# Chen019: A bigger fool that follows other fools **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 18, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909 "2011-06-18T04:40:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/201 "2011-06-25T00:13:46Z")
But even less than what the nativists claimed repeatedly. Tap dance all you want, by the context it is clear that the huge number of domestic migrants was being added to the foreign migrants to make the future foreign immigrant side issue (for an environmentalist) look worse. And as pointed out before, Chen and you really does not get where the environmentalists priorities are. [http://www.odemagazine.com/exchange/1066/lester\_brown\_launches\_plan\_b\_3\_0](http://www.odemagazine.com/exchange/1066/lester_brown_launches_plan_b_3_0) > [@](#): > > Dr. Lester Brown’s latest book points to the proliferation of carbon dioxide in the environment as the single greatest threat to mankind and calls for a reduction of 80% by 2020. > > The plan’s prescriptions include: wind generation; lowering income taxes while levying a carbon tax that progressively grows to $240 a ton of CO2; more solar and geothermal power; hybrid cars; and less meat in our diet. (Switching from a meat-rich diet to a vegetarian diet has the same CO2 impact as switching from a SUV to a Prius.) His latest book does refer to immigration alright, to the refugee immigrants thanks to global warming that according to him, we are \*\*beginning \*\*to see. So, do you still do not see anything wrong with the priorities shown by the politicians favored by the anti-immigrant people when they deny what CO2 emissions are doing to the environment and even to immigration? Never mind, of course we know already that you are as blind as a bat. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/202 "2011-06-25T04:15:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > But even less than what the nativists claimed repeatedly. > > Tap dance all you want, by the context it is clear that the huge number of domestic migrants was being added to the foreign migrants to make the future foreign immigrant side issue (for an environmentalist) look worse. > > And as pointed out before, Chen and you really does not get where the environmentalists priorities are. > > His latest book does refer to immigration alright, to the refugee immigrants thanks to global warming that according to him, we are \*\*beginning \*\*to see. > > So, do you still do not see anything wrong with the priorities shown by the politicians favored by the anti-immigrant people when they deny what CO2 emissions are doing to the environment and even to immigration? ) Again, not an either/or issue. You can reduce immigration to allow US population stablization and address environmental concerns in other ways. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/203 "2011-06-25T05:07:08Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Again, not an either/or issue. You can reduce immigration to allow US population stablization and address environmental concerns in other ways. What we found out is that locally in Colorado it would make even less of a dent as it was noticed before. What you said in effect was to ignore the domestic immigrants, clearly the effort was then to mislead others into worrying about a pet side issue. Environmentalists have to look at the whole population of an area and tell \*\*all \*\*to change their ways, and look also to deal with global issues. As for you stupidly relying on Dr. Lester Brown to claim in context that he was supporting your peculiar view and not concentrating on the whole population of places like the USA (He is more concentrated on the global population as it relates to global warming) or global warming, you are just like the ignoramus that was behind Woodie Allen at a movie line. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/OpIYz8tfGjY/hqdefault.jpg "Annie Hall") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY) You really know nothing about Lester Brown in reality. How did you got to claim you worry about global warming is totally amazing. And boy I’m glad for life being like this now where one can bring actual cites by the people that you really do not understand. 😛 Once again, the priorities by the real environmentalist you rely on were already posted: > [@](#): > > Dr. Lester Brown’s latest book points to the proliferation of carbon dioxide in the environment as the single greatest threat to mankind and calls for a reduction of 80% by 2020. > > The plan’s prescriptions include: wind generation; lowering income taxes while levying a carbon tax that progressively grows to $240 a ton of CO2; more solar and geothermal power; hybrid cars; and less meat in our diet. (Switching from a meat-rich diet to a vegetarian diet has the same CO2 impact as switching from a SUV to a Prius.) **Where are the future immigrants in his new book?** Oh that is right, \*\*coming as refugees to more developed nations thanks to us doing nothing against global warming. \*\* Your efforts are only helping polluters and really helping make your pet issue about future immigration worse, so: [Nice Job Breaking It, Hero.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/204 "2011-06-26T05:38:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > relying on Dr. Lester Brown to claim in context that he was supporting your peculiar view and not concentrating on the whole population of places like the USA We’ve been over this above. Brown sets out his concerns regarding US population growth and the impact on the environment [here.](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) > [@](#): > > Sometime this month, the U.S. population is projected to reach 300 million. In times past, reaching such a demographic milestone might have been a cause for celebration. In 2006, it is not. Population growth is the ever expanding denominator that gives each person a shrinking share of the resource pie. It contributes to water shortages, cropland conversion to non-farm uses, traffic congestion, more garbage, overfishing, crowding in national parks, a growing dependence on imported oil, and other conditions that diminish the quality of our daily lives… > > Given the negative effects of continuing population growth on our daily lives, it may be time to establish a national population policy, one that would lead toward population stabilization sooner rather than later. As noted earlier, almost all other industrial countries now have stable or declining populations. Perhaps it’s time for us to stabilize the U.S. population as well, so that we never have to ask whether 400 million Americans is a cause for celebration. As I’ve said you seem to prefer a One Child Policy, as they have in China. I’m suggesting that revising immigration levels would be a more practical way of addressing population growth. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/205 "2011-06-26T06:41:55Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > We’ve been over this above. Brown sets out his concerns regarding US population growth and the impact on the environment [here.](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) And you are just recycling, environmentally friendly, but recycling, 🙂 as it was already pointed out, he is referring to the whole American population and he is not offering any special way to deal just with the immigrants, and the numbers he is referring in the Colorado case in his book are mostly for domestic immigrants, and he is concentrating on the future immigrants that global warming will bring as a result of not doing anything about carbon emissions. You are even more off base then demanding that environmentalists concentrate on foreign immigrants that are a minority from the total of immigrants that are going to that local area. The recommendations Brown is offering apply to all the population, and this is clearly apparent from his later writings, I was not surprised at all that you would not wring something new, so clearly you do not know what is the focus of the scientist you are pointing at, you are really a dummy if you continue to insist that he is helping you more than he helping me. What is it clear is that you do not have any idea of time and progress. > [@Chen019](#): > > As I’ve said you seem to prefer a One Child Policy, as they have in China. I’m suggesting that revising immigration levels would be a more practical way of addressing population growth. No, as expected you are using a very common shibboleth there, the “One Child Policy” accusation comes from climate change deniers and it is designed to mislead and scare others. In his book Brown does not offer control of foreign immigration as a way to stabilize population, instead he concentrates on items pointed by Al Gore, Incidentally in his book, Brown has cited Al Gore and got in the book a quoted recommendation from this environmentalist magazine: Grist. > **[Right-wingers bash Gore for wanting women to have access to birth control](https://grist.org/population/2011-06-22-population-right-wingers-bash-gore-for-supporting-birth-control/)** > > The right-wing media is all aflutter over Al Gore saying that we should educate girls, keep kids from dying, and make birth control available to women. > [@](#): > > Here’s what Gore said on Monday at the Games for Change Festival in New York City: > > > [@](#): > > > > One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children. You have to lift child-survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families. And most important, you have to educate girls and empower women. And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices. > > That’s about the most mild and noncontroversial statement anyone could make about population. He didn’t blame human numbers for our environmental problems. He didn’t fret about the world population heading toward 7 billion this year, or 9 billion by 2050. He didn’t say we need to get our fertility rates down. He didn’t say governments should make people have fewer children. He didn’t say people ought to decide on their own to have fewer children. He didn’t mention a single number. > > But the 'wingers are up in arms: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Al Gore branches out into population control theory,” writes climate denier Anthony Watts on his Watts Up With That? blog. Where’s the “control” in Gore’s statement? Well, he does want women to be able to control their own fertility, but that’s hardly an oppressive Chinese-style population-control policy. > > > [@](#): > > > > “Al Gore promotes having fewer children to curb pollution,” writes Joe Newby at [Examiner.com](http://Examiner.com). Not a bad idea, but not what Gore said. > > > [@](#): > > > > “Gore said that couples need to learn to ‘feel comfortable having small families’ so that pollution can be curbed,” writes Billy Hallowell at The Blaze. Actually he said that parents might “feel comfortable having small families” if they were confident their kids wouldn’t die young. > > So what is it that has conservatives’ panties in such a twist? Surely they don’t object to saving babies’ lives and sending girls to school. They do, however, need to maintain their favorite stereotype of greens as fascist quasi-eugenicists who want to control population via tyranny. They do need to keep the focus on their favorite bete noir, Al Gore. And they do – at least some of them – need to find plausible-sounding excuses to go after contraception. This is yet another bit of evidence that you are either clueless on where you are getting your environmentalist information or just a stinky liar that in reality is a climate change denier. As mentioned, Brown and Gore have got together on several occasions to discuss solutions and foreign immigration is not a priority for environmentalists, and as it is clear that AGW deniers use the same tactics as the ones you are using here, it is clear that you are an environmentalist fraud also Chen019. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/206 "2011-06-26T06:52:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And you are just recycling, environmentally friendly, but recycling, 🙂 as it was already pointed out, he is referring to the whole American population and he is not offering any special way to deal just with the immigrants Yes, and the growth of the US population is significantly driven by immigration. That is why reducing immigration would be a logical way to reduce population growth, as opposed to imposing child restrictions. > [@](#): > > But here’s the punch line of the Pew Research Center population study: Fully 82 percent of this projected increase will be attributable to post-2005 immigration, including descendants. Only 18 percent of accumulation, according to Pew, will be due to a natural increase of the 2005 baseline population. > > The official 2005 population projection included 36 million foreign-born. Accepting the conventional estimate of 12 million illegal aliens in the United States would mean that about one-third of the immigrant population of the nation is present illegally. > > Given the enormous implications of immigration for our country, why are we paralyzed and unable to respond? Why are we locked into a national shouting match over immigration instead of trying to negotiate exactly how much and what kind of immigration we want? > **[Inquirer.com archives](https://www.inquirer.com/archives/)** ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/207 "2011-06-26T07:10:21Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Yes, and the growth of the US population is significantly driven by immigration. That is why reducing immigration would be a logical way to reduce population growth, as opposed to imposing child restrictions. > > [Inquirer.com archives](http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-27/news/29194909_1_immigration-population-growth-illegal-aliens) You are really dense. We have come full circle, if you had paid attention you would had noticed that the writer comes from the organizations that I have agreed before do have to take care of the issue, and that was one of my mayor points. \*\*Environmentalists \*\*have to deal with different more encompassing ones like dealing with the population as a whole when issues like the carbon footprint are it. Future immigration is not their business, no matter how much you or your fake environmentalist nativists pout. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/208 "2011-06-26T07:19:54Z")
Remember, me and others are pointing out at how retarded is to attempt to change environmentalist organizations to do the business of other organizations. And it is even more retarded when anti-immigrant organizations are trying to do that. So, as there are already instruments that look at foreign immigration, give up on attempting to pass fake environmentalists as the real thing, you are only demonstrating what a fraud and a liar you are as an environmentalist. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/209 "2011-06-26T07:23:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You are really dense. > > We have come full circle, if you had paid attention you would had noticed that the writer comes from the organizations that I have agreed before do have to take care of the issue, and that was one of my mayor points. \*\*Environmentalists \*\*have to deal with different more encompassing ones like dealing with the population as a whole when issues like the carbon footprint are it. I am glad you agree that Brown is a legitimate environmentalist. And as discussed, [he is concerned about the US population reaching 300 million (in 2006) and about the prospect of it hitting 400 million](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59). My point is simply that reducing immigration would be a relatively straightforward policy lever to stabilize the population in the US. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/210 "2011-06-26T07:32:21Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I know, I am glad you agree that Brown is a legitimate environmentalist. And as discussed, he is concerned about the US population reaching 300 million (in 2006) and about the prospect of it hitting 400 million. [I even told Chen that I was giving him enough rope.. :)] Good, because then it is clear that you conceded that you were misleading others on the numbers from Colorado. And he agrees with Gore and me on what it needs to be done to stabilize the population. **It is just that doing it by reducing immigration is not even mentioned by him in his book.** He concentrates on other ways. > [@Chen019](#): > > My point is simply that reducing immigration would be a relatively straightforward policy lever to achieve population stabilization. Point at were Brown mentions that in his writings or admit that you do not have a clue of what his recommendations on how to stabilize the population really are. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/211 "2011-06-26T07:37:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Point at were Brown mentions that in his writings or admit that you do not have a clue of what his recommendations on how to stabilize the population really are. Educating people generally will lower fertility rates, but the US population is still projected to climb to well over 400 million by 2050. Immigration is a major driver of this. Therefore in addition to the solutions you mention above, immigration reduction would also be an easy and sensible step, no? > [@](#): > > But here’s the punch line of the Pew Research Center population study: Fully 82 percent of this projected increase will be attributable to post-2005 immigration, including descendants. Only 18 percent of accumulation, according to Pew, will be due to a natural increase of the 2005 baseline population. > > The official 2005 population projection included 36 million foreign-born. Accepting the conventional estimate of 12 million illegal aliens in the United States would mean that about one-third of the immigrant population of the nation is present illegally. > > Given the enormous implications of immigration for our country, why are we paralyzed and unable to respond? Why are we locked into a national shouting match over immigration instead of trying to negotiate exactly how much and what kind of immigration we want? > **[Inquirer.com archives](https://www.inquirer.com/archives/)** ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/212 "2011-06-26T07:45:05Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Educating people generally will lower fertility rates, but the US population is still projected to climb to well over 400 million by 2050. Immigration is a major driver of this. Therefore in addition to the solutions you mention above, immigration reduction would also be an easy and sensible step, no? > [Inquirer.com archives](http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-27/news/29194909_1_immigration-population-growth-illegal-aliens) So yeah, you do not have a clue, so thanks for that. As Brown does not bother to mention that on the more than a dozen recommendations he offers in his book, NO. BTW everyone can notice that you are attempting to ignore that climate change deniers are using the same “One Child Policy” accusation in an attempt to discredit people like Brown, so keep showing all the fraud that you are. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/213 "2011-06-26T07:52:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As Brown does not bother to mention that on the more than a dozen recommendations he offers in his book, NO. > > BTW everyone can notice that you are attempting to ignore that climate change deniers are using the same “One Child Policy” accusation in an attempt to discredit people like Brown, so keep showing all the fraud that you are. Heh, I don’t think his list of recommendations is necessarily exhaustive 😃 Also, this gets back to my point in the GB thread - given the current political and intellectual climate, immigration is a third rail issue. You can’t touch it without creating controversy and allegations of racism. As Jan C. Ting mentions in the article [above](http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-27/news/29194909_1_immigration-population-growth-illegal-aliens/2), there is a paralysis in terms of discussing it. However, it can be observed that immigration is a major driver of population growth in the US. Therefore reducing immigration would be a logical and effective way (say in contrast to a One Child Policy) of stabilizing population growth 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/214 "2011-06-26T08:08:50Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Heh, I don’t think his list of recommendations is necessarily exhaustive 😃 Also, this gets back to my point in the GB thread - given the current political and intellectual climate, immigration is a third rail issue. You can’t touch it without creating controversy and allegations of racism. As Jan Ting mentions in the article [above](http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-27/news/29194909_1_immigration-population-growth-illegal-aliens/2), there is a paralysis in terms of discussing it. So, thanks for admitting that it was a lie to say that it was going to be easy. And also thanks for admitting it was also a lie to claim I was looking at a “One Child Policy” By the way I have checked the latest Books from Brown, needless to say, you clearly have misrepresented what the Colorado report said regarding the Colorado immigration numbers, misrepresented what Brown does recommend about how to stabilize the population. Your fake environmentalism is only fooling a few, and you are a total klutz on finding any cite from your fake environmentalist anti-immigrant groups showing them even complaining about the inaction the current congress is doing regarding the control of carbon emissions, that are according to Brown, the main threat. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/215 "2011-06-26T08:13:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, thanks for admitting that was a lie to say it was going to be easy. > > And also thanks for admitting it was also a lie to claim I was looking at a “One Child Policy” > > By the way I have checked the latest Books from Brown, needless to say, you clearly have misrepresented what the Colorado report said regarding the Colorado immigration numbers, misrepresented what Brown does recommend about how to stabilize the population. Your fake environmentalism is only fooling a few, and you are a total klutz on finding any cite from your fake environmentalist anti-immigrant groups showing them even complaining about the inaction the current congress is doing regarding the control of carbon emissions, that are according to Brown, the main threat. I said it was controversial, a point made by Ting. That is probably why, despite it being a straight forward and obvious policy option, normally sensible people avoid mentioning it. In terms of practical options to reduce US population growth it is much easier to reduce immigration than it is to implement a One Child Policy, or other fertility reducing measures. Why do you find it so hard to contemplate that, rather obvious, policy option? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/216 "2011-06-26T08:19:17Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I said it was controversial, a point made by Ting. > > In terms of practical options to reduce US population growth it is much easier to reduce immigration than it is to implement a One Child Policy, or other fertility reducing measures. > > Why do you find it so hard to contemplate that, rather obvious, policy option? Because if that was so, Brown would had mentioned that “rather obvious, policy option”. Aren’t you glad I also consider Brown a real environmentalist? 🙂 But keep digging Chen by thinking that avoiding the other points does help you, I’m not the one that is going under. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/217 "2011-06-26T08:23:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Because if that was so, Brown would had mentioned that “rather obvious, policy option”. Aren’t you glad I also consider Brown a real environmentalist? 🙂 > > But keep digging Chen by thinking that avoiding the other points does help you, I’m not the one that is going under. Not necessarily. As Ting points out, discussion relating to immigration is avoided. So it would make sense for social & political reasons to avoid mentioning it. However, it is quite logical if you actually stop and think about it. 1. [Population growth is seen as a bad thing for the environment (US 400 million+).](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) 2. [Immigration is a major driver of US population growth](http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-27/news/29194909_1_immigration-population-growth-illegal-aliens/2). 3. Therefore reducing immigration is one effective way to reduce US population growth. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/218 "2011-06-26T08:52:49Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Not necessarily. As Ting points out, discussion relating to immigration is avoided. So it would make sense for social & political reasons to avoid mentioning it. > > However, it is quite logical if you actually stop and think about it. > > 1. [Population growth is seen as a bad thing for the environment (US 400 million+).](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) > > 2. [Immigration is a major driver of US population growth](http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-27/news/29194909_1_immigration-population-growth-illegal-aliens/2). > > 3. Therefore reducing immigration is one effective way to reduce US population growth. And as pointed out: Brown, who is an expert on this, does not see it in that simple way, unless you can point at a quote from him going for your “logic” in reality you are assuming that you know more than him. **His priority is global warming** how it affects the population, and were population control is concerned, immigration is not the key, fertility is. > [@](#): > > We are in a race between political tipping points and natural > tipping points. Can we cut carbon emissions fast enough to save > the Greenland ice sheet and avoid the resulting rise in sea level? > Can we close coal-fired power plants fast enough to save the glaciers > in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan Plateau, the ice melt > of which sustains the major rivers and irrigation systems of > Asia during the dry season? Can we stabilize population **by > reducing fertility** before nature takes over and stabilizes our > numbers by raising mortality? > On the climate front, everything seems to be moving faster. > Only a few years ago summer sea ice in the Arctic Sea was > shrinking, but it was projected to last for several decades. The > most recent reports indicate that it could disappear in a matter > of years. > Only a few years have passed since the most recent report by > the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but > already the rise in carbon dioxide emissions, the rise in temperature, > and the rise in sea level are all moving faster than even the > IPCC’s worst-case scenario. -Lester Brown. PLAN B 4.0 You are really certifiably retarded by still thinking this thread is just about your pet issue as applied to environmentalism, This thread is to advise others about the misleading information you provide, the gross ignorance you actually have, the sinister intentions of anti-immigrant groups that pretend to worry about environmentalism. And the even more reprehensible acts of the climate change deniers that in the end you are helping with your efforts. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/219 "2011-06-26T09:01:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > how it affects the population, and were population control is concerned, immigration is not the key, fertility is. > . I don’t disagree that fertility is important. My point is that in terms of the US 400 million figure, [immigration is clearly a significant driver](http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-27/news/29194909_1_immigration-population-growth-illegal-aliens). Therefore, reducing immigration would be one logical step in terms of easing US population growth. I don’t see why you can’t understand this obvious point. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/220 "2011-06-26T09:04:11Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I don’t disagree that fertility is important. My point is that in terms of the US 400 million figure, [immigration is clearly a significant driver](http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-27/news/29194909_1_immigration-population-growth-illegal-aliens). > > Therefore, reducing immigration would be one logical step in terms of easing US population growth. I don’t see why you can’t understand this obvious point. Tell me where Brown sees it that way or admit that you are grasping at straws. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909.md?page=12)