Thread: Last Coverage of Illegal Immigration on Lou Dobbs?

I watched Lou in June every night, and very little on illegal immigration. I know 'republicans' who say its not a big issue now, that was last year, stuff like that.

I would really like to see us form a "talk show group" because you can reach more people on talk shows, and lots of more conservatives are allowed to call in to air america, and the few lib talk shows. Most dems dont want illegal immigrations, most dems support gun rights.

On his Aug. 5 broadcast Dobbs introduced the topic of immigration indirectly in one of the most intelligent means possible - it's impact on population growth - as part a discussion of "Halting Population Growth to Stem Environmental Damage". He came down on well-known environmental groups for failing to include population growth as a major factor, and he spoke of the Sierra Club in particular. I had read that the Sierra Club accepted a huge contribution from the a wealthy donor, the son of European refugees, on the condition that they would not make immigration control a part of their program, and, in fact, cease mentioning it at all.

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

Home from North Korea; Summer of Discontent; Health Care that Works?; Your Government at Work; Health Care Being Debated in Town Halls over Recess; Economy Experiencing Jobless Recovery; Halting Population Growth to Stem Environmental Damage

Aired August 5, 2009 - 19:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LOU DOBBS, HOST: Good evening, everybody.

DOBBS: New evidence tonight on the negative impact of overpopulation on the environment. Researchers say there is a much better way to reduce our carbon footprint than driving hybrid cars, using energy-saving bulbs, and recycling. Just have fewer children.

Casey Wian with the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: From the tabloid exploits of "Jon and Kate Plus 8" and octomom Nadya Suleman, to the wholesome image of the Duggers and their 18 children, Americans seem obsessed with super- sized families.

But there's what some might consider a dark side beyond the allegations of infidelity and exploitation. Just those 40 reality TV offspring are likely to be responsible for nearly 400,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas causing carbon dioxide emissions.

A newly released Oregon State University study suggests having multiple children may be the most environmentally damaging of all human activities.

PROF. PAUL MURTAUGH, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: The urge to reproduce is very strong. And people react very strongly when you point out possible negative impacts of reproduction or growing population. So it is a very touchy area that really hasn't been talked about much.

WIAN: The researchers found that by making all of the following environmentally friendly lifestyle changes -- buying a car with 50 percent better gas mileage, driving 33 percent less, switching to energy-efficient light bulbs and windows, replacing an old refrigerator, and recycling household trash, an American could reduce CO2 emissions by 486 metric tons over a lifetime.

But by simply having one less child, the study concludes, the same American would save more than 9,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, almost 20 times the reduction of living greener.

MURTAUGH: We do not advocate particular policies of restrictions on reproductive freedom, and all we have done is some fairly complicated arithmetic to quantify the impact of a person's choice to reproduce.

WIAN: Such as the anticipated environmental impact of each child's future of offspring.

So while China remains the biggest source of carbon emissions in the world, the report concludes that the negative environmental impact of each additional child in the United States is nearly seven times that of each child in China because of higher U.S. birth rates and longevity and higher per capita emissions.

Ben Zuckerman is a UCLA professor AND FORMER MEMBER OF THE SIERRA CLUB. HE SAYS ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS HAVE LONG INORED THE THREAT OF POPULATION GROWTH.

PROF. BEN ZUCKERMAN, UCLA: The mainstream environmental movement has entirely dropped the ball on this issue. And I think that's really been a disaster for our country.

WIAN: He points to books advocating greener living.

ZUCKERMAN: They list literally hundreds of sort of trivial ways in which one can reduce one's environmental impact on the earth, but they don't even mention population.

WIAN: THE SIERRA CLUB DECLINED TO SPEAK TO US ABOUT THE IMPACT OF POPULATION GROWTH, as did other environmental groups.

The Oregon State researchers say it's important to continue efforts to reduce everyone's so-called carbon footprint, but they conclude that "Clearly the potential savings from reduced preproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle."

In other words, according to EPA figures, having a child in the United States, over time, theoretically produces the greenhouse gas equivalent of burning more than 1 million gallons of gasoline.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: UCLA's Zuckerman says the U.S. government could and should be doing more to encourage limited preproduction and population growth, including CONTROLLING IMMIGRATION, educating the public about the impact of multiple child families, and perhaps even structuring child tax credits to reduce tax breaks for larger families -- Lou?

DOBBS: That's astonishing, Casey. One child, 486 metric tons?

WIAN: Actually, one child over time, over several generations, considering the fact that that child's likely to reproduce, it's over 9,000 metric tons, Lou. It is incredible the amount of environmental impact that overpopulation is having on this planet.

And these scientists are saying it's really getting close to the breaking point. It is going to take a long time to turn this around. They still need to do the recycling and all that, because those are easier fixes.

But for POLITICAL REASONS and behavioral reasons, and religious reasons, changing people's reproductive behavior is much tougher. DOBBS: That is just extraordinary to think that would all add up to 486,000 tons. I mean to me that's -- metric tons -- that's insane. And then to talk about 9,000 to limit reproduction. Those are extraordinary ratios. One wouldn't think either was possible.

I appreciate it. Thank you very much, an amazing report. Casey Wian.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... dt.01.html

That was a tactful and interesting show!

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Lou should check into going to work for fox. Glenn and him would be a great team. Then he could come out and state how CNN censored him.

Fox is going for ratings more than anything, Fox is owned by globalist Rupert Murdock, so things could change there any day, the reason it is staying so conservative........ is because it is a real money maker because all the other MSM is spewing Liberal propaganda right now.