Unbelievable. Again, it does not matter how dedicated they are to the main issue. If a doctor tells you to stop smoking because it’s bad for your health, that’s a legitimate piece of advice, even if he doesn’t tell you to lose the extra 50 pounds you’re carrying.
So it would be better for the planet if more new Americans were the lower-footprint immigrant types and not the higher-footprint non-immigrant types, no?
Not true - if the increase is more something like 100-million low footprint immigrants and a negative growth for the non-immigrants, from 300- to 250-million, your total footprint might well decrease. All you need is to get over the Demographic Shift…NPG is your friend!
And lets see if you can explain why is that not logical, instead of doing like Chen and just dismissing it because just because of his biases. What it is clear to me is that you are quick to blame others for using tactics that in reality your side is using with gusto.
Not really. Immigrants become Americans, for good and for ill. If you want to look at it from a pure global standpoint, fewer Americans would be better. And they should lower their footprint across the board.
And as it should be painfully obvious by many, but it has to be repeated as some continue to miss it, all people will have to learn to do more effective birth control.
At the same time there are already technologies that will reduce the carbon footprint. A solution for this issue has to include the adoption of new technologies and efficiency that are already available and can be implemented, the big problem remains that most fake environmentalists got us people in government that are preventing any changes.
Oh, please. The point is that being overweight and being a smoker both have negative impacts on one’s health. If someone tells me to lose weight and quit smoking, great. If someone tells me to do either one, that’s great, too.
True. But it also remains true that immigration will also have an effect on the degree to which we put stress on the nation’s environment. Why you seem so intent to fight that fact points to an ideological position so strong that it is preventing you from accepting a basic fact. Like I said, that’s some good irony.
Perhaps we should criticize the Sierra Club for not advocating mandatory asceticism.
The difference in carbon footprints isn’t due to anything inherent about location. If Mexico had a similar standard of living, economy, and environmental policy, their average carbon footprint would be similar to ours. Or put another way, if a potential immigrant stayed in their home country but somehow experienced the same type of life changes that likely would’ve happened with immigrating, their carbon footprint would similarly rise. Immigration itself is incidental.
Suppose tomorrow a new study comes out which incontrovertibly demonstrates that people in one part of the country experiencing population growth, say Texas, have much higher carbon footprints and worse impacts on the environment in other ways, compared to the rest of the country. Would you expect environmental groups to take a position on Americans moving to Texas?
No that is just repeating the same old useless retort.
As we already established, you can not even show a tweet from the fake environmentalist as doing anything about the big issue.
That is the real funny thing, the nativists already have plenty of outlets to continue to push their sorry rhetoric, environmentalists look at the big picture and it was bananas to attempt to reverse the course of environmentalist groups when they began to notice that immigration was not where the main focus should be.
I’m glad to see though that you looked at the money people to explain why the Sierra Club got to the position that they have today, because it means that it is really silly not to take a look at the people and groups organizing this wedge issue, and to see if they are actually doing anything for the environment:
Very silly retort, to begin with, I already pointed out at the reason why time and recent evidence show that concentrating on population and emission controls are the keys to deal with this issue. (Immigrants are part of the population)
When groups that only pretend to be environmentalists refuse to deal with one of the most important parts of the solution, it is clear that they are part of the problem.
The ideology involved here is not coming from me.
If one loses weight, it has been demonstrated that one will be less likely to develop diabetes, what your doctors are doing is to ignore the big picture and then wait for you to eventually depend on insulin shots.
Because what is clear is that you are, thanks to ideology, continuing to deny that not doing anything against CO2 emissions will eventually make immigration worse.
I have no idea what your asking or why. I fear you are conflating two different issues, the environment on a global scale—what matters to planet earth, and the degree that Americans should care about stresses on their own environment. But I could be wrong. As I said, I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at.
This I would like to see, clearly you are ignoring that your diagnostic is incorrect.
The unethical part comes by ignoring to tell to the patient that there is yet another overwhelming problem that needs to be taken care of. The unethical part comes by telling the patient that everything will be ok by taking care of of a single part of the problem. And ignore the smoke.
Try irrelevant. (To be fair, I’m talking about proportions here, the cities with less immigrants are the ones with the largest carbon footprints. But the irrelevance is also political as it is really a dead issue among serious researchers, it is population on the whole and the control of the emissions that counts)
There are more than 2 reasons why it is irrelevant, the second one is shown by the acts of the deniers/fake environmentalists.
from the fake environmentalist as doing anything about the big issue.