http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/blog/blog/restrictionist-front-group-still-pushing-green-xenophobia/ FOR families, FOR workers, FOR immigrants, FOR everyone Sat, 19 May 2012 17:35:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/blog/blog/restrictionist-front-group-still-pushing-green-xenophobia/comment-page-1/#comment-2296 Jack Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:08:13 +0000 http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/blog/?p=3708#comment-2296 "The production of greenhouse gases in the United States is a function not of population size, but of the degree to which we as a society rely upon fossil fuels, power plants, industrial processes, and automobiles that actually produce greenhouse gases." One factor is the degree per capita to which we as a society rely upon fossil fuels, power plants, industrial processes, and automobiles that actually produce greenhouse gases. The other factor is the number of people doing that--population IS a factor. At whatever level of impact (except zero—which doesn’t exist), fewer people will always harm the environment less than more. The bulk of the immigrants moving to the U.S. and Europe are from lower per capita consumption countries and thus the net worldwide result of such immigration is greater environmental impact. Is Mr. Ewing implying Europe is the model we should emulate? If you go country by country, the only two EU-15 countries with a sustainable national ecological footprint are Sweden and Finland. Does Mr. Ewing maintain that their relatively low population density has little or nothing to do with this? My response to those who say we should just concern ourselves with efficiency and not population is ‘Why not both?’ Why must the two be mutually exclusive? If you think the issue is important, even crucial, why exclude one of the two ways we have to make a positive difference? If we’re serious, why would we tie one hand behind our backs? If someone says ‘let’s worry about efficiency first’, it’s only fair to ask at what U.S. population should we start to pay attention? 400 million? Half a billion? A billion? Saying environmental harm is not a function of population is dangerous. It gives people the false impression and sense of complacency that we can grow indefinitely and with negligible ecological consequence so long as we are ‘smart’ about it—that population/immigration is unimportant or even irrelevant to environmental policy. The hard truth people don’t like to face is that a lot of people CAN’T indefinitely live at a U.S./European level. Any gain made in efficiency can be negated by proportionate population growth. Let’s say we manage somehow to double our efficiency over the next several decades—the problem is we are also on a pace to double our population in that time. The two would counteract and we’d end up right where we started at an already unsustainable level except with a much larger population to deal with going forward and with an opportunity missed. Isn’t it smarter to not get to that point in the first place rather than try to deal with it after that fact? “The production of greenhouse gases in the United States is a function not of population size, but of the degree to which we as a society rely upon fossil fuels, power plants, industrial processes, and automobiles that actually produce greenhouse gases.”
One factor is the degree per capita to which we as a society rely upon fossil fuels, power plants, industrial processes, and automobiles that actually produce greenhouse gases. The other factor is the number of people doing that–population IS a factor. At whatever level of impact (except zero—which doesn’t exist), fewer people will always harm the environment less than more.
The bulk of the immigrants moving to the U.S. and Europe are from lower per capita consumption countries and thus the net worldwide result of such immigration is greater environmental impact. Is Mr. Ewing implying Europe is the model we should emulate? If you go country by country, the only two EU-15 countries with a sustainable national ecological footprint are Sweden and Finland. Does Mr. Ewing maintain that their relatively low population density has little or nothing to do with this?
My response to those who say we should just concern ourselves with efficiency and not population is ‘Why not both?’ Why must the two be mutually exclusive? If you think the issue is important, even crucial, why exclude one of the two ways we have to make a positive difference? If we’re serious, why would we tie one hand behind our backs? If someone says ‘let’s worry about efficiency first’, it’s only fair to ask at what U.S. population should we start to pay attention? 400 million? Half a billion? A billion?
Saying environmental harm is not a function of population is dangerous. It gives people the false impression and sense of complacency that we can grow indefinitely and with negligible ecological consequence so long as we are ‘smart’ about it—that population/immigration is unimportant or even irrelevant to environmental policy. The hard truth people don’t like to face is that a lot of people CAN’T indefinitely live at a U.S./European level. Any gain made in efficiency can be negated by proportionate population growth. Let’s say we manage somehow to double our efficiency over the next several decades—the problem is we are also on a pace to double our population in that time. The two would counteract and we’d end up right where we started at an already unsustainable level except with a much larger population to deal with going forward and with an opportunity missed. Isn’t it smarter to not get to that point in the first place rather than try to deal with it after that fact?

]]>