Anyone can see it is not related to the Clinton council, but expanding on the activities of the nativists on this issue, also you seem to also tell others to ignore the links.
[rest of tripe not cited]
BTW, I would had laughed at your “not really from Yale” cite but I managed.
You still seem stuck on this nativist! Tanton! nativist! Tanton! loop.
Maybe try and address the actual point about population stabilization in the US (which the Clinton council do specifically raise) & whether immigration should be adjusted to achieve that goal. Or just go back to your loop.
Yes, the evidence cited already is that in the cities that have more immigrants are the ones with the smallest carbon footprints. So to begin with, you need to acknowledge that environmentalists have looked at the impact.
Could you please read the thread? These items were already replied to, environmentalists are not unconcerned, and once again, they take the whole population into account.
What is not helpful is the clear ignorance of the OP you already referred to, the fake environmentalist groups claim to be worried about the carbon footprint. There is clear hypocrisy on dropping the issue now when candidates they supported are now active on dismissing even the evidence that there is a problem with the carbon footprint.
On the contrary, you are on that loop because you are incapable of showing any effort from your fake environmentalists to be doing something now against the politicians that are making the situation worse by doing nothing.
As for the outdated Clinton report that I already pointed out that in reality does not support your position much, the reality was that the immigration reforms mentioned included the amnesties of the 90’s, deal with the fact that those allowed me and others to eventually become citizens of the USA and now to do something about the carbon foot print in the USA.
As Magellan01 has mentioned, even if this is the case it doesn’t follow that an additional 200 million people are not going to cause significant environmental problems. For instance, even with a relatively low per capita carbon footprint, LA has the second highest carbon dioxide emissions in the US.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/carbon-emissions-47041804
And where in the article do they separate immigrants from that?
Oh that is right, nowhere.
We are all responsible and we have to work to solve the issue together.
Yes, and increasing the US population by 100 or 200 million people will not help solve the problem. Population growth tends to cause environmental problems or make them harder to solve. Again, those evil Clinton appointed nativists:
http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html
Meanwhile, the politicians elected with the support of the fake environmentalists are busy making a mockery of any pretended environmentalism they had:
Sigh, they do not make conservatives for the environment like they used to.
Well, there are some though:
Yep, the same ones that allowed a mess of immigrants in (and once again, the whole population and our waste is the issue, not just immigrants, and clearly the latest report shows that there was no need to focus a lot on immigration), as I already pointed out, it is a cite that does not really helps you a lot.
Yes it does. Read it - say it to yourself 5 times a day before breakfast!
Fine, there is no mention on that quote of immigrants.
That was easy.
And this was also there:
And that is why the latest report and papers from The Brookings Institution and the report mentioned by Climate Progress are so important.
Combined with the clear condemnation Clinton got from the fake environmentalists in the past regarding the amnesty bills, it just shows how the pickings for cites are not “as good” since you left the clearly biased sources you began with.
Of course large increases in population will impact the environment. What I don’t understand is what immigration has to do with it.
I mean, immigration doesn’t affect global population in any significant way. An immigrant means the population goes down by one somewhere, up by one somewhere else. The global population is unchanged.
Thank you. At least someone is accepting that basic fact. Which leads us to, where do large increases in population come from? It either comes from a change it birth rates or it comes from a large influx from outside the the country. Some countries, smaller and not as isolated as the U.S. can see a large influx from refugees from neighboring countries. For the U.S., we saw great increases at the turn of the last century, when we were hungry to attract immigrants. The issue were talking about assumes large increases in population. Immigration, if allowed to increase unchecked, (legal and illegal) can add a significant percent to the population in the timeframe discussed. I do not know the tipping point at which the environement is impacted in a serious way.
I was focusing on the impact to the U.S. Though it is true that people who live in the U.S. do have a larger footprint than those of other countries. From a pure global environmental standpoint, it would not be good for planet earth if every person had a carbon footprint of an American.
The cause of population growth is largely driven by immigration.
[QUOTE=suranyi]
Of course large increases in population will impact the environment. What I don’t understand is what immigration has to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you’re an environmentalist in the US why would you want the population to increase in the US? It doesn’t make much sense in terms of protecting local wildlife, wetlands, water supplies etc. Should they just turn a blind eye to that?
Globally, it makes a difference if you have a a relatively high carbon emission producing country & increase the population. GIGO Buster argues that some immigrants will have lower consumption levels, but that assumes they don’t rise in affluence & SES over time.
Another facet he ignores is that even if it is true that immigrants will have and continue to have lower consumption levels, those levels are in addition to whatever is used by the native (:eek:) population. Whatever the collective footprint of 300 million people, the footprint for 350,000 people is greater. Regardless of where the increase comes from.
The numbers are not really there once one one realizes they use the descendants of immigrants, as I have seen, they are not clear on where they are stopping to consider when one a descendant is not an American.
What you pathologically continue to ignore is that when I and virtually all other environmentalists talk about the issue of population increase the immigrants are also included, in the issue of carbon footprints it is silly to continue to make a difference.
I could say that does not deserve an answer as I already posted what the Sierra Club reports on population increase.
And that say so also assumes that nothing will be done to curb emissions, once4 again, the de facto action seen by the fake environmentalists.
Read it again, population is not ignored as an issue, but it is clear that you what to pretend it was bot explained before that controls have to be used by all.
And once again, everyone can notice how scared you guys are from acknowledging that the fake environmentalists are not moving a finger to protest or demand that the elected congress critters, elected with the help of the fake environmentalists, do something to move all into controlling emissions.
Correcting that last reply because of a missed edit:
Read it again, population is not ignored as an issue, but it is clear that you want to pretend it was not explained before that controls will have to be used by all.
And once again, everyone can notice how scared you guys are from acknowledging that the fake environmentalists are not moving a finger to protest or demand that the elected congress critters, elected with the help of the fake environmentalists, do something to move all into controlling emissions.
Please don’t project about ignoring the obvious. You have turned it into an art form.
Why did the Sierra Club position change around 1996?
Look, can I be straight with you homey ? I’m getting a little tired of your endless supply of bad faith and trotting out the same 2 arguments, 1 claim of persecution and singular cite over and over again. It has ceased being fun. It’s not you it’s me.
I also do not wish to fall afoul of the pitfall faced by every person discussing with that rhetorician extraordinaire, the 6-year old toddler*.
So here’s what I propose we do: you’re going to do what it is you do, which is quote this answer and append a non-sequitur to it (taken from said 2 arguments, 1 claim of persecution, and singular cite). Here, I’ll get you started: environmentalists are not avoiding this inconvenient truth for political reasons or for fear of being labelled as xenophobes, they’re ignoring it because it is not a real issue and has little to do with environmentalism.
Then you will move upthread in search of a post of mine where I already addressed that particular argument or claim of persecution. Take your pick. Then you can feel free to treat it as my latest retort, quote it and append a non-sequitur to it, OK ?
You can then keep going from step 1 for as long as you like. I’m sure you’re going to have a great time and an enlightening argument with my cardboard cutout. Have fun, honey.
It’s not off-limits, nobody said it was. What it isn’t is an actual, current problem, nor are overly large increases in population projected at the current growth rates. Unless you have a reputable cite to the contrary ?
As I already admitted, you are correct that there is only so much space, food, water to go around in the US/world and it can only support a more or less fixed total amount of people before the really bad shit is on the horizon and closing fast. But as I already said too, the US is nowhere near that point and advocating measures be taken to address this “looming” crisis are laughably alarmist at best, disingenuous at worst.
To run with your abortion metaphor (why ?! You felt that thread wasn’t emotionally charged enough ? :p) JAQing off that prominent environmental groups are suspiciously quiet on the matter of immigration & immigration control is akin to JAQing off that pro-choicers (or pro-lifers, doesn’t matter) are oddly silent on the effect the demonstrable effect the Moon has on the menstruation cycles of women, and not offering any plans to harness it for the greater good. It might be true in the strictest of senses, but it is still :rolleyes: inducing, wouldn’t you agree ?
Now, if you’re advocating for population control across the board, I’m probably with you on that (though not for eco reasons), even if I don’t see it happening any time soon if the outrage sparked by China doing it is any indication. But then if you were, you wouldn’t be hammering on the immigration angle, would you ?