(Business Wire)
People pressure: Is immigration an ecoissue?
By THE EDITORS OF E MAGAZINE | October 10, 2008 edition
Q: Why are some environmental groups jumping on the immigration issue? What does immigration have to do with the environment?
– Ginna Jones, Darien, Conn.
A: What to do about booming legal and illegal immigration rates is one of the most controversial topics on Americans’ political agendas these days. More than a million immigrants achieve permanent resident status in the United States every year. Another 700,000 become full-fledged American citizens. The nonprofit Pew Research Center reports that 82 percent of US population growth is attributable to immigration.
Meanwhile, the US Census Bureau estimates that our nation’s population will grow from 303 million people today to 400 million as early as 2040. While many industrialized nations, including Japan and most of western Europe, are experiencing population-growth slowdowns due to low birthrate levels and little immigration, the US is growing so fast that it trails only India and China in total population.
Advocates for US population stabilization, including some environmental organizations and leaders, say that this ongoing influx of new arrivals is forcing the nation to exceed its “carrying capacity,” stressing an already overburdened physical infrastructure. David Durham of Population-Environment Balance says that Americans who care about the environment should insist on reducing immigration, to recognize “ecological realities such as limited potable water, topsoil, and infrastructure.” He also cites studies showing that a permissive US immigration policy drives up fertility rates in the sending countries “which is the last thing these sending countries need.”
To others, the problem is larger than immigration. “People don’t just materialize at our border, or at any border,” says John Seager of Population Connection. “When you talk about immigration, you’re talking about the second half of a process that begins when people decide to leave their homes.” And they are usually leaving their homes because of hunger, lack of work, oppression, or any number of other often-desperate reasons. Mr. Seager and many others argue that by helping poor nations better address the economic and family-planning needs of their citizens, Americans can not only help improve the lot of millions of people living in dire poverty, but also slow down the tide of immigration.
Groups focusing on the immigration-environment nexus are eager to have their voices heard, but many mainstream green groups shun the highly divisive topic, preferring to encourage Americans – who are infamous worldwide for their huge homes, gas-guzzling cars, and extravagant consumption habits – to curb their unsustainable lifestyles. That, they say, is more fundamental to US environmental problems than population pressures. With just 5 percent of the world’s people, Americans use one-quarter of the world’s fossil fuels, own more private cars than drivers with licenses, and live in homes that are, on average, 38 percent larger today than they were in 1975. By scaling back, Americans can take a big bite out of pollution, sprawl, and other environmental problems, while also setting a good example for those who land in the US every year. And they’d be lowering the nation’s collective carbon footprint significantly in the process.
Got an environmental question? Write: EarthTalk, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881. Or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
( More stories )
Comments
3. John | 10.10.08
Ah, Brittanicus. Many people like you can be summarized by the old adage, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Environmental issues do not stop at our borders, and as pointed out in the article, people just don’t materialize at our borders. While I might call your argument NIMBYism, I actually think it’s worse than that. Many are skeptical of the arguments and spurulus correlations people like you make (I like how you tellingly descend into “handouts for illegal criminals” quite quickly in your discussion) because you seem to have other motivations, and I think that the alleged “immigration and overpopulation” nexus is just an opportunity for pushing xenophobic, racist, and prejudiced political policy under the guise of an environmental cause. Good luck with that. Fortunately, most environmental organizations don’t give much credence to your arguments. Perhaps if you can get the American Enterprise Institute to start an “environmental organization” and stack it out with conservatives, and then sponsor an environmental conference exclusively on how immigrants (ie. people who aren’t white) cause environmental damage, you can get Fox News to air your views in a fair and balanced media broadcast.
4. Willy Jamba | 10.10.08
At current rates of growth, US population will explode to 400 million by 2040. That was the population of India in 1955. Of course, with our capitalist system and national debt, the US won’t have the problems India faced then, will we?
5. Tim Aaronson | 10.10.08
The Sierra Club sold out to mass immigration advocates and pretends that immigration is not a domestic environmental factor. Read the L.A. Times article about David Gelbaum and his $100 million donation conditioned with a stern warning to Sierra Club’s Carl Pope - “I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”
http://forests.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=35903
In contrast, the late David Brower, real Sierra Club environmental giant. said:
“Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us, and immigration is part of that problem. It has to be addressed.” - David Brower, the Sierra Club’s first executive director, resigned his board position in mid-May-2000. He charged the club’s leadership with a craven refusal to confront population problems.
6. Nancy Madden | 10.10.08
The United States has, on its own, become a nation of termites.
So, yes, we should close our borders to protect immigrants from our ecological profanity.
‘The Earth’, in the capitalistic system of United States, is just another woman to trash.
It would be better for those seeking freedom to go to a civilized country.
7. BrianSDCA | 10.10.08
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that out of control human population growth takes its toll on the environment in the United States and the rest of the world. Legal immigration should be dictated by the needs and the ability of the United States to absorb them in a responsible manner and not by the desire of hundreds of millions of foreign nationals that want to immigrate. Illegal immigration is greatly affecting the future of legal immigration and the quality of life of everyone in the United States.
8. Brenda Walker | 10.10.08
Here in Alameda County California, the regional water agency has mandated water rationing after only two winters of below-average rainfall. Back in the late 1970s, a more serious drought required water restriction only after several years of less rain. The difference: 24 million residents in the state then versus 38 million now.
Orange County’s solution is an expensive water recycling system, aka “toilet to tap.”
No politician wants to say the obvious: massive immigration-fueled population growth cannot continue forever, because too many interest groups — from La Raza to the National Association of Homebuilders — are wedded to it. America is full twice over, but those getting rich from overpopulating it won’t let go without a fight.
9. Scottish Thunder | 10.11.08
This is another example of bad journalism. Immigration is NOT linked to ‘overpopulation’, a dodgy concept in itself. Immigration, on the contrary, is beneficial on a global scale because it allows reallocating people from poor places to places with more resources. Furthermore, the most ‘overpopulated’ places on Earth (Africa, Asia and Latin America) happen to be the ones that consume the least resources in comparison to the US, Europe and Australia. It must also be said that to blame the excessive use of cars, energy and oil in the Mexicans crossing the border is sad and pathetic, since most of them can’t afford expensive SUVs or transatlantic flights for holidays. Neither do they live in expensive high-energy consumer homes in the suburbs. The USA already has the highest consumption of energy and CO2 emission per capita and that has nothing to do with immigration. It is instead related to greed-driven policies by the same right-wing xenophobics who are now trying to place the blame on immigrants.
10. Don Robertson | 10.11.08
Americans are ignorant about population explosion. Americans are ignorant because they have no appreciation of reality. Americans have yet to develop a sufficient long term view of the world.
The republic invented by the Americans advances the needs of corporate capitalism, and only rarely does it look out for any future needs of its people living in a finite world.
And the greatest causes of over population are two of America’s greatest philosophic idols, science and humanitarianism. Americans are philosophically suicidal in their ignorance, however.
Science and humanitarianism are responsible for over population to a far greater extent than any immigration policy.
If anyone wants to cogently disagree with immigration policy, a disagreement with which I might concur, they should find another, better reason. Maybe that reason could be an immoral depletion of the country-of-origin’s workforce and intellectual promise?
But I digress from the coupling of the twin themes, overpopulation and immigration, raised here by authors claiming to represent the nascent and quite dangerous science of environmentalism.
Over the long term, science has not make the world a better place, and neither has humanitarianism reduced the suffering of humanity, again, over the long term. And I do not mean to exclude by my statement the nascent science of environmentalism, whose main task seems to be building a scientific knowledge set describing exactly how to destroy the world.
It is quite clear now by our experience since the Enlightenment, science and humanitarianism will both have the opposite effect of their latent intent.
And both coincidentally, have the quite heinous effect of encouraging motherhood and parentage.
So, object to the preposterous notion there are jobs Americans won’t do. Shut the gates of immigration by opposing the cries of American industry that it needs workers who will work for less than what Americans will work for.
Stop supporting science funding and science education at every level, as long as science presents itself as an amoral endeavor. Declare humanitarianism the fraud and deceit it is now well known to be.
And stop having so many children who in their lives will contribute to the increasing poverty of a world of poverty that is so extreme, 99% of Americans would find it intolerable to live under the conditions 70% of the world lives under today.
In 1925 China had a population of 400 million, friends.
11. dell erickson | 10.11.08
I think it was 1994 or 1995 that the Sierra Club Book, “How Many Americans” was published.
Demographer Dr. Leon Bouvier, concluded that had no immigration policies changed after 1970, the U.S. population would have stabilized at approximately 245 million around 2040.
Some Implications:
It is important to note that all increases in consumption, pollution, energy and resource depletion, and population growth above the Low trendline is due to legal and illegal immigration.
The startling implication is that ALL, repeat ALL U.S. population growth above 245 million is due to immigration, legal and not.
It means immigration is the ONLY reason the U.S. cannot meet the Kyoto Protocols, most school and healthcare system problems, that ALL increase in energy consumption is due to immigration, and all those jobs politicians love to say we need to add is FOR foreigners.
Some Numbers:
With immigration unimagined by the National Population Commission (1972)calling for U.S. population stabilization, another century landmark, 300 million, has now been surpassed and the rate of increase is increasing, (depending on the number of illegal aliens) by 3.5 to 5 million additional residents each year.
Unless immigration is reconsidered, by the year 2050 (within the lifetime of current school-age children), the U.S. population is projected to nearly double again, reaching more than 500 million. Those born soon with good genetics could live in a land of 1.3 billion Americans by the end of the current century (US Census Bureau 2004, update). There is no program in place to slow, stop, or reduce the U.S. population to a sustainable number.
Current immigration practices imply that the current population, its culture, race, and religion, is being replaced threefold. It’s environment in ruins.
If this projection is the population vision of U.S. citizens and their policymakers, then nothing need be done; it is not conjecture or opinion, it will happen under current immigration policies.
Repeat. ALL from immigration. legal and not.
12. WandaGB | 10.11.08
Once upon a time there was a wonderful group called ZPG - “Zero Population Growth”, but they succumbed to political correctness and refused to address the real cause of U.S. population growth - immigration. And so they had to hide the connection between immigration and domestic population growth. So they changed their name, and now call themselves “Population Connection”.
A more honest name would be “Population - Immigration Disconnect”!
13. Justin | 10.11.08
The carrying capacity argument is a farce.
We have so much agricultural production in the US that we put our corn in our gas tanks or export surplus grain to other countries at fire sale prices.
There is a water shortage in the southwest but to connect that to immigration ignores the fact that many native-born Americans are relocating there too (Las Vegas is the fastest growing city). It ignores inefficient industrial use of water, and the waste that comes with growing grass and palm trees and vegetables in the desert.
Instead of focusing on keeping people out, why don’t we focus on lowering the eco-footprint of each American?
14. Mark Mallarde | 10.11.08
It seems to me that both sides of this issue talk over a fundamental question: Should the U.S. government set policy goals that limit the population of the U.S. even if the world population continues to expand despite our best efforts.
Those that say that we must first control global population, in general, to control our own seem to argue that people of all nations should have the right to immigrate to the U.S. if economic (or other) forces drive them to do so. Thus, it behooves the U.S. government to make the rest of the world a better place and limit population growth worldwide so that people will no longer want to emigrate to the U.S.
Those on the other side seem to argue that the U.S. government should consider both issues — worldwide population growth AND U.S. population growth. Even if efforts to slow world population fail or take time — they implicitly argue — the U.S. government should stop (or slow) U.S. population growth by decreasing immigration.
I come down firmly in the second camp. I am not willing to sacrifice my country to the alter of what I perceive as “liberal guilt.” I want to stop global population growth and I hope our government can improve the quality of life for the rest of the world. But it is inconceivable that this will happen quickly enough and to such a degree that hundreds of millions more people will not come here and, in effect, further erode our quality of life.
To me, the notion of limiting immigration by improving other countries is like saying on a hot and humid summer day that instead of closing the windows so that the air conditioning will work we should throw open the windows and get busy turning down the sun. It is beyond our capacity to lift nations. Our efforts in Iraq are bankrupting the country. Do we really think we can repeat this feat with all of Latin America and Asia? And even then will people still not want to emigrate here in unsustainable numbers?
So my answer to the question that I see as central is our government must do both; it must try to stop the global population problem but at the same time focus on our country’s own population growth in service to U.S. citizens that expect their government to look out for their interests. The U.S. government should decrease immigration now.
15. lance sjogren | 10.11.08
There is no conflict in how we in the US should cut down on our environmental impact.
We need to make a big reduction both in immigration and in our individual consumption of resources.
16. lance sjogren | 10.11.08
Scottish Thunder:
I would suggest that you are not debating in good faith when you feel to bolster your arguments with a vicious epithet toward those whom happen to disagree with you.
Although I must say, your vicious epithet was more coherent than the rest of your post.
17. Greg Bungo | 10.11.08
The price of food rose dramatically around the world in 2008. There’s disagreement about the cause of this, but most agree that the diversion of crops to biofuel production is part of the cause. Overpopulation is certainly another cause of food shortages, which really could be called people “longages”.
It’s true that water is misused disastrously in the Southwest. The problem’s not just in Nevada, though. The huge population of California also uses an enormous amount of water, and much of that is used by the farming industry. We can’t afford to keep producing surplus grain. The water shortage in Georgia and other parts of the Southeast is another symptom of overpopulation.
In many countries around the world, people are having too many children. In America, the immigrant population has far more than the replacement number of two children per couple. We need to stop adding new people to our population, and we also need to reduce the per capita consumption of people in the United States. We suffer from both overconsumption and overpopulation here in America. We don’t have the luxury of an either/or solution. We need to face reality, and implement a both/and solution.
18. bourbonduke | 10.12.08
Constantly reallocating shortage through strong government was the historical method for both increasing population and supporting this population. It is no coincidence that the regions of the world with the strongest governments are also the most overpopulated and have the smallest energy subsidy beyond food and shelter to maintain their populations. The writers above who say our problems are simply ones of reallocating the existing bounty miss the point. Previous societies practiced reallocation til their civilization collapsed from so many demands on the energy flows. In the modern age population is no longer limited by solar enegry energy flows. Atomic, solar and chemical energy compliment the solar flows of energy and allow an energy subsidy to the societies that have the means to harvest these flows. We have a choice to either support more people with a smaller subsidy of energy or less people and more diverse forms of life with a higher threshold for energy safety and resource reserves.
19. Pete Murphy | 10.12.08
Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. Immigration, both legal and illegal, are fueling this growth.
I’m not talking just about the obvious problems that we see in the news - growing dependence on foreign oil, carbon emissions, soaring commodity prices, environmental degradation, etc. I’m talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight other countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. The U.S. is the only developed country still experiencing third world-like population growth, most of which is due to immigration. It’s absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that’s impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.
Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”
21. Chris | 10.12.08
A person comes from a third world country with the expectation of improving their economic status. That expectation turns out to be correct. This means they use more of the Earth’s resources living here than back in their home country. So yes, immigration is an eco issue.
22. Liz Claire | 10.13.08
Legal immigration is an asset and a valuable tool to build a sound country. Illegal immigration, exploiting cheap labour, cheap produce, cheap farmwork, turning a blind eye to cheap gardeners, cheap bus boys, cheap house cleaners, cheap child care, cheap car washes…is something that we have all economically benifited from. We know tax-paying residents cannot survive on so low of wages, we know we can’t compete with that cheap market labour — we reap the benefits. We do complain when there’s dirt on the wheels….but we don’t complain when they hand you back your car keys and clean car for $12.00.
On paper, illegal immigration is a problem…when it comes to having to pay more …we’d rather not.
-lc
23. LM | 10.13.08
The issue is not solely population growth, but has to take account of our lifestyles. The fact that many of us prefer to inhabit the suburbs/exurbs has high environmental costs, as does the fact that new housing tends to be (shoddy) wood-frame constructs. And we prefer to have well-watered green lawns and gold courses no matter whether we live in New England or the desert Southwest. So America continues to gobble up arable land, clearcut climax forests, build multi-lane highways, and consume vast amounts of petro-energy because we, as a nation, subscribe to this “endless frontier” model.
Well, folks, the frontier is long closed.
Immigration, legal or otherwise, does not help the situation, but it isn’t the driver behind environmental degradation.
24. John Peterson | 10.13.08
Another factor in our unsustainable growth is how we taxpayers are suckered into subsidizing growth. Somewhat related to this situation is the fact that our economy has become very dependent on growth for growth’s sake. Builders, developers, realators, lenders, local government planners, and construction workers are all dependent on growth.
We are told by politicians and lobbyists that we must provide huge tax breaks for developers and businesses so that we can all have jobs. We are told that we need to build new roads, schools, sewers, etc… to provide for the projected millions of incoming people. If developers were forced to pay for the true social and environmental costs of growth they would be out of business. If we are going to subsidize economic growth lets make sure it is truly ecologically sustainable growth. We need to reorient our economy towards true sustainability.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Brittanicus | 10.10.08
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND OVERPOPULATION are strongly connected, even though the open-border, free market globalist will not admit it. Areas of the US Mexican border have become a cesspit, for anybody who crosses at any given point. Garbage accumulation has become a danger to wild creatures and humans alike. Their is a huge swathe that stretches, for miles at any US Border Patrol undermanned sovereignty demarcation line of human waste, plastic water bottles and just about anything you can imagine.
It remains a festering mound full of thriving insects that nobody has cared to remove. Certainly not the environmentalists who have screamed the loudest, about the federal government building the underfunded fence. Originally planned as a two layer barrier, with a patrolling no-mans land in between, for our agents to patrol.
Our cities have become quagmires of traffic congestion, with no relief from pollution and trash invading the environment. We are bleeding taxpayers dry, to support millions of impoverished foreign nationals and their growing family members who have invaded our nation from third world countries. Our welfare resources are limited and our politicians and judges have interpreted the law, so we as Americans must underwrite their social and financial needs of this human tide. They receive free health care, education while our own citizen strain to pay for prescription drugs and college for citizen children. Our schools have become overcrowded with the children of illegal aliens, teeming without hindrance into every corner of our country
Land that was one pristine on the edge of our communities, have been cleared by the bulldozers to build more homes by real estate speculators. Our rivers and streams have become polluted, with industrial waste products along with clearing land for corporate agriculture.
The middle class already overburdened with war appropriation funds, is still force to pay for the education, free health-care and Federal, state welfare handouts for illegal criminals. SIGN UP FOR THE SAVE ACT(H.R.4088) enforcement ‘ONLY’ law at http://www.numbersusa.com.
MILLIONS OF IRATE & FRUSTRATED AMERICANS ARE SIGNING-UP NOW, BUT WE NEED YOUR VOICE AS WELL..
SIGN JUDICIAL WATCH, A LEGAL ORGANIZATIONS PETITION, TO RESCIND ALL ‘SANCTUARY CITIES & STATES. http://www.sanctuarybusters.org/?source. http://www.numbersusa.com to Petition the SAVE ACT. For immigration facts not propaganda or lies,
PASS THIS ON COPY, PASTE & DISTRIBUTE FREELY