Thread: Let's get the tree huggers involved.

Has there ever been a study regarding the how damaging a child is to the ecosystem?
Think of it
How many diapers until potty trained,
30 gallons of water a day (flushing, bathing, washing clothes,
The amount of cotton/silk etc needed to be farmed to make the clothes, three ponds of food a day(min)
A car at 16 and a different one every five years after that (Someone else is driving that car and creating smog with it.
A house when grown and utilities etc etc. until they reach 81.9 years and expire?

Wasn't it called 'people pollution' when we were growing up?

I once read that were it not for immigration, the US would have attained ZPG back in the '70s. Restricting population growth was supposed to ensure a higher future standard of living for us all, where each life was valued. Now we are being criticized by nations who made very different choices and our relative restraint is being used as an argument for open borders. Ironic.

"People pollution"? What is that? Guess you and I 5 must be from a different generation.

No, when I was a kid and people had more kids than they could care for were not given anything free, then there was always the option to use cloth diapers.

My parents had six kids, both of them worked hard, plus, and my mother used cloth diapers (I think that was all there was anyways). Vacations other than camping were unheard of, not one of us were given a car at 16, and if we wanted to drive, we were on our own, as well as the responsibility to provide our own job to support the vehicle. If we were out in the woods and one of us threw a piece of paper on the ground, our father would yell "pick that up now, don't go ruinin' it for someone else!".

This was all common sense, you simply respected other peoples property and the world around you. See there is a huge difference now, illegal aliens coming from third world countries, I do not believe have that same respect.

As for getting the "tree huggers" involved, well......let's just say this, they should be made aware that these people, the ones they are always harping about their "rights", these are the ones making the most overall pollution. Have all illegal aliens leave America, and the 20% reduction in fule the president talked about, we'd accomplish that, plus!

I know most have seen this before, but in case you haven't, this shows where we are headed in the very near future with the forced population growth policies of our INSANE politicians.


http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/headed4.html

When I was a kid, the federal government was harping a lot about the need to maintain population growth (births) at replacement level only. This was during the so-called baby boom era. So what did the people do, they started reducing the number of children they were having. Seems to me you're damned if you do and damned if you don't!

If you do the research you'll find that our country is losing open space and farmland at an alarming rate.

5: I'm glad you posted your point here.

It's a continuing source of frustration to me that people that are supposed to be sympathetic and/or and friendly to environmental concerns, have been conspicuously absent from the immigration and related population debate.

I am neither a demographer nor am I a population dynamics biologist - but, I am quite certain in knowing that:

* Many cities in the US exhibit significant air pollution problems (checked the EPA stats. for asthma, lung cancer lately?)
* Many areas in the arid SW have chronic water shortages,
* We already consume, what about 50%-60% of the world's fossil fuels? (by memory),
* The [permanent] conversion of farmland is occurring unabated,
* Soil erosion and NPS (Non-Point Source) pollution is getting worse in many places,
etc, etc.
* And, oh yeah, there are not enough living wage jobs to go around for the people already here...

Q. Now, which, of any of those problems is made better by the infusion of millions more [often destitute] people?
A. None.

Come on environmentalists and you silent Democrats (I know, the RINOs are hopeless, but realize they are equally culpable), your silence is helping to destroy the country you claim you want to save. Save it while it is still worth saving... SPEAK UP! WHERE IN THE HELL ARE YOU???

Unfortunately, the Globalists are way ahead of you. A Wall Street fund manager named David Gelbaum bought off the Sierra Club with a $100 million "donation". In return the Sierra Club stopped talking about limiting US immigration or population growth.

Sierra Club Won't Acknowledge Effect Of Immigration

By Shawn M. Flynn, Santa Barbara News-Press
3/21/04

While nearly 750,000 Sierra Club members wait for their ballots to arrive by mail, newspapers across the nation run juicy scandal stories about this year's board election. Sadly, most have opted for sensationalism rather than substantive discussion of the divisive issues plaguing this contentious election.

For a decade, the Sierra Club has had to contend with an internal power struggle growing within its ranks. At issue is whether or not the country's most influential environmental group will acknowledge the role of immigration in the United States' exponential population growth -- and the disastrous impact this growth has on our environment, natural resources and quality of life.

Virtually every problem facing this country is made worse by uncontrolled population growth: air and water pollution, habitat and species loss, housing shortages and sprawl, traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, waste disposal, energy consumption, loss of agricultural land, etc.

The Sierra Club -- I should mention here that I'm a life member -- is quite willing to talk about the numerous ways in which overpopulation impacts our environment. What they won't discuss is the way massive immigration impacts overpopulation. A little like trying to reduce unplanned pregnancies without mentioning birth control.

In 1969, the Sierra Club urged Americans to limit our population "in order to achieve balance between population and resources; and to achieve a stable population no later than the year 1990."

A year later, on the very first Earth Day, the club vowed to support policy "that will bring about the stabilization of the population first in the United States and then of the world."

In 1970 our population was 203 million; today it approaches 300 million. What happened?

Immigration happened. And I am not, as columnist Dave Barry likes to say, making this up.

The driving force behind U.S. population growth is immigration and births to immigrants. From 1921 to 1970, we averaged only 195,000 immigrants per year. Then, just about the time American women stopped having so darn many children, we began changing our immigration laws to import more people.

Today, we average 2.25 million legal and illegal immigrants per year. The foreign-born account for 1 in 8 residents, and that doesn't take into account their U.S.-born children.

Irrefutable facts notwithstanding, the Sierra Club refuses even to discuss -- let alone have an opinion about -- the primary contributor to U.S. population growth. Nor can they, even if they want to, because of the club's gag rule.

Sierra Club policy dictates that "those speaking in its name will take no position on immigration levels or on policies governing immigration into the United States."

Back when the main source of population growth was the high fertility rate of American women, it was acceptable, even laudable, for public figures to discuss the subject.

Today, however, no environmental group or politician wants to open the U.S. overpopulation can of worms, because to look inside means taking on the immigration factor.

And that, my fellow environmentalists, will get you labeled a racist.

Slinging charges of racism is a cheap and highly effective way to halt this thorny debate, which is why so few politicians are brave enough to call for lower immigration levels.

The public, on the other hand, has pretty strong feelings on the issue: a recent Roper poll revealed that 76 percent of Americans want immigration rates reduced. I won't believe that every one of them is a racist immigrant-hater.

It's not about race. It's about too many people. Period.

If the old guard Sierra Club board members insist on calling this position "anti-immigration," I must respectfully insist that they begin calling themselves "pro-immigration."

Whether the club's neutrality policy is motivated by ignorance or cowardice, continuing to maintain such a position is tantamount to, as board candidate Richard Lamm says, "environmental malpractice."

Mr. Lamm, a liberal Democratic three-time governor of Colorado, is one of three brave candidates in this election being smeared as "anti-immigration."

He has earned numerous environmental awards.

For more information, visit these Sierra Club activist Web sites: www.susps.org and www.sierrademocracy.org.
The author is Director of Administrative Services, Californians For Population Stabilization.

----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 Santa Barbara News-Press

http://www.capsweb.org/newsroom/media_c ... _club.html

Bowman, MW:

Hey there. Yeah, I have heard about the Sierra Club and related nonsense. I'd be happy if just a few individuals having an independent mind came forward to support the cause. Larger organizations would be great, but, yes, I realize, there's always someone in the background throwing $$$ around to manipulate the politics too... oh well.

hmmmm,,, so woman should stop having babies at 9 mo`s and hold them in the womb until they`re ready to come out as adults?

Hear that ladies? We should start lobbying for a new law.