4 ms·

I've wondered why environmental advocacy groups are not more vocal in support of curtailing immigration into the US. If the American lifestyle is more resource

I've wondered why environmental advocacy groups are not more vocal in support of curtailing immigration into the US. If the American lifestyle is more resource intense, wouldn't that be a natural stance to take?

arrrg 7y ago
If all humans were killed climate change would also be a solved problem. Cures that are worse than the disease do exist and are unacceptable. One central tenet also among environmental advocacy groups is in general that climate change advocacy cannot be used as a tool for oppression with a “we got what we want, fuck everyone else” attitude.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Is not immigrating to the US really a fate so horrible you'd compare it to all humans being killed?
  - arrrg 7y ago
    Obviously not. I picked the extreme, absurd and obvious to everyone example to make the principle behind the thinking clear. It’s for illustrative purposes only.
- ratboy666 7y ago
  Not remotely true -- the climate would still change. The question is "Is climate change a problem?". Personally, I don't like the idea that the expression of some latent genes may produce this monster: https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was_as_big_as_trex.html https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was... Which is only possibly if the temperature goes up considerably. Which means that my answer is: "Yes, some climate change is a problem". From the perspective of the giant snakes, the answer is the same: yes, climate cooling is a problem. Go figure, the same answer on any change. On the contrary, climate staying the same? Trees are, in general, happier if there is more CO2. There are lots of trees -- if they had a "vote", I'm pretty sure they want more CO2. So, in favour of warming. All of this (our needs, snake needs, tree needs, etc) makes for a very interesting and complex problem. What I don't understand is "climate change advocacy". Given that the climate changes, is that advocacy for more change? Less change? And how is this a "tool for oppression"? I live in Canada -- we have a carbon tax, which is oppressive. Can you clarify a bit? Thanks in advance FredW
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I've wondered why environmental advocacy groups are not more vocal in support of curtailing immigration into the US. If the American lifestyle is more resource intense, wouldn't that be a natural stance to take? No, I mean, not unless you are talking about the kind of environmental groups that exist only in the propaganda of anti-environmental groups, that also campaign against economic development per se, since immigration to the US is isomorphic to economic development in this regard.
- kbutler 7y ago
  ...or exist in history, but their position changed because it was politically unpopular. Sierra Club 1989: "Immigration to the United States should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the United States...since it is the fact of increasing numbers that affects population growth and ultimately, the quality of the environment." Through the 90s and 2000s, there have been heated (and close) votes on immigration policy. https://cis.org/Sussis/Brief-Chronology-Sierra-Clubs-Retreat-ImmigrationPopulation-Connection-Updated https://cis.org/Sussis/Brief-Chronology-Sierra-Clubs-Retreat...
gedy 7y ago
You'd think so, but I fear many of these groups are more interested in political agendas than scientific or practical change.

arrrg 7y ago

If all humans were killed climate change would also be a solved problem. Cures that are worse than the disease do exist and are unacceptable. One central tenet also among environmental advocacy groups is in general that climate change advocacy cannot be used as a tool for oppression with a “we got what we want, fuck everyone else” attitude.

deogeo 7y ago
Is not immigrating to the US really a fate so horrible you'd compare it to all humans being killed?
- arrrg 7y ago
  Obviously not. I picked the extreme, absurd and obvious to everyone example to make the principle behind the thinking clear. It’s for illustrative purposes only.
ratboy666 7y ago
Not remotely true -- the climate would still change. The question is "Is climate change a problem?". Personally, I don't like the idea that the expression of some latent genes may produce this monster: https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was_as_big_as_trex.html https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was... Which is only possibly if the temperature goes up considerably. Which means that my answer is: "Yes, some climate change is a problem". From the perspective of the giant snakes, the answer is the same: yes, climate cooling is a problem. Go figure, the same answer on any change. On the contrary, climate staying the same? Trees are, in general, happier if there is more CO2. There are lots of trees -- if they had a "vote", I'm pretty sure they want more CO2. So, in favour of warming. All of this (our needs, snake needs, tree needs, etc) makes for a very interesting and complex problem. What I don't understand is "climate change advocacy". Given that the climate changes, is that advocacy for more change? Less change? And how is this a "tool for oppression"? I live in Canada -- we have a carbon tax, which is oppressive. Can you clarify a bit? Thanks in advance FredW

dragonwriter 7y ago

> I've wondered why environmental advocacy groups are not more vocal in support of curtailing immigration into the US. If the American lifestyle is more resource intense, wouldn't that be a natural stance to take? No, I mean, not unless you are talking about the kind of environmental groups that exist only in the propaganda of anti-environmental groups, that also campaign against economic development per se, since immigration to the US is isomorphic to economic development in this regard.

kbutler 7y ago
...or exist in history, but their position changed because it was politically unpopular. Sierra Club 1989: "Immigration to the United States should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the United States...since it is the fact of increasing numbers that affects population growth and ultimately, the quality of the environment." Through the 90s and 2000s, there have been heated (and close) votes on immigration policy. https://cis.org/Sussis/Brief-Chronology-Sierra-Clubs-Retreat-ImmigrationPopulation-Connection-Updated https://cis.org/Sussis/Brief-Chronology-Sierra-Clubs-Retreat...

gedy 7y ago

You'd think so, but I fear many of these groups are more interested in political agendas than scientific or practical change.