# Liberal equivalent of idealogy over practicality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 1, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251 "2013-05-01T20:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/101 "2013-05-08T03:55:54Z")
@ BrainGlutton Yes, that’s an intriguing story. Apparently the change came about after a major donor threatened to withold his money if the Sierra Club opposed immigration levels. So maybe it’s incorrect to say the Sierra Club position on immigration is an example of liberal ideology over practicality, more a case of money talks. > **[Why the Sierra Club won't oppose massive immigration that threatens the Sierras](https://www.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/03/why_sierra_wont_oppose_massive.html)** > > Sierra Club leaders refused to deal with California's immigration-driven population explosion because they didn't want to anger a key donor. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/102 "2013-05-08T04:26:25Z")
One thing liberals do as far as putting practicality over ideology, is maintaining the political viability of their various causes by not allowing fights to break out of these kinds of issues, at least to the extent possible. Sierra Club SHOULD be opposed to more immigration, as should labor, but that’s an ideological stand, whereas not opposing more immigration is a political stand that helps them in the long run on higher priority issues. It’s also why the NAACP doesn’t favor vouchers despite their constituents favoring vouchers. The NAACP doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it sees itself as part of a Democratic coalition and so backs up the teachers’ unions. ---
**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:** [May 8, 2013, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/103 "2013-05-08T05:53:13Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Sierra Club SHOULD be opposed to more immigration Not really accurate, they are neutral about it. But the injustice seen affecting immigrants is beginning to change even that neutral position, there are reasons why supporting legalization is important for the environment that also affects Americans. [http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2013/04/sierra-club-supports-path-citizenship-undocumented-immigrants](http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2013/04/sierra-club-supports-path-citizenship-undocumented-immigrants) > [@](#): > > Currently at least 11 million people live in in the U.S. in the shadows of our society. Many of them work in jobs that expose them to dangerous conditions, chemicals and pesticides, and many more of them live in areas with disproportionate levels of toxic air, water, and soil pollution. To protect clean air and water and prevent the disruption of our climate, we must ensure that those who are most disenfranchised and most threatened by pollution within our borders have the voice to fight polluters and advocate for climate solutions without fear. [http://www.attheedges.com/2013/04/25/sierra-club-joins-immigrants-rights-orgs-to-call-for-a-path-to-citizenship/](http://www.attheedges.com/2013/04/25/sierra-club-joins-immigrants-rights-orgs-to-call-for-a-path-to-citizenship/) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/104 "2013-05-08T14:30:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Sierra Club SHOULD be opposed to more immigration . . . Why? Overpopulation is like most other environmental problems, it is a global problem and does not respect national borders. Holding down one country’s population by erecting barriers around it won’t help any. Imagine if every country did that and there were practically no immigration/emigration in the world – in those circumstances, overpopulation would remain exactly same the problem it is now. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/105 "2013-05-08T14:33:13Z")
I actually asked someone about that once, and their argument was that a lot of the Third World has been stripped bare due to overpopulation, and if you let the US get overpopulated, there go our natural treasures. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/106 "2013-05-08T15:18:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I actually asked someone about that once, and their argument was that a lot of the Third World has been stripped bare due to overpopulation, and if you let the US get overpopulated, there go our natural treasures. You don’t think a lack of environmental protections might have been a factor? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/107 "2013-05-08T15:18:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I actually asked someone about that once, and their argument was that a lot of the Third World has been stripped bare due to overpopulation, and if you let the US get overpopulated, there go our natural treasures. Yeah, like we need any help burning those up. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/108 "2013-05-08T16:08:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why? Overpopulation is like most other environmental problems, it is a global problem and does not respect national borders. Holding down one country’s population by erecting barriers around it won’t help any. On the other hand it could be argued that with our high standard of living, the US uses more resources per capita than do less developed countries, and so reducing the proportion of the worlds population that is not living in poverty will have a negative environmental impact. However this isn’t exactly a moral conclusion. From an environmental point of view it would be better to simply reduce the standard of living of the US to that of a third world country, or to wipe out large numbers of Americans. Yet somehow I doubt that Chen would support such actions. It isn’t the overall US population he wants to reduce, its only the population of people of a certain type. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/109 "2013-05-08T17:21:16Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > On the other hand it could be argued that with our high standard of living, the US uses more resources per capita than do less developed countries, and so reducing the proportion of the worlds population that is not living in poverty will have a negative environmental impact. So? Does a Mexican’s carbon footprint automatically increase the moment he enters the U.S.? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/110 "2013-05-08T20:54:41Z")
If he realizes the American Dream, buys a house with AC, eats meat three meals a day, and drives an SUV it will. Mexico produces 4.4 tons of carbon per capita vs the US 19.3. Note: I’m not saying that this is a good argument against immigration, just that if the only thing you care about is the environment, helping people achieve a higher standard of living could be counter productive. On the other hand raising the standard of living also leads to lower population growth so it may be a wash. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/111 "2013-05-09T01:08:11Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > You don’t think a lack of environmental protections might have been a factor? Environmental regulation will always be subservient to people being able to make a living. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2013, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/112 "2013-05-09T01:31:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Environmental regulation will always be subservient to people being able to make a living. Why do you hate Joe the Plumber? 🙂 Hint: Back in England London had no sewage system, and almost no plumbing, and yea, of course there were many that claimed that doing something about the pollution and cholera would destroy the economy. Well, as it turns out doing something about it gave the modern cities the priceless benefit of having almost no cholera or other diseases like that, and other industries came out of the work that was needed to be done to get clean water and sewage. Leading then to an angry conservative plumber to have the freedom to complain to Obama hundreds of years later for something else. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/113 "2013-05-09T01:37:12Z")
Often environmental regulations do help the economy. Often they limit development. Installing a sewage system doesn’t place land off limits. Setting aside land that cannot be developed does. If the US population ever gets to a billion, expect a lot of those national parks to become suburbs. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/114 "2013-05-09T01:47:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Often environmental regulations do help the economy. Often they limit development. Installing a sewage system doesn’t place land off limits. Setting aside land that cannot be developed does. If the US population ever gets to a billion, expect a lot of those national parks to become suburbs. I guess when confronted with contradictory information from your sources, then the replies are all over the map. 🙂 Even there you demonstrate that you are missing perspective: > **[Per Square Mile: If the world's population lived in one city...](https://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/)** > > If the world's population lived in one city, how big would it be? The important thing is that we all have to reduce our footprint, regardless if we could have a city **with the whole population of the world** with the same size as Texas, if we cram it with the same population density as New York. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/115 "2013-05-09T01:54:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Hint: Back in England London had no sewage system, and almost no plumbing, and yea, of course there were many that claimed that doing something about the pollution and cholera would destroy the economy. [But they did have some plucky, happy-go-lucky toshers\*!](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodger_(novel)) 🙂 \*Kids who would hunt in the sewers for coins and items of value washed down the street-drains . . . That was before they started pumping all that **shit** into the sewers . . . :mad: ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/116 "2013-05-09T02:11:48Z")
I’m an urban planner in one of the most liberal/leftist/progressive regions in the US. I consider myself fairly liberal, but compared to the local norm, I’m probably way off to the right. I can point to many examples of what the OP wants, but the one that sticks out the most is back-to-the-land living. The progressive crow is generally very anti-development. They call any undeveloped land, regardless of its ecological value or potential for agriculture, as “open space”, which the moment any kind of development is proposed, they defend as if it’s some kind of Costa Rican rainforest. Their ideal form of development? Low-density ecovillages and permaculture estates, where one can grow their own veggies, raise goats, live in a yurt, and so on. Such living, though, consumes far more land per housing unit than the [New Urbanism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism) and [pocket neighborhood](http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/) developments they fight hard to stop. I call eco-developments “green sprawl” - they have the same ecological impacts as exurban sprawl, only it’s wrapped in a coating of granola. They fragment ecosystems, result in longer commutes and the associated consumption of fossil fuels, and exacerbate problems with a lack of middle-market housing. The carbon footprint of a 10 acre permaculture estate is massive compared to even a suburban McMansion. However, such projects are seen as “greener” by their proponents because they are “closer to nature”, have less impervious surface area, and are inhabited by folks that tend to be on the crisper side of crunchy. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/117 "2013-05-09T03:43:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I guess when confronted with contradictory information from your sources, then the replies are all over the map. 🙂 > > Even there you demonstrate that you are missing perspective: > > [Per Square Mile: If the world's population lived in one city...](http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/) > > The important thing is that we all have to reduce our footprint, regardless if we could have a city **with the whole population of the world** with the same size as Texas, if we cram it with the same population density as New York. Yes, we could. But we won’t. THe cities have enjoyed a resurgence of late, but people still like space. As population increases, there will still be pressure to build more on undeveloped land, just as there has always been in the past. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2013, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/118 "2013-05-09T04:50:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yes, we could. But we won’t. THe cities have enjoyed a resurgence of late, but people still like space. As population increases, there will still be pressure to build more on undeveloped land, just as there has always been in the past. I don’t think so, one of the offshoots of education is that also, if you follow the evidence, it is in cities were the future is and where the ones that are aware of what is the most environmentally sound policy will live, what \*\*elmwood \*\*pointed out is out there, but the sources I have seen have pointed out several times on the energy efficiency one can get in a city rather than following a wasteful sprawling model, and the ones who are saying that are groups like the Sierra Club. (Remember them?) [http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/warming.asp](http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/warming.asp) > [@](#): > > Residential Emissions > > The residences of families living in dense urban areas require only a fraction of the land and construction materials of single family dwellings, and use much less heating and cooling energy and water. By definition, 1000 urban residences at 100 units/acre covers only 3% as much land as 1000 single family dwellings at 3 units/acre. Removing the flora from land for residential development reduces its ability to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. > > Michael Phillips and Robert Gnaizda (1980) compared a recently constructed middle class single family tract in Davis with a middle class apartment house near downtown San Francisco, they got the results in Table 4. The single-family home dwellers drove nearly 4 times as much. The run of the mill urban apartments use less than 1/5 as much heating fuel as the state-of-the-art energy-efficient Davis single-family houses located in a somewhat warmer climate. Sharing walls and floors/ceilings saves heat. Exposing less wall and roof area to the sun reduces summer air conditioning loads. Residential and commercial heating, cooling, lighting and motors consume 20 percent of our country’s oil. And the single-family houses consumed 40 times as much arable land–farmlands, hillsides and wetlands. And they required 5 times as much utility pipes. Each of these reductions in resource consumption at the higher density reduces the production of global warming gases. > > The second study, Table 5, is an extensive analysis of two models of suburban growth. James Frank (1989) compared typical suburban single-family housing with suburban “high rise apartments.” However, at 30 units/acre, these “high rise apartments” are actually less dense than many urban neighborhoods. Densities of 50 to 100 units/acre are common with 3 to 6 story apartments, and to 400 with occasional high-rises and no front-yard setbacks. Since the study is of suburban “high rise apartments” with little transit, much land set is aside for parking lots, driveways and lawns. Even these modest densities save considerable materials when compared with single family dwellings. The single family houses consume 4 times as much land for streets and roads and 10 times as much for the houses themselves. The single family houses use nearly 6 times as much metal and concrete. They cost 3 times as much to supply with schools. Each of these reductions in resource consumption at the higher density reduces the production of global warming gases. > > Strategies for Reducing the Impacts on Global Warming > > Increase neighborhood convenience – increase residential densities. Increasing residential density reduces construction materials required and motor vehicle use; both lower global warming gas emissions. Central cities and sprawling suburban areas can both benefit from creating more convenient pedestrian- and transit-oriented neighborhoods. Most central cities have brownfields and underused lands which are prime candidates for infill. Most sprawling areas have ample parking lots and decaying shopping areas, especially along major streets, which are candidates for infill development. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/119 "2013-05-09T04:54:51Z")
The cities are where the near future is, no one can predict what the far future will bring. The reasons for the resurgence of urban life is lower crime, more households without children, and the higher cost of fuel. None of which is guaranteed to stay with us. And even with the resurgence of cities, the suburbs are still growing as our population grows. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/120 "2013-05-09T04:58:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The cities are where the near future is, no one can predict what the far future will bring. The reasons for the resurgence of urban life is lower crime, more households without children, and the higher cost of fuel. None of which is guaranteed to stay with us. > > And even with the resurgence of cities, the suburbs are still growing as our population grows. And one item that will require the recommendations from outfits like the Sierra Club to discourage. The take away home point here is that, regarding who is in favor of sprawl, is also one that can not be assigned with a wide brush to the left. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251.md?page=7)