Cut Immigration, Save the Environment
Population: The Sierra Club is voting where
others fear to tread:
too many newcomers in the U.S.?
By BEN ZUCKERMAN
(Published March 15, 1998, Los
Angeles Times)
Translate
We in the Sierra Club have a dream--of
clear free-flowing streams, of protected towering wilderness, of bracing
clean air and of stability in the lives of all. Sadly, reality is quite
the opposite.
Last June, the president of the U.N. General
Assembly opened Earth Summit II saying: "We as a species -- as a planet
-- are teetering on the edge, living unsustainably and perpetuating inequity,
and may soon pass the point of no return."
What causes environmental damage? Not surprisingly,
it's too many people using too much energy and materials. The United States
is now the third most populous country after China and India. Because the
average American consumes so much, we 270 million Americans have as much
worldwide environmental impact as the more than 4 billion people who live
in all of the developing countries of the world combined. To mitigate our
impact, we must cut high individual consumption and stabilize the U.S.
population.
Our population is growing more quickly
than that of any major industrialized country. We should give incentives
to families to have no more than two children (replacement fertility).
But, according to the Census Bureau, post-1970 immigrants (when Congress
raised immigration levels) and their descendants will account for more
than 80% of U.S. population growth between now and mid-21st century, when,
at present growth rates, our population could exceed half a billion.
This is why many environmentalists believe
it essential to change U.S. immigration laws. And this is why the more
than half a million members of the Sierra Club are now voting on what The
Times has called a "litmus test" of "huge importance": An affirmative vote
will direct club leadership to address the environmental consequences of
U.S. immigration policies. Virtually all environmentalists recognize the
huge negative impact of the ever increasing American population. So why
has it been so difficult for the Sierra Club to take a stand on the immigration
issue?
Diane Wittenberg, CEO of Edison EV, speaking
at a UCLA symposium last April, captured the essence of the problem when
she pointed out that most Americans are "environmental-ish" rather than
true "environmentalists." Americans give plenty of lip service to the environment
and perhaps recycle a few items, but when push comes to shove, the environment
takes a back seat. Even many Sierra Club members, unfortunately without
careful thought, rank certain nonenvironmental issues higher on their agendas
than the environment.
Charges of racism and elitism are often
leveled at those who would limit immigration. Given that numerous polls
have shown that a clear majority of African Americans and Latino Americans
favor substantial reductions in both legal and illegal immigration, how
can it be racist to agree? Given that these polls show that it is the poorest
Americans who most strongly favor drastic cuts in immigration levels, how
can it be elitist to agree?
The Wilderness Society and a few other
environmental groups have stated publicly that ecological sustainability
requires lower immigration rates. But most leading environmental organizations
are merely environmental-ish and, like the Sierra Club, have remained quiet
on this subject. Compounding the problem are two other environmental-ish
players: the liberal media and "environmental" politicians like Vice President
Al Gore.
Gore and the Democratic Party support continued
high levels of immigration and have rushed to naturalize immigrants even
when that meant shortcuts on checking their criminal records or legal status.
In the short run this will produce more Democratic voters, but in the longer
run such policies will lead inexorably, sometime in the 22nd century, to
a nation of 1 billion Americans with their highly polluting lifestyle. The
five do-nothing years since Earth Summit I coincide precisely with those
of the Clinton administration.
The liberal media have published millions
of words about the trials and tribulations of individual immigrants. While
individuals deserve compassion, the media should also illuminate how so
very many millions of immigrants, eager to embrace the highly consumptive
American lifestyle, impact the environment both here and abroad. In an
avalanche, each unique, beautiful snowflake pleads not guilty.
Politicians and leading news media and
environmental organizations should be engaging in serious dialogues that
will produce an effective policy that will stabilize the U.S. population;
otherwise we can only anticipate a worse report card for the U.S. at Earth
Summit III.
Ben Zuckerman, an Astronomer and
Member of UCLA's Institute of the Environment, was one of the initiators
of the Sierra Club immigration vote in 1997-1998.
|