Welcome !
You've earned Points
"A reduction in crop yields caused by global warming could mean up to 6.7 million additional Mexicans will emigrate to the United States by 2080, says a study by Princeton University researchers," theChristian Science Monitor reports. The study itself, by Alan Kruger and two other professors at Princeton, focuses on agricultural yields by studying the 1995 - 2005 period, to determine the impact of an expected decline in yield from warming over the next 80 years. The study's appendix has more information about how the calculations were done. The total calculated "extra" migration is an estimate, although most media reports picked the high number of 6.7 million and not the lower 1.4 million.
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.
"Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases," said Georgia Tech City and Regional Planning Professor Brian Stone. "Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole -- a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change. As a result, emissions reduction programs -- like the cap and trade program under consideration by the U.S. Congress -- may not sufficiently slow climate change in large cities where most people live and where land use change is the dominant driver of warming." Professor Stone is publishing a paper in the December edition of Environmental Science and Technology that suggests policymakers need to address the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions. Read the full article on the Science Daily Web site here.
"The drought that gripped the Southeast from 2005 to 2007 was not unprecedented and resulted from random weather events, not global warming, Columbia University researchers have concluded. They say its severe water shortages resulted from population growth more than rainfall patterns," the New York Times reported October 1, 2009.
