As the Brains example could tell you, being consistent does not mean he is right on all subjects. And scientists began to notice that global warming was becoming a problem since the Eisenhower administration.
Incidentally, not much of immigration was mentioned on the book you linked too, he actually agrees with the maker of the report that debunks the latest anti-immigrant efforts on the part that if we don’t do anything, then the ecological disaster will lead to a wave of immigration.
My question is about environmentalists, who presumably would tend left? I don’t expect Republicans, who are probably beholden to big business, to do much.
What I do know is that the Republicans who are scientists with relation to the issue are not worried at all on the immigration issue in relation to global warming. And yes, they are doing something by investigated the real causes of the problem.
Barry Bickmore is a geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University, an active Mormon, and an active Republican. Not a word about immigration related to climate, but as an active Republican he had to declare the nativists “wackos”.
Richard Alley is the highly regarded expert on paleo-climate from Penn State, registered Republican, was invited by congress to testify in a recent hearing on the matter and made a fool of Pat Michaels (scientist that is filled with misleading info nowadays) and the dumb Republicans asking questions. I looked around, and no, immigration was not even a related issue for him.
Thanks for the links, it’s not really clear though what their views are on population expansion and emissions. Or at least, why they don’t consider that an issue.
That is because studies show that immigrants do not really have the big carbon footprints that your sources claim they do.
PDF file:
The most likely reason why not even concerned Republican experts on climate think about immigration is that population on the whole is the main issue, when those groups that you think are a big deal are not right now banging on the doors of the Republican representatives or senators, that are currently de-funding or denying science and demand to those Republicans to change, then it is painfully clear that those anti-immigrant “environmental” guys or organizations cited by you are just astroturfing for the environment side.
See the comments above re overall population increase & increased energy consumption.
In relation to whether new migrants from poorer countries will increase their emissions, a starting point could be to look at the US average and Mexico average. The UN’s International Energy Agency, residents of America in 2007 put out an average of 19.1 tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by fossil fuel combustion. The residents of, say, Mexico each emit 4.1 tons per year.
I suppose then you have a two pronged dilemma a) that they won’t assimilate to middle class norms and the environment is saved but you have a growing underclass or b) they will assimilate to middle class norms, in which case their carbon footprint will necessarily increase and damage the environment more than would otherwise be the case.
Where does it say that your quoted orgs are right now complaining to the do nothing congress?
You are now mostly grasping at straws, it does remain a false dilemma, compared to what it needs to be done regarding the carbon footprint. Better city planning and less use of fossil fuels will be an important part of the effort, as it is also population control, immigration is not much a part of the problem but it is also part of the solution as the report shows, so immigration is mostly a wash for the footprint issue, but it will become a moot issue if something is done about the problem.
Now, if you can find a cite where those nativist “environmentalists” groups and leaders are telling the current crop of Republicans to do something for their inaction on dealing with the overall CO2 issue, then you may still have a valid point.
A yes, the Chen019 specialty of not really reading the cite.
Edited to add: and that is also what I said too, once overall population (that is the correct focus) is mentioned then it becomes clear how silly is to blame immigration as the big factor.
So, where are your cites on your pet groups demanding the Republicans that got elected, thanks to the help of those “environmentalists” to do something about the carbon footprint now?
The obtuseness is not mine. One of the references of that paper from the Clinton group was the Immigration Act of 1990, the latest report indirectly references that, it is clear that you are still avoiding reading it and understating the implications, the act of 1990 was one of the reasons that there are many immigrants that are involved in research to curb carbon emissions.
Not to mention that most of the groups you like to get your citations from are opposed to immigrants that are not from an specific ethnic group.
Yes, and as the obtuseness shows here, one has therefore to repeat that controlling the population is not equal to opposing immigration because of carbon footprint issues. Immigration should be controlled but not stopped.
:rolleyes:
For the umpteenth time, you are then avoiding the main issue, it is not immigration, but the extraordinary carbon footprint that Americans have, and the big culprits are from the cities that have **less **immigrants.
And no, I have not forgotten your deftly attempts at ignoring this: I’m still waiting for your cites to show that your astroturf environmentalists are doing something against the “do nothing against CO2 emissions” Republican congress critters.
Not if your actual problem is with greenhouse gas and global warming it isn’t, since there is a huge problem there at the current US population levels.
So really, saying you want to reduce it to population replacement level “for the environment and shit” shows just how disingenuous you are about the whole issue. Like your boy Tanton, you start from “I don’t like immigration” and go from there to try and find a reason, any reason to convince other people who don’t buy into your nativist narrative that immigration is really really bad even according to their ideologies.
But a) that’s disingenuous and b) to make that tactic convincing, you would have to actually understand the fundamentals of said ideologies and care about *their *goals. Which you just demonstrated you did not.
Interesting, so you actually agree that population stabilization is important. You presumably realise that immigration at current levels makes that impossible:
You realise that this creates various problems, including environmental ones:
However, you can’t agree to simply reducing immigration to replacement levels because that would lead to people saying “like your boy Tanton”, and calling you a nativist? Is that right?
I don’t, actually. I don’t give the most token of fucks about population stabilization, the environment, or even global warming. Whether the rest of you chuckleheads finally get a clue or wipe yourselves out through your own lack of foresight is of no importance to me whatsoever.
I do care about being openly bullshitted at, though.
