are promoting these groups’ talking points.These arguments are a “green farce.” They’re supposedly presented out of concern for the environment but are intentionally misleading and dangerously misinformed. They present Americans with a false choice between achieving fair and humane immigration reform and climate legislation that will respect the environment and lead our country to a clean and prosperous energy future.

Immigrants should not be blamed for the nation’s climate woes. In fact, they deserve better recognition for the valuable contributions they make toward a “greener” society and economy.

Environmentalists and advocates of the green economy must reject false choices and distractions from the greater imperative to fight the true causes of pollution and climate change: our dependence on fossil fuels and our unsustainable systems of energy consumption.

This report strikes down many of the false arguments regarding immigrants and the environment, provides a clearer picture of immigrants’ environmental contributions, and outlines real environmental solutions that can cut carbon and curb climate change. Key findings include:

* The assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the U.S. carbon footprint is false. The 10 highest carbon-emitting cities have an average immigrant population below 5 percent, according to a 2008 Brookings Institution study.
* The cities with the lowest carbon footprint, on the other hand, have an average immigrant population of 26 percent.
* Immigrants, especially recent immigrants, tend to lead “greener” lifestyles than the native-born and are more likely to use public transportation and practice sustainable habits like compact living, conservation, and recycling.
* Immigrants, who are largely low income, are also more likely to have their lives disrupted by extreme weather events and other adverse effects of climate change.
* Addressing climate change and poverty on a global scale will help stabilize immigration flows from undeveloped countries.
* Immigrants are disproportionately hurt by the dirty energy economy and face unique environmental challenges. Consequently, they fight for greener solutions, including challenging the use of hazardous pesticides in the agricultural fields where many immigrants work. A successful campaign by immigrant farm workers during the 1960s led to the banning of the dangerous pesticide DDT.
* 2010 polls of key electoral states find that immigrant-rich communities overwhelmingly favor policy that will create green jobs and tend to support congressional candidates who back efforts to fight global warming.
* Immigrants are integral to driving clean energy innovation. They accounted for 70 percent of men and women who entered the engineering and science fields from 1995 to 2006 and 40 percent of all high-tech venture-backed companies.

Instead of blaming immigrants, the report recommends the following actions the United States and other countries can take to start cutting pollution and getting a handle on climate change:

* Get more energy efficient. A national energy efficiency standard“”which would set mandatory annual electricity and natural gas consumption reduction targets for utilities””can save 262 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s the equivalent of taking 48 million cars off the roads for one year and saving 390 power plants from being built.
* Expand renewable energy. Renewable sources of energy such as the wind, sun, and waves have practically zero GHG emissions. Remarkably, only 7 percent of our current national energy portfolio comes from renewable sources, not counting hydroelectric power. A good start for the United States would be to set a national standard of 25 percent of energy produced to come from renewable sources by 2025.
* Curb deforestation. Tropical deforestation is responsible for more emissions than all the cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined. The United States””along with the rest of the world””must transition to more sustainable building materials and enact legislation that protects forests.
* Limit fossil fuels. We can end our addiction to oil through reasonable and costeffective policies. These include improved fuel economy standards, development of advanced bio-fuels, incentives for nonpolluting electric vehicles, and use of natural gas, which produces fewer emissions than other fossil fuels. Older coal-fired power plants can be retired with national energy efficiency and renewable energy standards, and we can use advanced battery storage and cleanerburning natural gas for our fail-safe power.
* Plan smart cities. Elements of smart cities, also referred to as “smart growth,” include widely available mass transit and walking-bicycle paths (to curb vehicle travel), compact residential and commercial development (to curb overuse of open space), and efficient use of electricity and water through networked resource management, also called a “smart grid.”

Nearly all credible environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, have rejected bogus arguments about immigrants and climate change. But fringe organizations continue to cloud our national discussions about immigration reform and clean energy. It’s time to set the record straight.

– Jorge Madrid is a Research Associate with the energy team at the Center for American Progress.

Complete report in pdf.

[Chen019]

@BrainGlutton

Interesting:

Yes, this report was discussed back towards the beginning of the thread. As discussed, the issue of poor immigrants contributing a lower average carbon footprint is one thing. Whether they will continue that pattern in future generations is another.

It doesn’t get away from the environmental value of stabilizing the population as suggested by the Clinton Sustainability Taskforce.

[BrainGlutton]

@Chen019

Good questions - although unsurprisingly anyone who did so would automatically become an evil nativist in Gigo’s eyes. This stems back to my point about environmentalits being cowed - who wants to incur the wrath of people like that?

Tip, Chen: “Nativist” – unlike, say, “Warmist” – is not one of those terms whose usage is a declaration of idiocy.

[Chen019]

@BrainGlutton

Tip, Chen: “Nativist” – unlike, say, “Warmist” – is not one of those terms whose usage is a declaration of idiocy.

It has a specific technical meaning, but also:

in public political discourse “nativist” is a term of opprobrium usually used by the opposition, and rarely by nativists themselves (they call themselves “patriots.”[7]). Anti-immigration is a more neutral term that may be used to characterize opponents of immigration.

Nativism (politics) | Language

Even taking the technical meaning, GIGO has used it inappropriately in the case of Professor Zuckerman. Zuckerman, as far as I’m aware, hasn’t said his support for immigration restriction relates to assimilation issues.

[nachtmusick]

@BrainGlutton

Interesting:

Complete report in pdf.

I don’t think Jorge Madrid (Research Associate at the Center for American Progress) sounds credible.

I have no objection to the recommendations he lists. They are all worthwhile. But:

“Immigrants should not be blamed for the nation’s climate woes. In fact, they deserve better recognition for the valuable contributions they make toward a “greener” society and economy.”

This is absurd. I agree immigration should not be solely blamed for environmental woes, but immigration absolutely contributes to the problem.

The points offered by JM in support of the statement are humorously slanted:

** The assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the U.S. carbon footprint is false. The 10 highest carbon-emitting cities have an average immigrant population below 5 percent, according to a 2008 Brookings Institution study*.

(1) Honestly - you are not going to return big numbers for “immigrants” in the 10 most populous American cities. They are just never going to be a big percentage of an official count. This is a bullshit statement, which should cast doubt on any person or organization who resorts to this tactic. (2) New immigrants are poor, that is no secret. They are also rural; and tremendously so. (3) What moron would try to base any argument on the “assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the US carbon footprint”?
** The cities with the lowest carbon footprint, on the other hand, have an average immigrant population of 26 percent.*

Of course, immigrants are poor. Not a revelation. History tells us that they strive not to be poor. If history is to be believed, what are the consequences of their striving? Answer: Those carbon footprints will climb in relation to other cities. In point of fact, the carbon profiles of all cities will climb, but the profiles of the cities with more immigrants will climb faster.

** Immigrants, especially recent immigrants, tend to lead “greener” lifestyles than the native-born and are more likely to use public transportation and practice sustainable habits like compact living, conservation, and recycling.*

…Because they are poor. The meta-answer here is that we need to get our own population to act more like immigrants, not get more immigrants.

Madrid’s report had 5 more points, but I will desist.

I think we have many tough choices that must be made to solve climate change and environmental problems. The first choice is to control population in

[nachtmusick]

Posted before complete, somehow, and missed the edit window - never mind the last sentence of that post and I will go with the rest.

[Chen019]

@nachtmusick

I don’t think Jorge Madrid (Research Associate at the Center for American Progress) sounds credible.

I have no objection to the recommendations he lists. They are all worthwhile. But:

“Immigrants should not be blamed for the nation’s climate woes. In fact, they deserve better recognition for the valuable contributions they make toward a “greener” society and economy.”

This is absurd. I agree immigration should not be solely blamed for environmental woes, but immigration absolutely contributes to the problem.

The points offered by JM in support of the statement are humorously slanted:

** The assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the U.S. carbon footprint is false. The 10 highest carbon-emitting cities have an average immigrant population below 5 percent, according to a 2008 Brookings Institution study*.

(1) Honestly - you are not going to return big numbers for “immigrants” in the 10 most populous American cities. They are just never going to be a big percentage of an official count. This is a bullshit statement, which should cast doubt on any person or organization who resorts to this tactic. (2) New immigrants are poor, that is no secret. They are also rural; and tremendously so. (3) What moron would try to base any argument on the “assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the US carbon footprint”?
** The cities with the lowest carbon footprint, on the other hand, have an average immigrant population of 26 percent.*

Of course, immigrants are poor. Not a revelation. History tells us that they strive not to be poor. If history is to be believed, what are the consequences of their striving? Answer: Those carbon footprints will climb in relation to other cities. In point of fact, the carbon profiles of all cities will climb, but the profiles of the cities with more immigrants will climb faster.

** Immigrants, especially recent immigrants, tend to lead “greener” lifestyles than the native-born and are more likely to use public transportation and practice sustainable habits like compact living, conservation, and recycling.*

…Because they are poor. The meta-answer here is that we need to get our own population to act more like immigrants, not get more immigrants.

Madrid’s report had 5 more points, but I will desist.

I think we have many tough choices that must be made to solve climate change and environmental problems. The first choice is to control population in

I think Madrid is operating like a defence lawyer, except more disingenuous.

[GIGObuster]

@nachtmusick

** The assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the U.S. carbon footprint is false. The 10 highest carbon-emitting cities have an average immigrant population below 5 percent, according to a 2008 Brookings Institution study*.

(1) Honestly - you are not going to return big numbers for “immigrants” in the 10 most populous American cities. They are just never going to be a big percentage of an official count. This is a bullshit statement, which should cast doubt on any person or organization who resorts to this tactic. (2) New immigrants are poor, that is no secret. They are also rural; and tremendously so. (3) What moron would try to base any argument on the “assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the US carbon footprint”?

Of course if we are not going to return big numbers for “immigrants” in the 10 most populous American cities. Then the issue is not very important when carbon emission controls are. What you are ignoring here is that the ones making the misleading argument on the carbon footprint levels assigned to immigrants are misleading others because they assigning to immigrants the same average carbon footprint per person that the people who are already here have.

@nachtmusick

** The cities with the lowest carbon footprint, on the other hand, have an average immigrant population of 26 percent.*

Of course, immigrants are poor. Not a revelation. History tells us that they strive not to be poor. If history is to be believed, what are the consequences of their striving? Answer: Those carbon footprints will climb in relation to other cities. In point of fact, the carbon profiles of all cities will climb, but the profiles of the cities with more immigrants will climb faster.

And this assumes that nothing will be done to reduce the carbon footprint of all.

@nachtmusick

** Immigrants, especially recent immigrants, tend to lead “greener” lifestyles than the native-born and are more likely to use public transportation and practice sustainable habits like compact living, conservation, and recycling.*

…Because they are poor. The meta-answer here is that we need to get our own population to act more like immigrants, not get more immigrants.

No, that is a misrepresentation of the answer, for environmentalists it is:

http://www.odemagazine.com/exchange/1066/lester_brown_launches_plan_b_3_0

Dr. Lester Brown’s latest book points to the proliferation of carbon dioxide in the environment as the single greatest threat to mankind and calls for a reduction of 80% by 2020.

The plan’s prescriptions include: wind generation; lowering income taxes while levying a carbon tax that progressively grows to $240 a ton of CO2; more solar and geothermal power; hybrid cars; and less meat in our diet. (Switching from a meat-rich diet to a vegetarian diet has the same CO2 impact as switching from a SUV to a Prius.)

For some reason it seems that you see that the recommendation is to get everybody poor, that is not the case.

Plan B is an integrated program with four interdependent
goals. We are not, for example, likely to stabilize population
unless we can also eradicate poverty. Conversely, we cannot
restore the earth’s natural systems without stabilizing population
and climate, and we are not likely to stabilize climate unless
we also stabilize population. Nor can we eradicate poverty
without restoring the earth’s natural systems

-Lester Brown plan B

[Chen019]

In terms of the US environment, population growth is seen as a bad thing (Clinton Sustainability Taskforce).

Immigration is a significant driver of population growth in the US.

Reducing immigration would help reduce population growth and consequent environmental problems.