You’re missing my point. This is not a debate about immigration or global warming. It’s about the impact populations have on the environment. Let’s say we agree that controls have to be used by all. Great. I’m with you. What I don’t understand is why you are so intent on denying that it is legitimate to acknowledge that a large increase in the U.S. population would place significant stress on our resources and our environment. This is inarguable. Yet you consistently pooh-pooh it. Why? Because the point is being made by people you feel weren’t/aren’t on board with global warming. Is that right? If Al Gore made the points that these “fake environmentalists” would you be more accepting of them?
There are two different issues: global population and the U.S. population. We’ve been talking about the latter, which we have much more control over. Let me ask you this: how many people do you think the U.S. ecosystem can support without great stress? Surely there is a point, right? Where do you think that point is?
Interesting that you think that one should look at the money people’s ideas as the most important reason why people would vote that way, and at the same time it is off limits to check where the funding of the nativist organizations comes from.
Of course that opinion leaves out that that bit of info would had besn no secret to the other members of the sierra club back on the 2005 vote; why, it is clear that then most would had been disgusted and voted to change the Position of the Club!
Nah, it turned that even more voted against the guys from SUSPS.
Now it is clear you are still not paying attention, I already granted that population increase is a problem, since it includes automatically all people it is clear then that immigrants are not off the hook. In other words, you are now just missing the main point just to continue repeating yourself.
The ones that are attempting to divide us by focusing just on the immigrant part of the issue do so not much with looks to pander to nativists, but to use anti-immigrant people to vote for congress critters that are, as we speak, blocking any efforts to do anything about CO2 emissions.
Before it turned into a jerk, Zuckerman even pointed at what would be the result of ignoring the big picture: More disruptions of the environment, particularly of the climate, will mean that even more immigrants would come in the future, this time as refugees.
And that then brings us back to the idiocy of the nativist orgs mentioned by the OP, as even you have demonstrated, you are incapable of pointing out even at fig leaf efforts by the fake environmentalists to show that they are complaining to the current republican congress critters (that the fakes also supported on the last election) for not doing the right environmental thing.
Both at convincing other environmentalists that it would be a good idea to separate immigrants from the big encompassing solutions that will need to be applied in the future to deal with the carbon footprint. And also in the political front, as the politicians that got elected with help from the leaders of the fake environmentalist groups are openly laughing at any idea about controlling CO2 emissions.
You insist that anyone who points to the problems that the environment will face via immigration must first earn their bona fides via global warming. Sorry. It either is a legitimate issue or it is not. If a doctor tells someone to improve his health by quitting to smoke, it doesn’t mean that advice should be ignored just because he didn’t comment on him being 20 pounds overweight. Your bias is preventing you from addressing a particular part of the issue, simply because you do not like the messenger because he isn’t on the same page as you concerning what is, granted, an important issue. That’s your problem. As far as the environment is concerned, it will be stressed by larger immigration numbers. Just as the Sierra Club believed before they were paid to put politics before science and the environment.
Actually, the leadership/scientists at the Sierra Club got bought. It’s as simple as that. If you’d like to show evidence to the contrary, knock yourself out. Barring that, Chen’s site removes any mystery as to what happened and why.
Sorry to not meeting your preconceptions, but that is not what I’m showing, the point is still applicable to all Americans and their excessive Carbon Footprint.
What I can detect from your answer is the likelihood that you are also an ignorant on the Global Warming issue.
As it is global issue, it is not as important as you want it to be, all humanity is affected.
Once again, that is not as important as you think, the Koch brothers fund PBS groups like NOVA, and NOVA came recently with a documentary on the ice of the poles showing that ocean rice due to global warming will come worst and sooner that expected. The Koch brothers (that also supported global warming deniers) did not get what they pay for, and that is because evidence can not be just demanded to go in one direction.
It is clear that most of the Sierra Club members do agree with the current position, it is really sour grapes to now claim that funding would make an overwhelming difference when other reasons are already considered.
And that once again takes us to the big picture on carbon footprints, as you are only repeating yourself I will have to assume that you have granted already the point that the fake environmentalists have just helped elect people that had no interest whatsoever on the environment, and worse, you do not care that their efforts will make immigration even worse in the future by not doing anything about the carbon footprint issue.
Two different issues are getting conflated in this discussion. One is GLOBAL warming. The other is the effect that immigration will have on the U.S. environment. From a GLOBAL perspective, countries don’t matter, borders don’t matter, immigrants don’t matter. It’s just people. But one is able to hold the global issue in their head and focus on smaller issues, like the impact immigration will have on their country’s resources.
Nope, you have not demonstrated at all that you are even serious about both.
Once again, can you point at any current effort, column article, blog, tweet, or opinion piece from the leaders of SUSPS, from example, that are even trowing a fig leave to the pretense of being environmentalists in complaining to the do noting climate change deniers in congress?
If you just want to continue ignoring that doing nothing on the whole will make the smaller issue to get bigger, then it is not me the one with the problem.
You don’t get it. One doesn’t have to be serious about both. They are each legitimate in their own right. This really isn’t that difficult to grasp. Try letting go of you ideology with one hand.
Like I said, some of us. The fact that you can’t look at the issue the way the Sierra Club did before they were bought off is astonishing. Your hate for the right and “fake environmentalists” is blinding you. They have gotten you to refuse to look at the issue objectively. And that’s some funny, ironic shit right there.
No, what you confirm there is my theory that conservatives have problems with timelines or the simple march of time.
I thought it was a clever joke before, but then I encounter people like you that shows that it could be a real issue.
As it should had been clear, even the Clinton group admitted they did not had data to talk much about the immigration issue on relation to the environment, likewise, the past position at the Sierra Club was based on a frank realization that not much was known.
Of course that look at the past in a very pathetic effort to ignore the present and the future.
What it is clear is that you can’t show how dedicated the fake environmentalists are to main issue now.
You are still failing to see that I encompass both issues, as it has been shown, the efforts to make them separate are only making the situation worse.
Well, if an immigrant moves to the US he’d be lowering the population in his home country, thus helping the enviroment there. So essentially it would be a wash.
I just don’t get why it’s so important that the environment in the US be protected above all other parts of the world, and I say that as someone who has lived in the US most of his life.
Not if his lifestyle in the US causes him to have a greater impact on the environment than if he stayed in his home country. If I consume X in Sri Lanka but 3X if I live in Los Angeles, it is not a wash.
A quibble: people who live in the U.S tend to have higher carbon footprints. So, as the immigrant adopted all things American his footprint would increase. So, globally, no it is not a wash.
It’s important to U.S. residents. Just as the French should be concerned with the environment in France; the Australians, Australia; Kenyans, Kenya; etc.
