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?
> 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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.