The past couple of days we've been waiting in a Cold War-esque state of panic, refreshing news websites for word on just how bad the radiation leak in Japan is following an 8.9 magnitude Earthquake and massive tsunami which cut power to the cooling systems of "state of the art" nuclear power plants.
People are googling for worst-case scenario nuclear fallout maps, ordering up potassium iodide pills and gas masks. You name it. Yesterday the roof of the emergency radiation containment building blew sky high and the general climate of the Japanese government has been "We meant do to that!".
There are 'liberals' out and about who, since yesterday of course, swear their ideology has opposed nuclear power from day one. This just isn't the case. Even Obama has repeatedly called for the construction of new nuclear reactors since being elected president.
When the oil spill in the gulf took place, it was very stylish among liberal environmentalists to scold "reckless, impulsive support for offshore drilling" and praise futuristic, advanced solutions like nuclear power plants.
Lets not even talk about the ridiculous concept of maintaining our current power consumptions via solar panels and windmills. Come on. Put down the joint.
Why is the supposedly pro-environment left so ridiculously inconsistent and devoid of a plan? Simple. Political correctness.
The only way we could ever maintain civilizations equipt with modern medicine and transportation without exponentially increasing dependency on nuclear power is by having fewer children until the population no longer massively exceeded the providing capacity of solar/wind.
It's no big secret among environmentalists that the native populations of first-world nations are already shrinking and the noose of environmental laws already tightening around oversized economies. Dandy!
The problem is that between third-world overpopulation and immigration, overall consumption is still sky rocketing, and faster than ever before.
For a liberal to talk about overpopulation inevitably results in the re-examination of some of the most fundamental pillars of the hippie movement: Globalism, open borders, promiscuous sex and reckless reproduction. They'll have to talk about the extreme gaps in birthrates between Mexican Americans and other Americans. They'll have to talk about the ultimate taboo: Africa. While this may be useful raw data to a scientist, to the average TV-raised American, it's "Nazi eugenics" and whatnot.
Suddenly the trendy pseudo-environmentalist is no longer distantly ranting about solar panels and windmills and receiving grins of pity from pedestrians. He's talking about building a Great Wall of America on the southern border, he's talking about teaching kids abstinence, he's talking about mass birth control for Africa and South America. He's offending immigrant/youth demographics he's spent his life pandering to and he's socially alienated from his friends. He's talking like a right-winger, a party pooper. He's raining on the parade.
You may be saying "What, moron? Japan doesn't even have a growing population!"
Even in Japan, a country which has gone to great lengths to maintain lower levels of immigration and ethnic diversity than the chaotic US, industrial growth thrives on exports and services catering to growing populations. Japan, with Germany, maintains one of the highest GDP vs population ratios in the world because it essentially sells tools to countries with lower GDP vs population ratios and massive birthrates. The US would be similar, except that it's artifically swollen it's domestic population via illegal immigration. Which typical liberal environmentalist is going to stand up and identify global population growth as the problem, is going to factually state that Japan's export economy is freakishly, unnaturally large? None. They'd rather accuse atomic physics itself of being at fault. To laymen, they look like the intelligent hero. They're happy.
Sometimes nature reminds us it exists and overpopulation is a bad idea quite blatantly (Indonesian tsunami) and other times by way of destroying extremely dangerous technologies a world with a smaller population would lack the demand for (Chernobyl to feed the population growth of the USSR, Japan to feed the third largest industrial & export economy in the world).
Will the "liberal" piece of the environmentalist pie ever come clean about the root of the problem?
No. they will, instead, alternate between oil and nuclear depending on which one has exploded the least recently, then trail off mumbling something about windmills. What we have on our hands is a trendy fashion statement/sub-culture posing as a political ideology.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Immigration's Human Cost
Sometimes covered on the topic of illegal-immigration are the environmental consequences, the terrorist threat, wage destruction, the threat of extreme and undesired cultural change taking place in the wrong direction, and illegal-immigration taking away from resources intended to help law-abiding, legal immigrants.
On a lesser scale does one seem to hear of the individual victims of criminals allowed into the US via unregulated immigration, and the resulting death toll. A consequence which the seemingly above-the-law deal going on between wealthy employers and illegal immigrants has produced, yet the government seems to be too petrified to question.
Www.immigrationshumancost.org is a website dedicated to telling the stories of those victims and bringing attention to a problem which transcends the usual squabbles over the economic downfalls of our open-borders political path. Safety and human life can not be ignored on the basis of an employer's desire to lower employee's wages. A list of victims (by no means exhaustive).
Technorati Profile
On a lesser scale does one seem to hear of the individual victims of criminals allowed into the US via unregulated immigration, and the resulting death toll. A consequence which the seemingly above-the-law deal going on between wealthy employers and illegal immigrants has produced, yet the government seems to be too petrified to question.
Www.immigrationshumancost.org is a website dedicated to telling the stories of those victims and bringing attention to a problem which transcends the usual squabbles over the economic downfalls of our open-borders political path. Safety and human life can not be ignored on the basis of an employer's desire to lower employee's wages. A list of victims (by no means exhaustive).
Technorati Profile
Thursday, April 17, 2008
UN Population Projections
.svg.png)
More: http://esa.un.org/unpp/(Click image to enlarge)
Note the undeveloped regions' lingering growth rate, even after the majority of the developed world begins to stabilize, and the significant effect on the total world growth rate.
This can be quite striking when further illustrating the proportions of population growth in developed nations versus undeveloped nations (from http://www.sustainablescale.org/AreasofConcern/Population/PopulationandScale/QuickFacts.aspx):
(Click image to enlarge)
Environmental Impact of Immigration
How can immigration have a negative impact on the environment? Those people already exist, don't they? How will just moving from one place to the other alter how much waste they generate?
Carrying Capacity's Jason DinAlt explains:
http://www.carryingcapacity.org/DinAlt.htm
"Since many other authors have dealt with the fertility component of the damage done by unrestrained population growth, I will focus upon the immigration component, though the higher than average fertility rate of immigrants means that there is significant overlap between the two."
"Overwhelmingly, the reason people migrate to the U.S. is to improve their standard of living. This will change the impact they have on various natural resources. In other words, immigrants change their consumption and pollution patterns. It is often easy to quantify these changes - just measure their resource impact both before and after migration, and then compute the percentage change:"
As an example of what DinAlt is illustrating, his table shows that a Vietnamese immigrant in the US will have a 9,249% increase in energy consumption relative to the standard of living in their native homeland, as well as a 7,071% increase in CO2 generation, 175 % in methane production, 2,365 % in fresh water consumption, 802 % in fertilizer consumption, 11,214% in pesticide consumption. The average Indian will experience a 32,350% (!) increase in automobile usage.
He concludes, "...we need to recognize the simple fact that the last thing this world needs is more Americans." What DinAlt means, is that in order to maintain our mechanized American way of life, we can't expect to have the rest of the world be encouraged to adopt it as well. We are already sacrificing individual freedoms to regulate the pollution we alone generate.
And that doesn't mean the negative impacts will only affect America, China, Europe, and other highly industrialized nations, continents and regions combining high consumption with high populations and/or immigration. The impacts, just like unregulated immigration, will not obey borders:
Larry West Explains,
http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/cross_border.htm
"It’s a natural fact that wind and water don’t respect national boundaries. One country’s pollution quickly can, and often does, become another country’s environmental and economic crisis. And because the problem originates in another country, solving it becomes a matter of diplomacy and international relations, leaving the local people who are most affected with few real options.
We Americans already have trouble easing ourselves out of that destructive lifestyle, so why would encouraging the rest of the world to come here and adopt it be a valid solution, much less a humanitarian effort?
Carrying Capacity's Jason DinAlt explains:
http://www.carryingcapacity.org/DinAlt.htm
"Since many other authors have dealt with the fertility component of the damage done by unrestrained population growth, I will focus upon the immigration component, though the higher than average fertility rate of immigrants means that there is significant overlap between the two."
"Overwhelmingly, the reason people migrate to the U.S. is to improve their standard of living. This will change the impact they have on various natural resources. In other words, immigrants change their consumption and pollution patterns. It is often easy to quantify these changes - just measure their resource impact both before and after migration, and then compute the percentage change:"
The percentage change in pollution or depletion rate for one resource =
(U.S. per capita rate - sending country's per capita rate) x 100
---------------------------------------------------------------
sending country's per capita rate.
For example. consider someone who migrates from a hypothetical country where the average ChloroFlouroCarbon (CFC) emission per capita is 0.02 metric tons. When that person comes to America emission increases to 0.52 metric tons. That person's resource impact has increased by 2500%. The calculation is simple:"
(.52 - .02) x 100
-----------------
.02
Total U.S. fertility is 2.1 (replacement level), and has been growing rapidly for two decades.| Caucasian | 1.7 |
| African-American | 2.5 |
| Asian | 2.5 |
| Hispanic | 3.9 |
As an example of what DinAlt is illustrating, his table shows that a Vietnamese immigrant in the US will have a 9,249% increase in energy consumption relative to the standard of living in their native homeland, as well as a 7,071% increase in CO2 generation, 175 % in methane production, 2,365 % in fresh water consumption, 802 % in fertilizer consumption, 11,214% in pesticide consumption. The average Indian will experience a 32,350% (!) increase in automobile usage.
Consumption/Pollution Changes for Legal Immigrants Coming From the Ten Main Sending Countries
| COUNTRY | exUSSR | Philippines | Vietnam | Mexico | China | India | Dom.Rep. | Korea | Jamaica | Iran |
| Number of Legal Immigrants | 56,839 | 55,376 | 55,278 | 52,866 | 31,629 | 31,165 | 30,177 | 21,628 | 18,025 | 16,019 |
| Energy Consumption | 55 % | 3386 % | 9249 % | 508 % | 1182% | 3236% | 2506 % | 358 % | 1087 % | 507 % |
| Cattle Production | -4 % | 1379 % | 751 % | 16 % | 499 % | 73 % | 29 % | 684 % | 236 % | 166 % |
| Fish Production | -41 % | -31 % | 77 % | 44 % | 134 % | 443 % | 658 % | -65 % | 435 % | 384 % |
| CFC Production | 125 % | 3155 % | ------- | 824 % | 4851% | 11,025% | ------- | 346 % | 28 % | 850 % |
| CO2 (Industrial) | 48 % | 2877 % | 7071 % | 441 % | 832 % | 2457 % | 1977 % | 278 % | 881 % | 542 % |
| CO2 (Land use change) | ------- | -97 % | -96 % | -96 % | ------- | -37 % | -51 % | ------- | 73 % | ------- |
| Methane Production | 26 % | 286 % | 175 % | 472 % | 323 % | 252 % | 565 % | 429 % | 1929 % | 441 % |
| Freshwater Consumption | 53 % | 296 % | 2365 % | 206 % | 364 % | 321 % | 352 % | 649 % | 1341 % | 125 % |
| Fertilizer Consumption | 19 % | 772 % | 802 % | 270 % | 915 % | 452 % | 1182 % | 255 % | 494 % | 247 % |
| Pesticide Consumption | -19 % | 2018 % | 11214% | 380 % | 971 % | 2307 % | 226 % | 422 % | 160 % | ------- |
| Car Usage | 900 % | 7700 % | ------- | 600 % | ------- | 32350 % | 2750 % | 1800% | 2750% | 1200% |
| Defense Spending | ------- | 6973 % | ------- | 15057% | 21120% | 10510 % | ------- | 622 % | ------- | 3216% |
He concludes, "...we need to recognize the simple fact that the last thing this world needs is more Americans." What DinAlt means, is that in order to maintain our mechanized American way of life, we can't expect to have the rest of the world be encouraged to adopt it as well. We are already sacrificing individual freedoms to regulate the pollution we alone generate.
And that doesn't mean the negative impacts will only affect America, China, Europe, and other highly industrialized nations, continents and regions combining high consumption with high populations and/or immigration. The impacts, just like unregulated immigration, will not obey borders:
Larry West Explains,
http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/cross_border.htm
"It’s a natural fact that wind and water don’t respect national boundaries. One country’s pollution quickly can, and often does, become another country’s environmental and economic crisis. And because the problem originates in another country, solving it becomes a matter of diplomacy and international relations, leaving the local people who are most affected with few real options.
A good example of this phenomenon is occurring in Asia, where cross-border pollution from China is causing serious environmental problems in Japan and South Korea as the Chinese continue to expand their economy at great environmental cost."
A planet of open borders, where half of the third world can become a fast food consuming, car driving, electricity dependent American with little effort in a matter of years, is hardly an issue of "equality" or disregarding one's place of birth; it's an issue of mutual international suicide.We Americans already have trouble easing ourselves out of that destructive lifestyle, so why would encouraging the rest of the world to come here and adopt it be a valid solution, much less a humanitarian effort?
Click image to John Feeney and BBC's The Green Room on Overpopulation
Environmental writer John Feeney, PhD, advises that we should stop environmental destruction via the root of the problem: "We must end world population growth, then reduce population size."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7078857.stm
"We humans face two problems of desperate importance. The first is our global ecological plight. The second is our difficulty acknowledging the first."
Does he have a point? I believe he does.
When you bring up pollution with most people, the image that naturally pops into their head is going to be a smoking car exhaust, an industrial sector, a mountain of rotting tires. Yet despite significantly cleaner cars and tighter environmental regulations than 30 years ago, negative human impact is rapidly becoming an even more critical concern. What do the above mentioned contributors of pollution have in common? For every human in an industrialized nation, the demand for these pollutant contributors increases. We have made progress in the improving the environmental qualities of these factors, yet we simply cannot keep up with the quantities and demand reflected by a rapidly growing industrialized population.
The chicken or the egg? In this case, it's not which came first, it's which one has gotta go. Do we sacrifice our freedom to technologically innovate, our transportation, our standard of living, whilst merely delaying the inevitable destruction of our health and planet, just for the sake of ignoring the controversial root of the problem? In my eyes, a sustainable solution is far more feasible than futile delay. And let's not forget that this type of pollution isn't the only wall overpopulation will eventually lead us into; fresh water, 2% of water on Earth, is already very finite. Previously featured on CSNBC, Green Chip Stocks (http://www.greenchipstocks.com) even states: "The Earth is running out of fresh water."and "...the water industry closely resembles the oil industry in its infancy..." recommending early investment in fresh water as a precious resource. Population growth in Africa has repeatedly outpaced the development of agriculture to feed children. An estimated 97% of urban Indian drinking water is contaminated with human feces. We can hit many birds with one stone.
As Feeney puts it: "Inevitably, our numbers will come down, whether voluntarily or through such natural means as famine or disease."
Visit John Feeneys own overpopulation blog at growthmadness.org
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7078857.stm
"We humans face two problems of desperate importance. The first is our global ecological plight. The second is our difficulty acknowledging the first."
Does he have a point? I believe he does.
When you bring up pollution with most people, the image that naturally pops into their head is going to be a smoking car exhaust, an industrial sector, a mountain of rotting tires. Yet despite significantly cleaner cars and tighter environmental regulations than 30 years ago, negative human impact is rapidly becoming an even more critical concern. What do the above mentioned contributors of pollution have in common? For every human in an industrialized nation, the demand for these pollutant contributors increases. We have made progress in the improving the environmental qualities of these factors, yet we simply cannot keep up with the quantities and demand reflected by a rapidly growing industrialized population.
The chicken or the egg? In this case, it's not which came first, it's which one has gotta go. Do we sacrifice our freedom to technologically innovate, our transportation, our standard of living, whilst merely delaying the inevitable destruction of our health and planet, just for the sake of ignoring the controversial root of the problem? In my eyes, a sustainable solution is far more feasible than futile delay. And let's not forget that this type of pollution isn't the only wall overpopulation will eventually lead us into; fresh water, 2% of water on Earth, is already very finite. Previously featured on CSNBC, Green Chip Stocks (http://www.greenchipstocks.com) even states: "The Earth is running out of fresh water."and "...the water industry closely resembles the oil industry in its infancy..." recommending early investment in fresh water as a precious resource. Population growth in Africa has repeatedly outpaced the development of agriculture to feed children. An estimated 97% of urban Indian drinking water is contaminated with human feces. We can hit many birds with one stone.
As Feeney puts it: "Inevitably, our numbers will come down, whether voluntarily or through such natural means as famine or disease."
Visit John Feeneys own overpopulation blog at growthmadness.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
