Are environmentalists cowards on immigration?

[Kobal2]

@Chen019

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.

They’re not “avoiding it”. They’re focusing on actual solutions, based on actual research and actual science.
They’re not afraid of being told they are nativists, because they’re not the ones astroturfing environmental concerns to push a nativist agenda. You are. Tanton is. And if my ignorant self can see right through him, it’s doubtful to me there’s anyone out there who doesn’t.
It’s not stigma, it’s not the “political correctness” every other racist motherfucker seems to whinge about these days because surely that must be the only explanation why they’re publicly reviled - people must really all think like them but be afraid to speak up ! Well, as astonishing as that may be, there’s a simpler explanation. They’re simply not buying your brand of bovine manure in the least. Is that so hard to understand ?

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Not the main one as it clearly has been shown.

Oh, so because it is not the main one it falls short of something we should be concerned about? I was not arguing it is the main one, just pointing out that its level of importance correlates with the numbers immigrating. You seem intent in ignoring it as a problem altogether.

@GIGObuster

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)

The fact is that the impact on our environment is proportionate to the number of people here. Even if we take meaningful steps to reduce each American’s carbon footprint and their impact on resources (as we should), more people equals more impact. When the increase is people is large—30%, 50%, 100%—that’s going to translate to significant impacts on the environment.I don’t know what the number is when impact begins to be significant, but that doesn’t mean that immigration in large numbers will not have an impact on the environment.

@GIGObuster

No that is a Gish Gallop.

Nope. Nice try at evasion though. The term you used refers to lies and straw men. What I highlighted are factors one must take into account. Or do you deny that the water supply, for instance, should be taken into account when trying to determine how many people an area can support before the environment is impacted?

@GIGObuster

Of course, if we do not ignore also the natives…

Huh?

Also, you seem happy to throw around the term “nativist” like some people throw around the word “racist”. It’s not helpful to having an actual discussion, it’s a tactic employed to cast aspersion and cut off discussion. Of course, I would never imagine you would stoop to such tactics, but thought I’d bring to light the problem in throwing it around so freely.

[magellan01]

@Kobal2

They’re not “avoiding it”. They’re focusing on actual solutions, based on actual research and actual science.

Yes, they are avoiding it. The point is not that it is THE MOST IMPORTANT issue facing the environment, but that it something that has a significant impact. Unless you are of the mind that every environmental group should focus on THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT issue and nothing else.

If you would take a look at the various environmental journals you’ll see that they do not go that route.

[woodstockbirdybird]

@Chen019

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.

I’d be willing to bet certain religious denominations and a large number of idiots native to this country squirting out litters of children has more of an impact on population increase than immigrants.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Oh, so because it is not the main one it falls short of something we should be concerned about? I was not arguing it is the main one, just pointing out that its level of importance correlates with the numbers immigrating. You seem intent in ignoring it as a problem altogether.

No. Can you get me a cite from a current climate scientist expert that is concerned about immigration?

The biggest concern for the scientists is population on the whole, otherwise you are just beating around the bush.

@magellan01

The fact is that the impact on our environment is proportionate to the number of people here. Even if we take meaningful steps to reduce each American’s carbon footprint and their impact on resources (as we should), more people equals more impact. When the increase is people is large—30%, 50%, 100%—that’s going to translate to significant impacts on the environment.I don’t know what the number is when impact begins to be significant, but that doesn’t mean that immigration in large numbers will not have an impact on the environment.

**Kobal2 **had it, you are proposing indeed to concentrate on giving burnt ointment to a burning man.

@magellan01

Nope. Nice try at evasion though. The term you used refers to lies and straw men. What I highlighted are factors one must take into account. Or do you deny that the water supply, for instance, should be taken into account when trying to determine how many people an area can support before the environment is impacted?

As it should be painfully obvious for others, expect maybe you, what you are trying to do with those questions is a distraction, no one is denying that when taking population as a whole, both immigrant and natives alike are impacting this. But as it was already noticed, immigrants are more active in being part of the solution.

@magellan01

Huh?

Also, you seem happy to throw around the term “nativist” like some people throw around the word “racist”. It’s not helpful to having an actual discussion, it’s a tactic employed to cast aspersion and cut off discussion. Of course, I would never imagine you would stoop to such tactics, but thought I’d bring to light the problem in throwing it around so freely.

It is because the that was the point of the cites in the OP.

Lets see if you can then demonstrate that you are not dependent on those sources to realize what is going on, it is not only the nativism the issue, what you are clearly avoiding is that they are fake environmentalists, if they were serious in dealing with the carbon footprint issue they would already, since several months ago, denounced the anti-science and denial efforts of many of the reps and senators that were elected while they denied that there was a problem.

Problem is that, it is painfully obvious that the same nativist groups that are pushing the anti immigration agenda, supported the same climate denialist candidates, demonstrating that environmentalism is the last thing that they have in mind.

[Kobal2]

@magellan01

Yes, they are avoiding it. The point is not that it is THE MOST IMPORTANT issue facing the environment, but that it something that has a significant impact. Unless you are of the mind that every environmental group should focus on THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT issue and nothing else.

If you would take a look at the various environmental journals you’ll see that they do not go that route.

Like I already told you and you already ignored once, and like I told **Chen **upthread, the impact of current immigration trends on the environment and greenhouse gas emissions is more or less negligible. Carbon footprints are not linear. They’re not avoiding the issue because they’re walking on eggshells, they’re ignoring it because it is not significant. Furthermore, **GIGOBuster **has already cited figures pointing to high immigration cities having a lower carbon footprint than cities without. What more do you want ? What data do you have to go on, besides “oh well I dunno but it’s just common sense” ?

Furthermore, and if we are to go by common sense, there are only two possibilities for immigrants: either they remain poor and their carbon footprint is exactly the same as if they’d stayed home ; or they move up the slippery class ladder and the eco-unfriendly lifestyle that goes with it, but in this case their natality rate would align with that of other middle-class Americans and the population boom you seem so concerned about will not happen for them.

As for your food and water concerns, they’re pretty much pure FUD. Like the US, the largest, richest and 4th most sparsely populated of first world nations is on the brink of starvation and overcrowding :rolleyes:. Not that it has anything to do with the environment, of course.

[Chen019]

@woodstockbirdybird

I’d be willing to bet certain religious denominations and a large number of idiots native to this country squirting out litters of children has more of an impact on population increase than immigrants.

You can focus on those people too, but you are wrong about the main cause of population growth in the US:

Contrary to popular thought, the dominant force fueling America’s demographic growth is not natural increase, but immigration. This is because immigrants not only add their own numbers to the nation’s overall population, but also contribute a disproportionate number of births whose effects are compounded over time. A couple of examples help to illustrate this important point.

| Yale and the World

[QUOTE=Kobal2]
Like I already told you and you already ignored once, and like I told Chen upthread, the impact of current immigration trends on the environment and greenhouse gas emissions is more or less negligible..
[/QUOTE]

See above article.

Should America’s population continue to grow indefinitely, perhaps doubling to 600 million by the end of the century? Clearly, any answer to this vital demographic question has serious and far-reaching economic, political, social and environmental consequences for America as well as for the international community of nations.

Also, your assumption about low carbon footprints seems premised on the idea of new immigrants remaining relatively poor and living in overcrowded conditions. Is it your assumption that they will not progress in terms of SES?

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

You can focus on those people too, but you are wrong about the main cause of population growth in the US:

| Yale and the World

See above article.

Over this 233-year period, migration’s contribution (migrants and their descendents) is dominant, accounting for at least 60 percent of America’s population growth.

So, you do think that the writer is right to consider what made America what it was a flaw? I have my doubts about how far he is going to get his numbers up and when he no longer consider migrants to not be Americans.

Or what is his cut-off point.

Of course if one continues in that path it is clear that we would reach really ridiculous numbers of what he is using to declare someone as an immigrant or a descendant. No, it is better to face the main problem, we are all involved.

So lets ask the Sierra Club directly why population on the whole and controlling global warming are the keys but not immigration:

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/mrgreen/2009/03/to-breed-or-not-to-breed.html

While some of my environmentally minded readers dread any reduction in procreation, which would also reduce the number of immigrants, others, like you, want to shut the immigrants out. I just hope you’re not in favor of that environmentally destructive boondoggle of a fence they’re building on our border with Mexico.

The simplest answer to your question about the Sierra Club’s immigration policy is that the Club’s members voted overwhelmingly some time ago to remain neutral on this issue. **Many are convinced that it is more helpful in the long run to work to help change the sinister circumstances that drive so many people to immigrate, including poverty, lack of education, lack of women’s rights, and lack of family-planning options.
**
**A less-known driver of immigration is environmental devastation, which has produced millions of refugees; they now number more than 10 million per year. By the year 2000, there were 25 million such refugees, actually higher than the number of people who had fled for political reasons. Among the environmentally related causes of displacement are floods, landslides, water shortages, and desertification caused by deforestation and overcultivation, not to mention climate change and the more intense devastation caused by the more intense storms brought on by global warming. **

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

So, you do think that the writer is right to consider what made America what it was a flaw? I have my doubts about how far he is going to get his numbers up and when he no longer consider migrants to not be Americans.

Ok, I see we’re now uncovering some of the reasons. They aren’t to do with the environment per se. They relate to:

> ideological belief in the US not having borders.

> compassionate concerns for the poor in other countries, which trumps environmental matters.

> fear of being called nativist (judging by the number of times that term has been used it seems to have an almost religious effect - to be on the side of the nativists is to be on the side of evil).

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Ok, I see we’re now uncovering some of the reasons. They aren’t to do with the environment per se. They relate to:

• ideological belief in the US not having borders

Not applicable as I don’t agree on free borders.

@Chen019

• compassionate concerns for the poor in other countries, which trumps environmental matters.

Wrong again, the Bric nations have a huge responsibility on controlling their growth and carbon footprint.

@Chen019

• fear of being called nativist (judging by the number of times that term has been used it seems to have an almost religious effect - to be on the side of the nativists is to be on the side of evil).

Piffle, what is clear to me is that following crackpot ideas is not evil in of itself, it is however evil when the puppet masters are laughing at you when thanks to their pretend environmentalist front they got a good number of people to vote against their own interests. For it is clear that the future the deniers in congress are setting up, is a world where displacement will be the order of the day and give us even more refugees and immigrants as a result of the disruptions.

[Kobal2]

@Chen019

Also, your assumption about low carbon footprints seems premised on the idea of new immigrants remaining relatively poor and living in overcrowded conditions. Is it your assumption that they will not progress in terms of SES?

Do you have some cognitive dysfunction we should know about that impairs your ability to read ? Because I’m pretty sure I already addressed this fallacy in the very post you’re quoting.

[Chen019]

@Kobal2

Do you have some cognitive dysfunction we should know about that impairs your ability to read ? Because I’m pretty sure I already addressed this fallacy in the very post you’re quoting.

No, you seem intent on ignoring the point about above replacement immigration and net population growth:

The second example illustrates immigration’s impact on America’s population from a future perspective. By mid-century the US population is projected to reach 439 million, assuming current annual net migration of about 1.3 million increasing gradually to 2 million (Figure 2). However, if further immigration were to cease, the US population in 2050 would likely be about 100 million less, i.e., roughly 345 million. **Again, the major force behind the future growth of America’s population, at least 70 percent in this instance, is the addition of immigrants and their descendants. **

| Yale and the World

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Not applicable as I don’t agree on free borders.
Wrong again, the Bric nations have a huge responsibility on controlling their growth and carbon footprint.
Piffle, what is clear to me is that following crackpot ideas is not evil in of itself, it is however evil when the puppet masters are laughing at you when thanks to their pretend environmentalist front they got a good number of people to vote against their own interests. For it is clear that the future the deniers in congress are setting up, is a world where displacement will be the order of the day and give us even more refugees and immigrants as a result of the disruptions.

So the Clinton advisory panel and the Yale article above are part of the the evil nativist puppet masters? It seems that it’s only a crackpot idea if it conflicts with your beliefs which I set out above.

[Kobal2]

Well, yes, it seems pretty tautological to say that the total population of the US would grow further with more immigration than with less. That is neither here nor there when the problem being discussed is the impact of immigrants on carbon footprints. Your constant non-sequiturs are taxing.

Do note however that your own cite states:

However, it is important to keep in mind that while these population projections for America’s future appear likely, they are not necessarily inevitable. Demographic trends may change radically due to behavioral changes and unanticipated events impacting fertility and mortality as well as changes in America’s immigration practices and policies.

So, using these trends and numbers as the basis of your argument seems misguided, when even the guy who publishes them (without citing where he got them from) admits they’re little more than guesses.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

So the Clinton advisory panel and the Yale article above are part of the the evil nativist puppet masters?

No, and I already pointed at the basic problem of them being either outdated or not having all the latest data. I already pointed at who are the fake environmentalists nativists.

[Chen019]

@Kobal2

Well, yes, it seems pretty tautological to say that the total population of the US would grow further with more immigration than with less. That is neither here nor there when the problem being discussed is the impact of immigrants on carbon footprints. Your constant non-sequiturs are taxing.

Do note however that your own cite states:
So, using these trends and numbers as the basis of your argument seems misguided, when even the guy who publishes them (without citing where he got them from) admits they’re little more than guesses.

No, the problem being discussed is simply the impact on the environment. The report from Clinton’s advisory group/council I cited above said US population stabilization was an important goal. The Yale article above says that is an important goal. The evidence is clear that the population is not going to stabilize and the major cause is immigration. My argument is that environmentalists are avoiding this inconenient truth for the reasons set out above - and they aren’t to do with the environment.

@ GIGO Buster

So the population stabilization goal of the Clinton appointed group is no longer an issue? It doesn’t matter if the population goes up to 600 million as discussed in the Yale article?

Also, you’ve suggested you do in fact support some immigration restrictions. How about restricting it to population replacement level?

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

@ GIGO Buster

So the population stabilization goal of the Clinton appointed group is no longer an issue? It doesn’t matter if the population goes up to 600 million as discussed in the Yale article?

Dude, you think the nativists are happy with the amnesties of the 90’s?

@Chen019

Also, you’ve suggested you do in fact support some immigration restrictions. How about restricting it to population replacement level?

Because that only means that you are expecting that nothing will be done about the overall carbon footprint, I think that in less than 10 years even more evidence will pile up that anyone still trying to deny this will be kicked out of office.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

No, the problem being discussed is simply the impact on the environment. The report from Clinton’s advisory group/council I cited above said US population stabilization was an important goal. The Yale article above says that is an important goal. The evidence is clear that the population is not going to stabilize and the major cause is immigration. My argument is that environmentalists are avoiding this inconenient truth for the reasons set out above - and they aren’t to do with the environment.

Once again, those reports are incomplete, and still it is clear that immigrants are not the biggest culprits on the current US carbon footprint levels.

Your argument needs better support and sources. What I’m seeing is that reusing the same old shows that there is almost no current support among experts for your argument, and others have noticed other problems the methods of the nativists are causing to the efforts to control the carbon footprint issue.

http://www.campusprogress.org/articles/environmentalists_shouldnt_be_anti-immigration/

The 2011 Climate Change Performance Index, which measures how much progress has been made by different countries in the fight against climate change, ranks Mexico 11 and the United States 54 out of all countries, so “non-European culture” probably doesn’t have much to do with a country’s willingness to adopt green policies.

Population growth is a hard issue to grapple with, but when it comes to Tanton’s anti-immigrant groups, there can be no doubt that their lobbying and mobilizing efforts have been completely counterproductive to the goals of the green movement.

These policies [anti-immigrant] haven’t caused immigration to stop or slow down (that’s mostly determined by the economy); all they’ve done is solidified the second-class status of the undocumented in America.

That’s a problem for anyone who wants to enact effective green policies. How are undocumented immigrants supposed to take advantage of government subsidies for home weatherization or energy efficiency tax credits if they aren’t legally recognized by the government? How are they supposed to obtain education about avoiding population-increasing unplanned pregnancies if they are excluded from both public education and the health system? If a carbon pricing scheme is ever passed by Congress, how will it regulate the underground economy that employs undocumented workers?

For green policies to work, the government should be able to regulate the economy and provide environmentally-friendly social services and information to everyone who participates in it. By concentrating on stigmatizing and legal isolating the undocumented immigrants already in the country, Tanton’s groups have made the unsustainable environmental trends that he was worried about in the 1970s even worse.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Once again, those reports are incomplete, and still it is clear that immigrants are not the biggest culprits on the current US carbon footprint levels.

Your argument needs better support and sources. What I’m seeing is that reusing the same old shows that there is almost no current support among experts for your argument, and others have noticed other problems the methods of the nativists are causing to the efforts to control the carbon footprint issue.

http://www.campusprogress.org/articles/environmentalists_shouldnt_be_anti-immigration/

Hahaha, you’re citing campusprogress over Clinton’s advisory council? Are you f8cking serious? As magellan01 said, it’s not a question of them being the biggest culprits. It’s whether it is an issue and whether there are policy implications to remedy that.

To save some time: nativist! Tanton! nativist! nativist! Tanton! nativist! nativist! Tanton! nativist! nativist! Tanton! nativist! nativist! Tanton! nativist! nativist! Tanton! nativist! nativist! Tanton! nativist! nativist! Tanton! nativist! nativist! Tanton! nativist! nativist! Tanton! nativist!…

[magellan01]

Gigo, Kobal, let’s try this: do you agree that whether due to immigration or native birth rates, large increases in population will impact the environment?

If you do agree with that (which I think you do), why is looking at either side of the equation off limits? As you seem to think it should be. Is it not the place of environmentalists to look at the impact that the size of populations make on the environment?

Let’s assume that global warming is the clear Number 1 issue environmentalists should be concerned with, does that mean they should be unconcerned with things like population, city planning, etc.? That any environmentalist who spends his time in this area is a fraud, a hack? Just because someone is not on the same page concerning global warming and what should be done about it, can they not do things that are either helpful or detrimental to the environment in their own right? You seem to want to discount anything coming from a group because they don’t agree with global warming. That’s not helpful.

As an analogy, while I am pro-choice, I do not hold that anyone who is pro-life cannot contribute to helping solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies. They may be dealing with smaller aspects of the issue that I think are the most meaningful, but that does not equate to them being unable to contribute to the general good regarding the issue. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? There are many facets to a healthy environment. Why pooh-pooh factors that are not the NUmber 1 issue?

:smack: Horrible pun not intended.