As you are avoiding to show that your nativist sources are doing anithing about the obstructionist republicans, the thing you are accepting is just that you lost.
Their efforts are clearly an attempt to hijack the enviromemtalist movement. The only thing is clear is that they are a failure at that and a failure at folowing up on the environmentalist part of what they fraudulently claim to be.
Finally your retort here just shows to all that you have no clue that the solutions proposed by real experts can deal with the footprint issue. Dealing with immigration over the population issue is clearly just following the designs of crackpots.
I’m getting the feeling from reading this thread that those who are arguing with Chen019 feel that population numbers are not an issue when looking at the U.S.'s impact on the environment. Is that right? If so, can someone explain how adding, say, 30% more people wouldn’t put a greater strain on the U.S. environment and resources.
Also, I’d like to point out that bringing up what right wing/conservative groups do or advocate regarding global warming, etc., is a straw man. It has nothing to do with Chen019’s OP or position. He’s even gone as far as to say he expects the groups on the right to not do anything about it. You might want to reread the OP.
Wrong, the population is an issue, but as demonstrated it is not really a given that an increase in population will be the main reason for an increase in the carbon footprint, particularly when the way to reach that conclusion is based on assuming that we never are doing something about emissions. It was clear that immigration was added by the writer of the articles in the OP as a jerk move.
Not correct as I got the report and latest citations to support what I said, (BTW that latest Yale report cited avoids the papers from the Brooklyn Institute that show how really immigration impacts the footprint in the USA)
As for rereading, the flawed assumptions are courtesy of philosopher Philip Cafaro, not that there is something wrong with that, but as mentioned several times already there is a huge lack of logic when the OP later claims that others in the Nativist camp are to be trusted because they are scientists. The problem remains that they are not experts on what they pretend to be.
And finally you are missing that titling a thread with what amounts to an insult to environmentalists (the question mark does not help, going for FOX news tactics is so transparent) does not lead one to appreciate the fake right wing advocates regarding global warming.
Well, whether it is the main reason for an increase for the carbon footprint (which I’m glad to see you accept) would depend on the level of immigration, wouldn’t it. If 100,000 emigrate to here, the effects are small. If 100,000,000 emigrate here, that’s a different kettle of fish. At what immigration levels do you think the effects will be noticeable/detrimental to our environment?
It’s not an insult. It is, as you pointed out, a question. A legitimate one. Leave the OP’s cites out of it all together. The fact remains that increased immigration is in some respects at odds with a healthy environment. How many people should we have in cities. How many cities? How much green space? How many parks? How much forest land? How much wetlands? What size? How many people can the amount of water we have sustain—for farming, drinking, living. JHow many people can we feed. How percentage of food can be supplied locally as opposed to from afar? And at what cost to the environment? How much of a strain to the environment is the added waste due to increased numbers?
These are just a few of the questions that make the OP’s question legitimate. Just look at the are comprised by California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. How many more people do you think can be supported by all available water sources? There is a limit, wouldn’t you agree?
Let me put it this way: worrying about the effect current immigration has on US carbon emissions is akin to meeting a man who happens to be on fire and screaming for help, and giving him some ointment for the burns but leave him on fire.
It’s arguably better than just passing by, but it is also completely missing the salient problems faced by the man on fire.
Right. He wants the left-wing, concerned-by-the-environment crunchy granola types to get on the side of “immigration is, like, grody and stuff”, while not arguing (or apparently, caring) that the other side should quit camping on its staunch opposition to any sort of eco-friendly measures.
So the end result were his pathetically transparent manoeuvres successful would simply be more immigration controls and nothing else. i.e. what **Chen **(and the authors of his cites) are really about. Meaning the environmental angle is disingenuous, agenda-driven BS. So why should we take it seriously ? He most certainly isn’t.
Are Californians starving ? Or even mildly peckish ? No ? Then more people can immigrate.
Considering American population density compared to that of Japan (or even the UK), this whole line of argument is to laugh, really. There is a limit certainly, but the whole of South Americacould cross the border and you would still be nowhere near it.
You need to check the report already cited, immigrants have in reality a smaller footprint than the average American, only if you want to make hay about a moot point is that one would insist to ignore that what needs to be done is for all to reduce their carbon foot print. (The report mentioned first by Climate Progress gives cited recommendations of what it should be done and it answered already most of the gallop line of questions that are next)
As I saw later, it was just our old friend, “just asking questions”. Anyhow, the real cowardice (if we agree is not an insult) comes from the reality that the organizations cited early are missing in action today when pressure to the republicans that got voted in on a platform to deny that there is a problem is needed.
The point is that even if we take the flawed assumptions at face value, immigrants would still not be the biggest piece of the pie. The fake environmentalists are not doing anything regarding the carbon footprint as applied to all as it should be, instead the fake environmentalists concentrate on just immigrants, and that is just going for a misleading cheap “solution”.
Perhaps immigration is the ultimate solution to environmental problems. When the US is a third world country again the carbon footprint will be very low. And the man behind the curtain - old Karl Marx himself - would be laughing in his grave.
So why are the real environmentalists avoiding this issue when the Clinton appointed council noted the population stabilization was important? According to the Yale report above, the population will go on to 600 million by the end of the century. That’s hardly stabilizing!
So why are environmentalists avoiding it? Is it because, as I’ve suggested, they are afraid of being called nativists & being told they are “hanging with their boy Tanton” (as Kobal2 puts it). I understand their fear, but they don’t have to adopt a race based immigration policy. Just reducing the numbers to replacement level would help achieve the goals of Clinton’s report. But there’s such a stigma attached they can’t even do that.
Once again, you missed the point, the immigration reforms that we got in the 90’s were not something your side liked. Immigration is a part of the issue, but not the main one. The sierra club has positions that do criticize the population grown overall, as it should be.
Once again, the Yale report ignored the papers from the Brooklyn Institute, and then one has to notice that the paper was not from Yale proper, but from a think thank that is located in Yale.
Irrelevant when the problem is really not being taken head on by the fake environmentalists from Tanton.
So. once again, can you tell me where they are complaining to the Republicans that are doing nothing?
I think we already know the answer, their environmentalism was a sham all along.
Refer to the thread title and my previous question. Why are environmentalists, who according to these reports over the last 20 years, concerned about population stabilization, but avoiding the cause of population increase? I think it is due to the stigma of being called nativist or being associated with Tanton.
That is true, but there is one worrisome recent development, during the previous decade Wired showed a graphic that demonstrated how nicely food production had grown to keep pace with the population growth, something happened in the last decade and suddenly there was something like a 3% or more drop on the levels that we should had to avoid food shortages or food riots. (Hello, Middle East spring!)
One thing that makes this issue look like the carriage put before the horse is that even the astronomer turned environmentalist could have told us years ago that immigration would get worse thanks to the coming ecological disruptions. like **Kobal2 **said, some are trying to give a burnt ointment to a burning man.
Are you serious? Go back and read the comments of the council appointed by Clinton on population stabilization. Go back and read this. | Yale and the World
Look, if you just don’t want to place any restrictions on immigration because you think people will call you a nativist or that would make you feel like a nativist (Tanton!), then just say so.
I’m serious, you really can not follow a discussion.
You really have trouble with context, I was, many, many times asking for citations that would show any of your nativist sources doing the right thing now and tell the current republicans in congress to do something about the carbon footprint. Your failure to do so is pathetic.
So, are we clear that you acknowledge that all your nativist sources and organizations are fake environmentalists?
That last sorry reply by Chen019 needed more comments:
I already did, it ignored the Brooklyn institute investigation on the actual footprint of the immigrants, on top of that:
Not published on any journal of renown.
I already showed that not even republican experts think too much of your ideas, even if one could made the point that they are pushing racism, the damming reality is that they are first pushing bad science.
I think you mean the Brookings Institute? Please explain how the Yale linked article that of Clinton’s advisory council are incorrect to be concerned about population stabilization? Even assuming newcomers remain poor and live in overcrowded conditions, it is hard to escape the point about 600 million by the turn of the century. And that is assuming they will make no gains in SES - which I’m not sure is an argument you agree with.
I think your final comment reveals that I might be right about the nativist fear as the basis for your reasoning. You think if you support any immigration restriction, even just to replacement level, that would be pushing racism
Never said that, the bit I was dealing with was with immigration. Population taken as a whole is the key and the point of reducing the carbon footprint.
That assumption already missed the ongoing recession (less people coming in), and there is a lot of data missing from the “Yale” blog. Also, I noticed that his charts are based on projections that he made, unfortunately he has no link to **how **he got those projections. just about the best way to know then that that source is really not as important as you think it is.
I’m already on the record of supporting restrictions, but for other reasons, regarding environmental ones, the reasons posted so far by the nativists remain bad science.
And bad environmentalism, so will you stop your silly tap dance and show how your nativist sources are active now complaining about the painful denial and inaction of the Republicans and congress to do anything about reducing the carbon footprint of all Americans?
