6 ms·

From a CO2 standpoint wouldn't it be good to stop subsidizing immigration to the first world? It's not just delta-population it's people moving from a low cons

From a CO2 standpoint wouldn't it be good to stop subsidizing immigration to the first world? It's not just delta-population it's people moving from a low consumption environment to a high consumption one.

phreeza 8y ago
My gut feeling is that people entering a middle class lifestyle in their own countries far outnumber those doing so by migration. I might be wrong though.
- solotronics 8y ago
  The current paradigm in the US was to encourage immigration from the third world and then provide them subsidy for living expenses and making a bigger family. The goal of this appears to me to be about increasing consumption in the US and I would think this enables a much higher level of CO2 emission vs what would be generated under the different economic conditions in their home country.
  - anovikov 8y ago
    But still, people who do so are far outnumbered by those entering middle class in other countries. It's not about migration. Fighting global warming by limiting economic growth is simply not going to work. My idea of a solution to global warming is no solution: accept that the global warming will happen, discover its consequences, and make them a part of economic planning on both government and corporate level. Make people educated about it. That's it.
    - akoncius 8y ago
      I also agree that other countries are improving their economic situation and increasing consumption there adds up to global warming, not migration. what regards "no solution" this is so shortsighted that it's even difficult to decide where to start in disagreeing :) it's easy to say "screw it, let's see what happens" but take this angle: let's say EU will make everything to reduce climate change effects, but other regions not. In event of radical climate change people will start migrating to more safe regions, including EU, so EU will pay partially price for those regions who did not do any effort to reduce climate change. I don't want to pay price for sea level rising just because USA wanted to gain some short-term gains. also trading your life safety for economic gains sounds ridiculous.
      - anovikov 8y ago
        But this is what will happen by itself because fighting global warming means little but opening economic opportunities for others - and exploitation of them means MORE global warming. Basically, if Germany introduces a carbon tax and as a result, its industry will become less competitive, its output will fall, it will be displaced by Chinese output (because demand is still there), which is produced with a lot more CO2 output than energy-efficient Germany would produce. So, best way of fighting global warming is just adapting to it. Other method will be world policing, i.e. enforcing worldwide policy for CO2 reduction, so no displacement as i described, happens (subs threat to merchant ships sounds like best way to do it). But it's a bad idea to suggest in this liberal forum :) People migrating to EU because of global warming? Don't give them visas. They arrive on boats? Machinegun the boats, that simple.
        pjc50 8y ago
        > enforcing worldwide policy for CO2 reduction This is what things like Kyoto were intended to be. > Machinegun the boats This is the kind of thing we executed Nazis for at Nuremberg. It's called a crime against humanity for good reason.
        growlist 8y ago
        To not tackle population increases is to acquiesce in the suffering of greater numbers of humans as global warming really kicks in. Population control is the kind thing to do.
        anovikov 8y ago
        Population increase is already tackling itself except for the Sub-Saharan Africa where people produce almost no CO2 anyway coz they are dirt poor. It is safe to say that increased consumption decreases reproduction rate by itself simply because people have other things to do.
        anovikov 8y ago
        Well this is called illegal border crossing. It is a crime and always been a crime. It is meant to be met with lethal force. Border guards, being it land or water, exist exactly for that. Nazis were executed for killing survivors from sunk ships, people in distress, completely unrelated.
  - oblio 8y ago
    I don't think there's any country in Central or Southern America that's a third world country (except for Haiti?). And for me, as an outsider, it seems ridiculous to consider the US as a country of "subsidies for living expenses". Isn't the US notorious as being basically the only developed country without a welfare state? :)
    - swebs 8y ago
      >And for me, as an outsider, it seems ridiculous to consider the US as a country of "subsidies for living expenses". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S... >Isn't the US notorious as being basically the only developed country without a welfare state? :) The US spends $10,203 per capita on public expenditure. That's dead set with Switzerland ($10,412), not that far behind Finland ($11,858), and much higher than Canada ($7,352). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_of_social_expenditure_on_economic_growth,_public_debt_and_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_of_socia... Glad I could help you become a little less ignorant :)
      - oblio 8y ago
        If it's the same situation as for pharma in the US (the US spends a ton on it, medical expenses are way higher than in most of the world), my "ignorant" comments are still warranted. I've never seen as many homeless people in France or Germany, for example, as I've seen in the US. I have seen fewer even back in Romania. I'm glad for your expenses, but you're not getting your money's worth.
        mrkstu 8y ago
        A major component of the homeless issue was Supreme Court decisions making it extremely difficult to involuntarily commit mentally ill people into residential treatment and compel taking of medication for their conditions. A good summary can be found at https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/ivc/involuntary-commitment-concepts.html https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/ivc/involuntary-commitment-c... This has led to a spiral self-medicating with alcohol and illegal drugs and of dealing with the mentally ill through the criminal infrastructure or through rampant homelessness. There are other drivers of course, but I believe the vast majority can be traced to the inability of the state to force treatment on those who are obviously ill.
wjnc 8y ago
They keep out of it from a human rights perspective and I agree. It obviously would help, but what's the end state in that world? Haves and have-nots? That's quite Hunger Gamian / dystopian.
pjc50 8y ago
Where did you get the idea that immigration was subsidized? It's often extremely expensive.
- solotronics 8y ago
  This is a good summary but since 1996 immigrants are generally eligible for the same government subsidies as citizens. https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/ https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeli... "The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household. The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups." https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native...
  - AtlasLion 8y ago
    That does not take into account that said immigrant had their education paid for by another country and starts paying taxes on day one. Tax payers have to prep local population for 20 plus years before they start contributing.
    - cglace 8y ago
      Do you think they are paying more in taxes than recieving? Having worked in the landscaping industry I know that paying under the table is not uncommon for immigrants.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    The first link plainly states "After these laws’ enactment, most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer."? Is this really "subsidising immigration?" I mean, immigrants have costs too, and most of the few remaining things they are eligible for are emergency assistance of one sort or another. What this argument turns into in practice is "people who have resided in the first world for years as workers who hit economic trouble should starve or be deported". Hardly anyone comes to the first world to live off public assistance. It's either a matter of survival/safety or a search for opportunity.
forrestthewoods 8y ago
Sure. It would also be better, from a CO2 standpoint, for developing countries to stop developing. These are obvious non-starters. It’d be rich people saying “fuck you, got mine”.
- hackeraccount 8y ago
  Would it really be better? It takes money to do all of things people want to do to reduce CO2. That's what developing produces. I think a lot of people view money as a way to buy stuff. That's true but they'd be better off view money as magic. Making it creates problems but on the upside: magic.
entity345 8y ago
Better option regarding both CO2 and immigration, IMHO: * Global programme to drastically reduce birthrate. * Global development programme based on good governance and actual results, not just "sending money".
- solotronics 8y ago
  totally agree here there should be a global program to give welfare payments for those willing to participate in a birth control program
  - ilovetux 8y ago
    How is this different from eugenics?
    - entity345 8y ago
      Birth control has nothing to do with eugenics.
      - oblio 8y ago
        It depends how you do it. Giving money to the poor to not have kids kind of sound like eugenics. Educating them (especially women), giving them contraceptives, etc., is the positive approach to this, in my opinion.
        entity345 8y ago
        Nothing to do with eugenics. Eugenics is about selection to improve the gene pool. The issue here is to make those who have a lot of children have less children. Giving money, and contraceptives, and free sterilisation, and education should all be done.
        ilovetux 8y ago
        I agree that giving money, contraceptives, free (voluntary) sterilization and education would be a good idea, but to make the money contingent on either sterilization, the use of birth control or even a promise to not have children would have a disproportionate effect on the underprivileged and would lead to the effects of eugenics based on economic station. Edit: Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Affected_populations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Affec... > Funding of welfare mothers by HEW (Health, Education, and Welfare) covers roughy 90% of cost and doctors are likely to concur with the compulsory sterilization of welfare mothers. Threats to cease welfare occur when women are hesitant to consent.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
Won't do a thing. Developing nations are, well, developing. They're steadily increasing their energy use wholesale. Immigration is just a rounding error; a small amount of people who want to get slightly ahead of the progress curve of their home countries.
- ripsawridge 8y ago
  Is it possible that the outflow of people from a developing nation reduces population pressure in that nation such that population there increases?
  - mc32 8y ago
    More effective is educating women, getting them in the workforce and providing birth control. All will result in pop. stabilization.
grecy 8y ago
Per capita, Developed countries produce a lot more CO2 than Developing and Undeveloped countries. Given the Developed countries have the money and the means, the best thing from a global CO2 standpoint would be if the Developed countries led the way on reducing their emissions.
hackeraccount 8y ago
But you're also moving people from a low productivity environment to a high productivity one.

phreeza 8y ago

My gut feeling is that people entering a middle class lifestyle in their own countries far outnumber those doing so by migration. I might be wrong though.

solotronics 8y ago
The current paradigm in the US was to encourage immigration from the third world and then provide them subsidy for living expenses and making a bigger family. The goal of this appears to me to be about increasing consumption in the US and I would think this enables a much higher level of CO2 emission vs what would be generated under the different economic conditions in their home country.
- anovikov 8y ago
  But still, people who do so are far outnumbered by those entering middle class in other countries. It's not about migration. Fighting global warming by limiting economic growth is simply not going to work. My idea of a solution to global warming is no solution: accept that the global warming will happen, discover its consequences, and make them a part of economic planning on both government and corporate level. Make people educated about it. That's it.
  - akoncius 8y ago
    I also agree that other countries are improving their economic situation and increasing consumption there adds up to global warming, not migration. what regards "no solution" this is so shortsighted that it's even difficult to decide where to start in disagreeing :) it's easy to say "screw it, let's see what happens" but take this angle: let's say EU will make everything to reduce climate change effects, but other regions not. In event of radical climate change people will start migrating to more safe regions, including EU, so EU will pay partially price for those regions who did not do any effort to reduce climate change. I don't want to pay price for sea level rising just because USA wanted to gain some short-term gains. also trading your life safety for economic gains sounds ridiculous.
    - anovikov 8y ago
      But this is what will happen by itself because fighting global warming means little but opening economic opportunities for others - and exploitation of them means MORE global warming. Basically, if Germany introduces a carbon tax and as a result, its industry will become less competitive, its output will fall, it will be displaced by Chinese output (because demand is still there), which is produced with a lot more CO2 output than energy-efficient Germany would produce. So, best way of fighting global warming is just adapting to it. Other method will be world policing, i.e. enforcing worldwide policy for CO2 reduction, so no displacement as i described, happens (subs threat to merchant ships sounds like best way to do it). But it's a bad idea to suggest in this liberal forum :) People migrating to EU because of global warming? Don't give them visas. They arrive on boats? Machinegun the boats, that simple.
      - pjc50 8y ago
        > enforcing worldwide policy for CO2 reduction This is what things like Kyoto were intended to be. > Machinegun the boats This is the kind of thing we executed Nazis for at Nuremberg. It's called a crime against humanity for good reason.
        growlist 8y ago
        To not tackle population increases is to acquiesce in the suffering of greater numbers of humans as global warming really kicks in. Population control is the kind thing to do.
        anovikov 8y ago
        Population increase is already tackling itself except for the Sub-Saharan Africa where people produce almost no CO2 anyway coz they are dirt poor. It is safe to say that increased consumption decreases reproduction rate by itself simply because people have other things to do.
        anovikov 8y ago
        Well this is called illegal border crossing. It is a crime and always been a crime. It is meant to be met with lethal force. Border guards, being it land or water, exist exactly for that. Nazis were executed for killing survivors from sunk ships, people in distress, completely unrelated.
- oblio 8y ago
  I don't think there's any country in Central or Southern America that's a third world country (except for Haiti?). And for me, as an outsider, it seems ridiculous to consider the US as a country of "subsidies for living expenses". Isn't the US notorious as being basically the only developed country without a welfare state? :)
  - swebs 8y ago
    >And for me, as an outsider, it seems ridiculous to consider the US as a country of "subsidies for living expenses". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S... >Isn't the US notorious as being basically the only developed country without a welfare state? :) The US spends $10,203 per capita on public expenditure. That's dead set with Switzerland ($10,412), not that far behind Finland ($11,858), and much higher than Canada ($7,352). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_of_social_expenditure_on_economic_growth,_public_debt_and_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_of_socia... Glad I could help you become a little less ignorant :)
    - oblio 8y ago
      If it's the same situation as for pharma in the US (the US spends a ton on it, medical expenses are way higher than in most of the world), my "ignorant" comments are still warranted. I've never seen as many homeless people in France or Germany, for example, as I've seen in the US. I have seen fewer even back in Romania. I'm glad for your expenses, but you're not getting your money's worth.
      - mrkstu 8y ago
        A major component of the homeless issue was Supreme Court decisions making it extremely difficult to involuntarily commit mentally ill people into residential treatment and compel taking of medication for their conditions. A good summary can be found at https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/ivc/involuntary-commitment-concepts.html https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/ivc/involuntary-commitment-c... This has led to a spiral self-medicating with alcohol and illegal drugs and of dealing with the mentally ill through the criminal infrastructure or through rampant homelessness. There are other drivers of course, but I believe the vast majority can be traced to the inability of the state to force treatment on those who are obviously ill.

wjnc 8y ago

They keep out of it from a human rights perspective and I agree. It obviously would help, but what's the end state in that world? Haves and have-nots? That's quite Hunger Gamian / dystopian.

pjc50 8y ago

Where did you get the idea that immigration was subsidized? It's often extremely expensive.

solotronics 8y ago
This is a good summary but since 1996 immigrants are generally eligible for the same government subsidies as citizens. https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/ https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeli... "The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household. The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups." https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native...
- AtlasLion 8y ago
  That does not take into account that said immigrant had their education paid for by another country and starts paying taxes on day one. Tax payers have to prep local population for 20 plus years before they start contributing.
  - cglace 8y ago
    Do you think they are paying more in taxes than recieving? Having worked in the landscaping industry I know that paying under the table is not uncommon for immigrants.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The first link plainly states "After these laws’ enactment, most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer."? Is this really "subsidising immigration?" I mean, immigrants have costs too, and most of the few remaining things they are eligible for are emergency assistance of one sort or another. What this argument turns into in practice is "people who have resided in the first world for years as workers who hit economic trouble should starve or be deported". Hardly anyone comes to the first world to live off public assistance. It's either a matter of survival/safety or a search for opportunity.

forrestthewoods 8y ago

Sure. It would also be better, from a CO2 standpoint, for developing countries to stop developing. These are obvious non-starters. It’d be rich people saying “fuck you, got mine”.

hackeraccount 8y ago
Would it really be better? It takes money to do all of things people want to do to reduce CO2. That's what developing produces. I think a lot of people view money as a way to buy stuff. That's true but they'd be better off view money as magic. Making it creates problems but on the upside: magic.

entity345 8y ago

Better option regarding both CO2 and immigration, IMHO: * Global programme to drastically reduce birthrate. * Global development programme based on good governance and actual results, not just "sending money".

solotronics 8y ago
totally agree here there should be a global program to give welfare payments for those willing to participate in a birth control program
- ilovetux 8y ago
  How is this different from eugenics?
  - entity345 8y ago
    Birth control has nothing to do with eugenics.
    - oblio 8y ago
      It depends how you do it. Giving money to the poor to not have kids kind of sound like eugenics. Educating them (especially women), giving them contraceptives, etc., is the positive approach to this, in my opinion.
      - entity345 8y ago
        Nothing to do with eugenics. Eugenics is about selection to improve the gene pool. The issue here is to make those who have a lot of children have less children. Giving money, and contraceptives, and free sterilisation, and education should all be done.
        ilovetux 8y ago
        I agree that giving money, contraceptives, free (voluntary) sterilization and education would be a good idea, but to make the money contingent on either sterilization, the use of birth control or even a promise to not have children would have a disproportionate effect on the underprivileged and would lead to the effects of eugenics based on economic station. Edit: Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Affected_populations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Affec... > Funding of welfare mothers by HEW (Health, Education, and Welfare) covers roughy 90% of cost and doctors are likely to concur with the compulsory sterilization of welfare mothers. Threats to cease welfare occur when women are hesitant to consent.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Won't do a thing. Developing nations are, well, developing. They're steadily increasing their energy use wholesale. Immigration is just a rounding error; a small amount of people who want to get slightly ahead of the progress curve of their home countries.

ripsawridge 8y ago
Is it possible that the outflow of people from a developing nation reduces population pressure in that nation such that population there increases?
- mc32 8y ago
  More effective is educating women, getting them in the workforce and providing birth control. All will result in pop. stabilization.

grecy 8y ago

Per capita, Developed countries produce a lot more CO2 than Developing and Undeveloped countries. Given the Developed countries have the money and the means, the best thing from a global CO2 standpoint would be if the Developed countries led the way on reducing their emissions.

hackeraccount 8y ago

But you're also moving people from a low productivity environment to a high productivity one.