Welcome !
You've earned Points
Paul Kingsnorth, author of several books including Real England: The Battle Against the Bland (Portobello, 2008), talks about the change in environmentalism from a movement concerned about ecology to one primarily about political activism. "Now it seemed that environmentalism was not about wildness or ecocentrism or the other-than-human world and our relationship to it. Instead it was about (human) social justice and (human) equality and (human) progress and ensuring that all these things could be realised without degrading the (human) resource-base which we used to call nature back when we were being naïve and problematic. Suddenly, never-ending economic growth was a good thing after all: the poor needed it to get rich, which was their right. To square the circle, for those who still realised there was a circle, we were told that "(human) social justice and environmental justice go hand in hand" - a suggestion of such bizarre inaccuracy that it could surely only be wishful thinking," he says. Read his whole post at Energy Bulletin.
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.
U.S. Overpopulation....Why Doesn't Anyone Talk About Immigration?
Eric Ruark, Sr. Researcher, FAIR
The size of the world’s population receives a lot of attention from scientists and academics. The overwhelming consensus among them is that there are simply too many people already on the planet, and that earth’s burgeoning population growth is a recipe for disaster. Most also believe that governments around the world are not taking this issue very seriously, ignoring what may become an intractable political crisis. But what to do about it?
That is the question that divides those who deal with population issues. There are some who advocate direct government intervention in family planning, such as preventing couples from having more than one child. Most, however, take a more moderate and humane approach, endorsing greater education on family planning, or eliminating tax incentives for couples who have multiple children.
There is a lot of room for discussion when it comes to the question of population policy. Unfortunately, one thing that often gets left out of the discussion, but what is crucial to any public policy decision, is immigration. Even those who work in population related fields many times choose to ignore how international migration fits into the picture.
A good example of skirting the issue was the forum “Population Growth and Rising Consumption: What’s Sustainable?” sponsored by the Population Institute, the Population Media Center and the Wallace Global Fund and held on October 6, 2009. The forum featured “five prominent experts on population, economics and sustainability” yet there was virtually no mention of immigration. Only one speaker raised the issue, a Canadian economist and Professor of Environmental Studies at York University, who said “talking about immigration as a tool for population policy, it’s a very touchy and difficult area, but I don’t think we can shy away from it.”
The problem is we are shying away from it, just as the speakers at the population forum did. Immigration is driving population growth in the U.S., and we are on course to reach a population of one billion by the end of this century. Isn’t that something that should be discussed by our political leaders, and shouldn’t so-called environmentalists be concerned about the ecological disaster that a billion people in the U.S. would cause? Right now, politicians in D.C. want to pass legislation that markedly increases the number of people who come into the U.S. each year. We might reach a billion people sooner than we think.
What lies behind the exorbitant U.S. immigration numbers is the mistaken belief that we need to grow in order to survive. True, big business needs cheaper labor and more consumers in order to maximize their profits. But is this in the best interest of America’s long-term needs. In order to generate increased revenue developers will hire illegal workers and seek to build on every bit of open land. They have politicians in their pocket, and have likewise bought off many environmental organizations. Green, Inc, published in 2008, exposes how large corporations pay off large environmental organizations in order to win “green” endorsements. Even Wal-Mart has gotten in on the ruse.
Surely, not all academics are paid off with corporate money. So, why then do they remain mostly silent about immigration? Perhaps is a larger political perspective that obstructs their view on this issue. Or, maybe they find the topic too controversial or complex to approach. Theoretical models are easier to deal with then the human implications of immigration policy. Yet, “experts” should consider the human implications of failing to reduce the flow of immigrants to the U.S.
Only by reducing immigration can the U.S. achieve population stability, and it is the only way to begin to achieve environmental sustainability. That conversation has been ignored for over forty years, and any discussion of population growth or environmental policy that disregards immigration is inherently flawed and can lead to no genuine solution. How can Americans advise others around the world to adopt sustainable population policies when our own situation is out of control? The lesson we are teaching is that exponential growth is the key to economic prosperity, the way to the American Dream. This is a catastrophic message to send to the rest of the world, and one that will result in catastrophe for us, as well.
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity examines population growth, urban growth, overconsumption and economic growth as it investigates the addictions and myths we need to leave behind in order to become a sustainable civilization. This provocative film does not shy from hot topics and controversy, so immigration policies will be addressed.
For more information, or to join the grass roots support network or contribute to this non-profit project, visit www.growthbusters.com
Our population has experienced an aggressive growth over the past 25 years which has had a direct effect on traffic gridlock, urban sprawl, and wide swings in a variety of economic statistics, the latest being the recent subprime mortgage crisis.
How will your quality of life be affected when the population goes from 306 million at present to 438 million (Pew estimate) by 2050? Will your children have a better or worse environment than you? Will they have a better or worse quality of life?
Tell us what you think in this week's poll: Will the increase of the U.S. population from 306 million at present to 438 million in 2050 improve or worsen the quality of life of average Americans?
