Welcome !
You've earned Points
By Eric Ruark, Research Analyst
The political elite have jetted to Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) taking place December 7-18, 2009. While being ferried around in limousines, munching on caviar sculptures, and generally emitting a huge carbon footprint, they are in the midst of discussing how the rest of us must be forced to drastically reduce our own standards of living in order to reduce global warming.
If one buys the premise of anthropogenic climate change, then one also has to accept that that there are two ways to reduce this cause and effect. The first is to reduce consumption and emissions per capita. The second is to reduce the size of the world’s population, especially in developed countries where per capita emissions are disproportionately high. So one has to ask: if President Obama is serious about ending global warming why does he support growing the U.S. population by tens of millions of people through immigration over the next decade, admitting those whose carbon footprint will be greater in the U.S. than it would have been in their home countries?
The Copenhagen conference is not about U.S. immigration policy, but it is precisely because of our immigration policy that the United States can not provide any real leadership on environmental issues. While the rest of the world looks to us to set an example, we can only provide bad precedent. Given the opportunity to stabilize our population and to work toward a sustainable future, our approach has been to grow our population by 80 million over the last thirty years and to put the United States on course to reach a billion people by century’s end.
The U.S. population is rising faster than any other developed nation and our per capita energy consumption is the highest in the world. This is environmentally and economically unsustainable, but the few who reap the financial benefits of U.S. immigration policy have funded politicians who push for amnesty and continued mass immigration at the expense of the American people.
Many Americans are skeptical about the claims being made at Copenhagen, and the release of e-mails hacked from computers at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit have only added to this growing skepticism. It’s not that Americans are not concerned about the environment; it’s that they mistrust blatant political posturing and resent the dearth of responsible and capable governance.
The first step toward a responsible environmental policy would be to recognize the environmental impact of U.S. population growth, and to understand that our fixation on economic growth no matter the cost to the environment is a grave error. Despite what politicians in D.C. may say, we can not continue to grow at an unprecedented rate and preserve the environment for future generations. This is simply not possible. We have to make a choice.
We do not have to accept the doom and gloom forecasts of Al Gore, and certainly should reject his push to circumvent our democratic process so that he can “save the planet.” We can, however, affect real and lasting change by ending our rapid population growth due to mass immigration. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has reminded President Obama that any agreement signed in Copenhagen would not be binding on the U.S. unless approved by Congress. As American citizens we can use the same democratic process to send members to Congress who will put the interests of American citizens first and foremost, and who will finally stop giving given lip-service to environmentalism and instead enact polices that actually protect the U.S. environment.
Bonnie Erbe writes at Politics Daily that while President Obama is talking about reducing C02 emissions, he won't address the main driver of increases in greenhouse gas emissions - population growth. Erbe says that a coalition of groups invested in mass immigration has curtailed public discussion on the merits of unlimited population growth in the U.S. Read the entire article here.
According to a report authored by FAIR’s Director of Special Projects Jack Martin entitled Immigration, Energy, and the Environment, Americans actually achieved more than a nine percent reduction in per capita energy consumption between 1973 and 2007. During that same time period, however, the U.S. population increased nearly 70 percent, with more than 31 percent of that increase directly attributable to legal immigration alone. In addition, the report notes that “the share of population growth attributable to immigration is still higher when illegal immigration and the children born to the immigrants after their arrival are included.” This population increase led to a 33 percent increase in American energy consumption from 1973 to 2007 — an increase that can be attributed primarily to U.S. population growth over that period.
With Congress and the Obama Administration considering an energy bill, wouldn’t it make sense for them to take into account the single largest contributing factor to greenhouse gas emissions over the past 35 years? Unfortunately, this hasn’t been the case. The House of Representatives recently passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, legislation more commonly referred to as “Cap-and-Trade.” The bill seeks to, among other things, “cap and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” a move that supporters of the legislation suggest would help fight global climate change. However, the bill fails to address the principle cause of the problem it is seeking to solve: immigration generated population growth.
According to Immigration, Energy, and the Environment, “Any effort by the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must take population growth into account.” The report goes on to point out that the central component of an energy policy that deals with population growth “must include an effective and enforceable immigration policy that curbs immigration levels to the point that it is no longer driving U.S. population growth.”
The report is available in its entirety here.
