Members of the Sierra Club, the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots environmental group, will receive ballots this month to elect their board of directors, and with that vote will cast their views in the most contentious immigration battle of the year. Immigration is not a new debate for the Sierra Club. In 1998 the membership voted overwhelmingly to stay out… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (106)Page 1 of 1 pagesFunny how Adam didn’t mention that he was defeated for a seat on the Board in the last election by Watson and LaFollette.
Posted by Craig Nelsen on Mar 9, 2004 at 2:52 PM California is already an overpopulated mess. If people distributed themselves evenly across the U.S., things would not be so bad. But everybody wants to live on the coasts. And, of course, everyone wants to consume like Americans. Can’t really blame them for any of this. However, the result is a wreck.
Posted by Paul on Mar 9, 2004 at 5:15 PM The rich favor immigration because they think American workers are overpaid.
Posted by Mike on Mar 9, 2004 at 5:24 PM This article demonstrates how easily a simple story can be artfully inflated to epic proportions.
There is no “hostile takeover bid!” This is inflammatory hyperbole. This is the process of democracy within a large national organization. Those whose oxen are being gored cry foul.
Let the members speak through their votes for candidates who support their views.
Posted by Michael A. lewis on Mar 9, 2004 at 6:07 PM Shame on In These Times for running such biased, unadulterated baloney about the candidates running for the Sierra Club. Werbach doesn’t even mention the website for SUSPS (www.susps.org). And then, in bold letters below this slander is the charge that American media are “unwilling to challenge the half-truths and lies” (of Bush). I’m all for getting that maniac out of the White House, but let’s tell the truth about ALL the issues! Since the 1970s immigration has been the driving force behind our exponential population growth in the U.S. Addressing that truth is not about racism. It’s not about who; it’s about how many. Period.
Posted by Shawn M. Flynn on Mar 10, 2004 at 11:59 AM I can’t believe that some people really believe immigration control is the way to protect the environment. Globally, population growth is a problem for the environment, and we should try to promote women’s health and family planning. However, if we limit immigration to the U.S., we’re not helping stop population growth - we’re just trying to stop population growth in the United States. Somebody who gets stopped at the border isn’t going to do any more damage in the U.S. than they would in any other country. Immigration control is just another way of saying, “not in my backyard, because it’s important to protect our environment here in the U.S. but we don’t care about the environment anywhere else.” Pollution also has a habit of finding its way over artificial borders, so trying to keep it out of our backyard is kind of absurd - do these people really think that air pollution in developing countries is going to stay out of their lungs? A true solution to our environmental destruction has to be a global solution.
Posted by Will Tanzman on Mar 10, 2004 at 5:13 PM Do these people not get it? Like Will Tauzman, who sets up a false either/or argument re: stemming illegal immigration into the US versus working to reduce population increases globally. It is not a case of one or the other, both are necessary. His charge of NIMBYism is also spurious: assuming responsibility for the well being of one’s own people and their laws and borders is appropriate. Nor would allowing unlimited entry into the US ultimately solve the problem. Assistance to other nations in dealing with problems within their own borders would be more effective.
Posted by Charles W. Forslund on Mar 11, 2004 at 10:45 AM When people who join an organization at the last moment in order to run for the highest office it is fair to consider them “takeover” candidates. When those three candidates are the directors of interlocking boards of anti-immigaiton organizations, many funded by arch right-winger Richard Mellon Scaife, it is fair to question their progressive values. When they have shown that they are single-issue candidates who do not even mention that issue, immigration, in their candidate statements it is fair to question their integrity.
Craig Nelson in an earlier comment alludes to the fact that author Adam Werbach was defeated by Paul Watson and Doug LaFollette. Yet neither of those men mentioned immigration in their candidates statements. Nelson coincidentally also runs an anti-immigration organization paid for by right-wing foundations.
The SUSPS group is truly the Know-Nothing Party of the 21st Century - no one will admit to being a member or knowing anything about the organization. Like the Know Nothings, they are nativists who fear the effects of immigration from Catholic countries. One hundred and sixty years later the same xenophobic strains keep appearing. The only reason these candidates are running for the Sierra Club Board of Directors is that it is a convenient takeover target. Alan Kuper, supposed SUSPS founder, has indicated that regardless of the vote this year the immigration-reductionists will keep trying to take over the Sierra Club. They don’t care about the well-being of the club or its currently stated mission.
The member of the Sierra Club have voted against taking a stand on immigration. But the immigration-reductionists do not respect that vote and apparently will keep putting up candidates and ballot issues, backed by mysterious funding, until they succeed. If they ever succeed it will likely mean the end of the Sierra Club as a leader among progressive organizations in the United States. Which will certainly make Scaife (and Scalia) very happy.
Posted by Will McW. on Mar 12, 2004 at 3:05 AM Wasn’t the founder of the Sierra Club an immigrant? Geez, what’s going on here people? We are all interconnected, like it or not. It would be better to look at the larger picture, beyond borders, beyond nationality, heck even beyond species. We need to focus on creating and maintaining sutainabilty, taking some personal accountabiltiy and work towards what is best for the greatest good- not what may serve one’s own ego or national interest.
Posted by jex on Mar 12, 2004 at 10:17 AM Do not allow this hositle takeover of the Sierra Club. I have been a member because of the enlightened attitude about the enviorment, not to an organization that is anti-immigration. This issue is about oil and water - they don’t mix.
Posted by judybwales on Mar 18, 2004 at 2:04 PM When did Sierra Club come up with a policy on women’s health and family planning? Where can I find a copy of it and a description of their efforts in this area? I haven’t been a member for many years, but this is the first I’ve heard that they share these concerns. Most of the groups that really work to promote women’s health and family planning are feminist groups.
Posted by Beverly Miller on Mar 18, 2004 at 2:27 PM I do not underdstand why you consider the anti-immigration agend a “hostile takeover” I believe our environment is being damaged by the backwash of every third world country trashing up ours. I am in favor of restricting immigration to responsible people.
Posted by Charles O. Harrison on Mar 18, 2004 at 2:33 PM I am very much in support of maintaining stability in population numbers. The greatest danger to world ecology is over-population. I wonder if this group describes themselves as anti-immigration or pro-zero-population growth.
Posted by Jill Ginghofer on Mar 18, 2004 at 2:36 PM You don’t mention the 3 candidates’ names in your article. How will I know not to vote for them?
Posted by Susanna on Mar 18, 2004 at 2:57 PM Paul Watson is NOT--I repeat, NOT_-- a cofounder of Greenpeace. He joined AFTER it was established, got on the board and left when they objected to his violent acts. He is a liar, a criminal (a felony record in Canada which they call an “endictable crime") and will turm Sierra Club into a racist viloent organization. Since he appears to have protections in this country that other felons do not have, one wonders what his real motives are. Maybe to ruin and discredit Sierra Club?
Posted by deb on Mar 18, 2004 at 3:03 PM I am shocked by this. I almost feel as if I were reliving the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Posted by Nino de Prophetis on Mar 18, 2004 at 3:04 PM Is the Doug LaFollette mentioned in the article the same Doug LaFollette that is Secretary of State of Wisconsin?
Posted by Brian on Mar 18, 2004 at 3:09 PM I voted for the anti-takeover block of 5 candidates for the Sierra Club. I am a 30 year member.
BUT:
Lip service to women’s status and decreased American consumption won’t make the population/immigration issue go away. Why let the anti-environmental Heritage Foundation define the population debate as a bigoted right wing plot? Population is an environmental issue, along with women’s status and decreased American consumption. We need to work on all three factors.
Keep up the good work, Werback, I’ve been an admirer of your committment to the environment for a long time.
Posted by Kathy Smith on Mar 18, 2004 at 3:24 PM I lost faith in Sierra Club two years ago when they abandoned several of their activists to preserve “unity” among environmental groups in GA.
The issue involved a consent decree already won by SC against the injection of municipal waste into Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDW). Instead of supporting its activists and enforcing their own consent decree, they took a hands off approach and abandoned their GA activists and consent decree to maintain unity with Upper Chattahoochee River Keeper who recieved large contributions from the consulting firms seeking to build billion dollar sewer tunnels that will contaminate USDW’s in the Piedmont Blue Ridge Aquifers. This info is well documented on the following 2 websites by third party referances - please visit
www.stupidtunnel.com and www.cleanstreams.orgThen ask Sierra Club to protect USDW’s and enforce their hard fought consent decree to protect groundwater. I don’t know if this is a problem with National or just GA Chapter - but when it comes to protecting drinking water the club has gone south in GA.
Posted by Troy Burns on Mar 18, 2004 at 4:23 PM The idea that Polulation Control=Environmental Stability is championed by none other than Pat Buchanan. Hell, on that note alone, I’m against this theory!!!
Posted by Heather R. on Mar 18, 2004 at 4:26 PM The bigots have half a loaf and half a brain. Consumption is much more serious.
Posted by John E. Hanks on Mar 18, 2004 at 4:31 PM Well folks, there is a big difference in control & limit. I don’t think these right-wingers want to control immigration any more than they want to control pollution! They would stop immigration and then remove the restraints put on large corporations to fight pollution. I do feel that board members should have to fill other duties and be pro-active in all areas of the organization before holding such a high position. Well, with any luck Kerry will be the next president and our country will start to rebuild as a democracy and we can address environmental issues again instead of waging war all over the globe.
Posted by R.Green on Mar 18, 2004 at 5:36 PM (Paul) Spreading the population of the United States evenly over the entire nation would be an unmitigated disaster. More roads, less open space, more pollution, etc. One of the most heinous population trends in the western U.S. is the advent of the 1 to 5 acre ranch. The real solution is to build a system of public transportation that allows more condensing of population centers, not less. California is a wreck because of dependence on the automobile. All of the population of LA should be living at the density of New York City, not Crawford Texas. If that were to happen, LA would be a great place to live instead of a hell-hole.
(Shawn) The population of the United States is not on an exponential growth pattern, it’s approaching zero population growth, even with immigration. The options of abortion and birth control have helped get it under control. Which is exactly why people had the epiphany “prosperity and family planning => zero population growth”. Smart environmentalists are working to bring family planning and prosperity to developing nations. In the developed world, we need to curb consumption.
Controlling immigration into the U.S. will have a much smaller impact that convincing the 300mil people already here to cut their consuption in half. It would be like cutting our population in half, in which case immigration would be a non-issue - a drop in the bucket compared to the impact current citizens have.
Consider this:
People developing nation have more children. Their children have lots of children, and so on. Take that same person and bring them to the U.S. They become prosperous and have many children but not as many as they would have. Their children become prosperous and have even less children. Within a few generations - sometimes even just one generation - immigrant women can start choosing a career over family. How many millions of people will not be born every year because young, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrant women can make that choice?
Let’s guess how that might work:
Person A: stays in poor nation: has 12 children each of which has 12 children each of which has 12 children: 1728 humans born
Person B: comes to U.S: has 8 children who have 5 children who have 3 children: 120 humans born
Demographic issues are never simple. Look at the long-term picture and you’ll see that this issue shouldn’t be on the Sierra Club’s radar. Consumption and public transportation should be top priority.
Posted by Patrick Bennett on Mar 18, 2004 at 5:50 PM This article is full of lies. Just like the idiots at Moveon.org, they are using their reactionist tactics to try and scare people away from real issues. Anyone know knows ANYTHING about the environment knows that immigration plays a factor. Look at all the crap the illegal aliens leave in the desert. Look at all the damage they do in crossing the border. If they would just open hunting season on them we could all rest easy.
Posted by Bob Lionel on Mar 18, 2004 at 6:13 PM Subject: On one point with Bush,Bossi:’Hands off the children, you pigs’
Time: 6:42:56 AM SST
Author: cescgian‘Hands off the children, you pigs’
During a Northern League convention in September, Bossi denounced homosexual couples wanting to adopt children.
“Something terrible is happening: European occult powers are trying to convince us that homosexual couples can adopt children. I believe that everybody is free to do what he or she wants, but we cannot ask the law to grant what nature denies,” he told the party faithful.
Referring to those demands by homosexual couples, he said: “Hands off the children, you pigs.”
Demonstrators carried placards with slogans such as, “Let’s save our traditions” and “On that land, there already is the urine of our pigs.”
At his party conference, Bossi told supporters the EU was “the new fascism because it refuses to accept popular sovereignty,” and demanded “civil resistance against the technocratic and corrupt European superstate.”
“Bossi has always rejected Haiderís views, so I think it is a mistake to put them on the same level,” says National Alliance parliament member Gustavo Selva.
Bossi, however, has on occasion called the European Union “the western Soviet Union,” and described Brussels as a “bureaucratic thief with no family values.”
http://www.federalistjustice.org/
Posted by 'Hands off the children, you pigs' on Mar 18, 2004 at 6:19 PM ‘In Europe everybody is living under his church’
Posted by 'Hands off the children, you pigs' on Mar 18, 2004 at 6:20 PM At issue is not whether the environmental organization should place priorities in population control and hunting. And it is certainly not whether or not to take a stand on where people live ñ immigration.
The question is whether grassroots non-profits will be able to withstand abuses resulting from imperfect democratic processes.
Hopefully, more than the usual 8 1/2% of members will vote this time and their determination to defend the Club will not be too diluted by the distribution of votes among 17 candidates plus write-ins.
Posted by Dave on Mar 18, 2004 at 6:25 PM I urge all concerned persons togo to or-
www.splcenter.org - You will see that the motives behind the takeover attempt are by on means linited innocently to immigration.
Posted by Faz on Mar 18, 2004 at 7:19 PM To Patrick Bennet: Just for the sake of argument, let’s consider the narrow question of the effect of immigration on “the environment”. Even though immigration to the US may result in a smaller increase in (global) population, because the level of per capita consumption in the US is so much higher (I believe 35 times that of the poorest countries), those 120 individuals will actually have an impact on the environment 2 or 2 1/2 times greater than the 1728 persons in (let’s say) Central America. So if Watson is looking at this picture without regard to human values, he may have a point.
What amazes me is the idea that this anti-immigration Sierra Club would somehow weild it’s power in a way that will make any significant difference. Wow !
Posted by Ingrid on Mar 18, 2004 at 7:50 PM This is a shame that people that have Bush “ideology” would try and subvert this orginazation for personal benefit/use. This was an informative but troublesome story. Lets not let these screwballs take-over and destroy what most people hold dear. Our grandchildren deserve a chance to enjoy nature.
Posted by Rusty Riley on Mar 18, 2004 at 8:21 PM If Immigration is an issue, the stance taken by the Beautiful Sierra Club, is stupid. The stance of giving women birth control to control population is like looking at a hill in front of you, and then deciding to go the other way to get to it.
Posted by J.Schinkel on Mar 18, 2004 at 8:29 PM This is just one more way that the Middle Ages continues with the so called religious wars based upon the bigotry of the churches and the right wing of this country.
If we would fund and educate the poor, then none of this would be a problem anywhere.
Ignorance and selfishness have been at work yet again.
Get rid of the bigots, the Bushes, and the churches, and this will be a better world.
Arnold Lewis
Posted by Arnold Lewis on Mar 18, 2004 at 8:54 PM Seems to me paul watson is right . To many people in the U.S. already . Their will be no room for any animal habitat if we allow continued immigration .
Posted by David Wahl on Mar 18, 2004 at 9:10 PM There are many of us in Colorado who have kn own Dick Lamm for years and do not think of him as hostle or threatening but a sound person who sound ideas . Maybe he is just what Sierra Club needs.
Posted by csmith Steen-Smith on Mar 18, 2004 at 9:20 PM Excuse me but the Sierra Club along with Mervyn’s and others, such as Red Lobster supported Prop. 187 The anti-latino immigration initiative placed on the ballot in CA in 1998. Get it straight!
Posted by M Hammerberg on Mar 18, 2004 at 9:55 PM What’s with the misandry? Why is it an environmental imperative tor aise the status of women? How Gender biased can you get? Why not raise the status of people? Why be misandrist?
Posted by Patrick on Mar 18, 2004 at 10:02 PM I don’t see the revalance between immigration and the enviroment.
To tie immagration with the enviroment is nothing more than an excuse to turn good enviromental organization into a platform for racist people. So who’s next?, Natural Resources Defense Council?, The Enviromental Defence Fund?.
If the take over is sucessful then I won’t be donating any money to the sierra club
Posted by David Gomez on Mar 18, 2004 at 10:13 PM Anyone who blames the ruination of this or any country’s environment on “backwash from third-world countries” needs a seriously intense history lesson. Yesterday’s backwash is todays ENTIRE POPULATION, and often the strongest voices for a progressive movement are those of the recently educated. When talking about this environment in this or that country, try to remember this: Different tree, same environment. When talking about actual people, try to remember this: different skin, different language, same species, SAME PLANET. Diversity and inclusion are good things. We are one humanity; Fight the isolationists.
Posted by Tim Slater on Mar 18, 2004 at 10:15 PM This is from Sierra Club website - Addressed to the lady who thinks the SC does not have a population committee
Overview
Population Reports
Activist Resources
Family Planning in the US
Family Planning Around the World
Global Gag Rule
Advancing Women’s Rights: CEDAW
Consumption
Frequently Asked Questions
Factsheets
Get involved!
Population Report
Summer 2003
Printer-friendly version of this page
Let’s Get Active!
Summer 2003 was filled with international experiences for the Global Population and Environment Program. Between working with youth activists from Mexico and journeying to Ecuador to visit Population and Environment programs, there were many exciting opportunities to extend our work beyond our borders. In this section, find out more about where the program traveled this summer and what population activists did in their local communities.
Please contact the Global Population and Environment Program with details about your events, presentations and other gatherings. Send us photographs and your creative ideas. We encourage new activists to reach out and let us know about the great work that you do. Contact Sarah Fairchild at 202.675.2396 or to let her know about what is happening in your area or for help in planning an event.
Posted by Jeanne Karpenko on Mar 18, 2004 at 10:39 PM Present levels of immigration into the US are absolutely unsustainable, and must be addressed.
We should model our immigration policy on Mexico’s- they don’t want YOU either.
Why do we focus on US attempts at stemming the flow of Mexican illegals, instead of on the fact that Mexico shoots the Guatemalans that violate their southern border?
Or, if you’re a non-professional, try moving to Jamaica sometime. They won’t let you because it’s not to their benefit.
Illegals are only allowed into this country in order to provide a ready supply of cheap labor for GW and his buddies to exploit.
Just my .02
Marv
PS: We drive electric vehicles. Why are YOU still burning gas? If you really cared about the environment you’d figure out a way to stop like I did. Otherwise, every time you pump gas into your car you might as well be casting a vote for Bush/Cheney ‘84!
Posted by J. Marvin Campbell on Mar 18, 2004 at 10:51 PM Adam has gone insane and painted some super environmentalists as “right wingers.” Unbelievable that some interested in justice would make such claims about former Governor Dick Lam (Dem) being a pawn of Richard Mellon Scaife. Before anyone forgets, Dick Lam stopped the Olympics from coming to Colorado because he didn’t want the world trampling his great State’s environment to death. Where are the facts on this issue? Does anyone want to see this country’s populatio rise to 500 million people as predicted by the Census Bureau?
Posted by Patrick Kirby on Mar 18, 2004 at 11:40 PM Illegal invaders from Mexico and South America are ruining this country. Look at the mess they have made of their own countries....now they’re trying to bring poverty and pollution to the United States en masse. These illegal aliens MUST BE STOPPED!!
Posted by JOHN THOMAS on Mar 19, 2004 at 12:26 AM I am oppose to effort to grant valid California drivers licenses and legal documentation to any individuals that are breaking our nation immigration laws.
Posted by John Castillo on Mar 19, 2004 at 1:34 AM Its not about the races of Homo sapiens and where they reside, its about the number of them on the planet and what and how they consume Earth’s resources. Congratulations to J. Marvin Campbell on his electric transportation. Have you considered going vegetarian? The water alone wasted feeding cattle would astound you!
Posted by C. Horner on Mar 19, 2004 at 2:18 AM Where are we being lead to by the Republicans?
The Right Wingers get upset, when we state that their modus operendi is similar to that of the Hitler gang. Right Wing bigots are taking over our government, our resources, our freedom, and even our souls. These recent racial issues are just one more way, to achieve their quest for power & personal wealth through, corruption, and greed. Heil profit!
I feel that we must make a very strong effort to keep this form of anarchism from stripping our freedoms. A few more years in their hands will certainly lead us in that direction. And, heaven help us if another crazy Hitler evolves from all this.
Yes, it can happen here.
Posted by Walter Przypek on Mar 19, 2004 at 2:35 AM Dont call me racist because I am anti the current expansive immigration policies. Hasnt the Sierra Club ever heard of the Lifeboat principle? We threaten this country for many reasons by allowing close to unlimited immigration - there should be a severe hold for several years. There are too many people in the uSA and you want to rectify this by letting in MORE people? Cookoo.
Posted by A.Moffat on Mar 19, 2004 at 6:57 AM Middle America will begin to reduce waste as the effects of globalization bring the reality of a lower standard of living. Globalization has begun and can’t be reversed, maybe slowed by policy eg immigration. My advise get ready and be prepared your about to see how life was for prior generations. Self serving philosophies have aided this process and continue to.
Posted by m dincher on Mar 19, 2004 at 7:24 AM I belive that many issues are inter-related when it comes to preserving our environment. But the Sierra Club should NOT be FOCUSED on immigration/population issues. There are other organizations, such as Zero Population Growth (zpg.org) that ARE focussed on that concern and should be funded and supported, if that is what you care most about. World pop. growth has been a major concern for me for many years, but I don’t want to see the Sierra Club tackle that problem. I have already voted, and not for the take-over candidates. Let them get involved in more appropriate groups, and not try to use the well-funded coffers of the Sierra Club.
Posted by Danielle on Mar 19, 2004 at 7:28 AM The anti immigration candidates do they support an international program of sex education, condom and pill distribution and abortion as part of the means to control immigration or do they just want to close the fences. One with out the other seems to be a `head in the sand` kind of response to the problem.
Posted by ken on Mar 19, 2004 at 7:56 AM Which of the following have a greater impact on the environment - immigration or gas sucking SUVs?
Posted by J Hallinan on Mar 19, 2004 at 8:48 AM No one has mentioned from WHERE these immigrants in question are coming. Also, let’s have some stats: How many people from what country are coming to the US and staying for more than, say, three years?
Posted by M Brooks on Mar 19, 2004 at 9:34 AM having lived in places with heavy immigration traffic I have somehow missed their threat. they live in neighborhoods abandoned by “legals”, take the bus or walk instead of driving gas-using vehicles, and work at jobs legals don’t want-dishwasher, migrant worker, gas station attendant. The legals drive to the corner store, don’t want jobs they consieer demeaning, and are the ones who can afford to move into the foothills and destroy the animal habitat or build ski resorts in the mountains then kill the bears who “intrude” on their resort. Who is the environmental threat here? I have to say it is more dangerous to have irresponsible wealth than illegal aliens.
Posted by j dunn on Mar 19, 2004 at 9:48 AM www.groundswellsierra.org) this web address is incorrect
KMC
PS Dear Adam,
I was one of the first members of the Sierra club back in 1930’s.
I hope you can pull the Club together for the war, not this battle. (think in terms of 50 years).You might like to know that CEEI is getting into every environmental classroom it can.12,000 high schools and 3400 colleges and universities. with 303d reports on the net as well
a smattering of other projects.<www.wcei.org>
You need to make a strong position.
stick to your core issues and dont lets these people using population “issues” in in a factual oriented
environmental organization.It works for CEEI.Max Casebeau
Posted by Max Casebeau on Mar 19, 2004 at 10:54 AM Legal Immigration at its current rate (or any rate at this point) is simply unsustainable. It is not racist, nor political. The United States must start thinking in sustainble terms on all issues if it is to remain a great place to live. As human beings thinking sustainably would solve alot of our problems. One only has to think ahead 20 years at this rate of immigration along with all the other factors (job loss, lack of agricultural land, housing sprawl, habitat open space loss, traffic issues, pollution, consumption(this alone is chilling when immigrants join the American level of consumption x 20 years), education shortfalls/space and on and on.....looking holistically at the big picture of the impact on immigration to this country is very very important at this point. Can Americans put their politics aside...we in the West are threatened by a toxic plume of Chromium 6 nearing the Colorado River water supply....with no water from the Colorado and lots more people hence development each year what will the West do....would we split over progressive/conservative lines...water has been shaped by politics but the need for water is neutral, Chromium 6 in the watersupply is serious for all political affinities...we are all affected....these issues have been growing seriously and affect everyone regardless of race, income, gender while being politicized like a wish-bone.
Immigration is unsustainable for the United States. And people within the United States who are already citizens need to think of the welfare of our own country not in a fearful way but in a respectful thoughtful way.....Giving thoughtful focus to the issue of sustainability is as big as deciding to go to the Moon...And I’m sure for the naysayers looks just as impossible as the Moon did in 1960.
Posted by Ann Wood on Mar 19, 2004 at 11:03 AM This illustrates for me the problem we all have. There are countless issues needing, sometimes desperately, attention by those aware and concerned people who understand what they are all about. When hostile action crops up, it demands money, time, and attention. Most of us are so busy and limited in funds.....what can we do? Go to Public Radio or TV, and look out, it is beginning to look like there are moles in those organizations. It shows up in the way certain issues or candidates are barred from getting their positions aired. Jack W. Small
Posted by Jack W Small on Mar 19, 2004 at 11:06 AM Hogwash! Painting all those concerned about unchecked immigration as being motivated by racism is nothing but bs fear tactics. Immigration is the externalization of what should be an internal cost. Population pressure is the ONLY environmental problem we have; all other issues are symptoms of over population. I left the Sierra Club in 1998 when the leadership, not the membership, voted overwhelmingly to stay out of the immigration issue. What a lack of forsight and backbone! Lets face it, the Sierra Club leadership didn’t want to offend anyone who might join their fraternity. The Sierra Club abandoned the environment when it chose to ignore the impact of immigation.
Posted by David Springer on Mar 19, 2004 at 11:25 AM Thank you for this information...I will act on what ever I can to assist in maintaining what the Sierra Club is and always will be a positive force in the world....keep up the good work.....eye9.org
Posted by sierra nyokka on Mar 19, 2004 at 12:58 PM THE RIGHT WING CANDIDATES
SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED
AS BOARD MEMBERS UNTIL
THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE IS
RESOLVED. I AM SHOCKED TO
LEARN THAT THERE IS NO
REPRESENTATION OF IMMIGRANTS
ON THE BOARD EVEN NOW. AS USUAL IT IS THE WHITE SUPREMISTS WHO WANT TO STATE
POLICY AND CONTROL EVERYTHING.
Posted by PAT DRESSLER on Mar 19, 2004 at 1:41 PM In These Times _claims_ to favor worker’s rights. However, the last 3 years over 35% of US Software Developers have been displaced by the combination of outsourcing and corporate sponsored immigration policies--and ITT has said relatively little about the worse abuse of US skilled workers since the days of the Robber Barons. Literally H-1b/L-1 expansion have meant the return of indentured servitude to America.
The there is a connection between the envioronment and population. That connection _can_ be affected by technological changes(that allow a larger human population to be supported with fewer environmental demands). However, the corporate sponsored immigration policies the last 15 years have done nothing to speed the rate of such technological advances. The rate of major technological advances(i.e. like the transistor) are slowing down.
During the Bush administrator, the rate of job growth in the US hasn’t kept of with immigration-and the rate of environmental damage has increased--and Bush has moved more agressively than any president to expand immigration. Most of the American public wants less immigration. A truly neutral stand on the part of the Sierra Club--and ITT- would be to support the will of the American people(as measured through major polls).
If you want to be realistically enviornmentalist, you either need to effectively support technological changes that expand human carrying capacity to meet population growth without increasing environmental demands _or_ you have to support population control. There simply isn’t another realistic path. The candidates like Gov. Lamm may be overly pessimistic-but the current Sierra board have simply not been effectively environmentalist.
Posted by Randall Burns on Mar 19, 2004 at 1:55 PM I have a lot of respect for Paul Watson and his work with Sea Shepherds. For decades now, most American population growth has been the result of immigration, not birth rate. I am strongly allied with bohemian subcultures, an ardent environmentalist ...and opposed to excessive immigration; seeing no conflict between these positions. I would like to see a smaller population enjoying a high level of individual freedom and cultural diversity in a less-overcrowded world of abundant wilderness and thriving biodiversity. While the socially conservative Right Wing is assuredly not allied with the Counterculture, neither are the redundant mediocre masses. The doctrinaire Left is wearing ideological blinders about this and driven largely by the psychology of Liberal White Guilt.
Cary G. Robyn
Ecotopian Futurist
Terran Consciousness
Posted by Cary G. Robyn on Mar 19, 2004 at 1:57 PM Thanks for Patrick Bennett for a well-reasoned and unemotional accounting of the issues. On the flip side, I find it disheartening how hate can so filter into people’s minds that both logic and vision beyond one’s back yard goes out the window. Consider a few examples:
(1) “Look at the mess they leave in the desert when they cross over into the US”. Yes, sure, this is a sad effect, but like the man who dams a river and complains about the resultant flooding it’s worth thinking about a little deeper. Surely, sealing off our borders only treats the symtom and not the root cause; it does nothing to solve the problems that drive it, be that civil unrest and violence in the immigrants’ homeland, abject poverty or persecution of any kind (this last one seems a particularly grotesque hypocrisy that says that we have the freedom to condemn the “great unwashed masses” elsewhere to suffer because we’re free not to want them in our back yard).
(2) “When we let these people into our great country, they’ll consume more, thus contribute to all the ills that trample the environment”. How many actually believe that the new immigrants classes all run out and buy a Hummer as their first actions in the US? Odds are that these very immigrants do exactly what we *should* be doing—using public transportation, consuming less, etc.—simply because their economic situation forces that on them.
(3) The unwritten, but very much implied subtext of “these others are spoiling our idylic homeland by dumping all their trash here”. Maybe you should get upset by the multinational dumping poisons in your water or toxins in your soil instead, if you really want to fight the powers that bring about the destruction of the environment. Or as mentioned earlier, learn to do something yourself and lead a less consumptive and waste-generating life.
(4) Ignorance of global population issues. The environment is a global issue and pretending otherwise is the moral equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Remeber “Think Globally, Act Locally”? It appears that some people will miss the reference; I shudder to think that it’s because they don’t actually come to this discussion with any real care for the environment, but merely to peddle their hate.
Anyway, thanks for the article Adam and thanks to the work of the folks at groundswellsierra.org. I know how I’m voting!
Posted by Rafal on Mar 19, 2004 at 2:11 PM I am NOT a member of The Sierra Club since I have storngly disagreed with some of their half truth campaigns and not really knowing WHAT they are addressing but I don’t think taking on a specific political issue will do anything for their already soiled image. Many real conservationists laugh at their mention, they are already far from being an envirnomental protection group in many people’s minds.
Posted by Ellen Keener on Mar 19, 2004 at 2:55 PM I think that people should look to get ALL the facts before they take something verbatum from the Sierra Club.
I have been a member since about 1980, and I am disgusted with the repression of any discussion of OVERpopulation and OVERimmigration (yes, it is the numbers, not a race issue).
Thru the mid 90’s, overpopulation was a major issue of the SC. Before it was “taken over” by those with a single view point.
Sierra Club does not allow ANY discussion of these issues in it ‘s primary medium to reach its members, the Sierran magazine.
How can any election by a club be fair and binding if NO discussion is allowed and all members who favor these discussions are called racists! This my friends is DEMAGOGORY!
We must have a fair, unbiased discussion of these most important environmental issues, not repression.
Move On.com should be more careful in the future
Posted by Greg Moser on Mar 19, 2004 at 2:59 PM I think you should do your homework before accepting as gospel something from a group that is very much inbred and closeminded, to say the least. Demagogory comes to mind!
I have been a member of Sierra Club since about 1980 and I have seen a subtle ( and to many a hostile)takeover during that time.
Through the 1970’s, 80’s and much of the 90’s, the Club STRONGLY supported OVERpopulation as a primary issue affecting all other environmental issues.
Then in the mid 90’s SC was “taken over” by people whose main interest was “environmental justice” as The overriding issue. From then on, any discussion of population or especially OVERimmigration was forbidden in the Sierran magazine. Discussion of population was religated to some obscure population committee.
After time, many people who were concerned with population and overimmigration (yes it is the numbers!) could not get any discussion of the issue.
Then there was a vote, where SC called any SC members racists if they dared to discuss the issues. So, the vote to decide if population/ and especially overimmigration was completely surpressed!
That only left one alternative, and that was to get people on the board who would at least discuss the issue and offer both sides in a continuing dialog. But no, repression...so SUSP (made up of SC members) got involved to change the board in a legal, representative, manor.
Since there is
Posted by Greg Moser on Mar 19, 2004 at 3:02 PM I am a bit confused by this story actually. Are you saying that the conservatives who are trying to take over have another agenda besides immigration? I think population control especially in third world countries and immigration is a very big concern. It is really the root issue for all environmental problems too many humans consuming way way too much!!!!!
Posted by Deanne Sabeck on Mar 19, 2004 at 7:40 PM You’re referring to Dick Lamm, a great governor for the state of Co. and a friend of the enviornment. Get real! The immigrants are trashing our country with litter, illiteracy, sucking hospitals and school systems dry, impacting our insurance rates (because they don’t have insurance), sending in excess of $10 billion U.S. dollars to Mexico annually, filling up our jails, committing crimes then disappearing, robbing blue collar people of their jobs and you say to get birth control. Ha! what a laugh! Our sewers, water systems and just all the stuff that goes with over population can directly be related to illegal immigration. The counts are probably off by millions as to how many illegals are here polluting my country. Dick Lamm has always been a champion of what’s RIGHT and not politically correct. I personally appreciate someone who tells it like it is. Artha Ortiz
Posted by a.l. ortiz on Mar 19, 2004 at 9:40 PM I am a Sierra Club member and have received my paper ballot, but have not yet voted. Everytime tonight I have tried to access the list of people who are trying for a hostile takeover of the club, I get a message saying a connection failure has occurred. How can I get this information?
Posted by Persis R. Shook on Mar 19, 2004 at 11:38 PM I am a Sierra Club member and have received my paper ballot, but have not yet voted. Everytime tonight I have tried to access the list of people who are trying for a hostile takeover of the club, I get a message saying a connection failure has occurred. How can I get this information?
Posted by Persis R. Shook on Mar 19, 2004 at 11:42 PM Please ask member of sierra club members to bycott clear chennel by bycotting every advertiser on that chennel . Since most of the
Talk sgow hosts form republican
and right winger are broad casting on that chennel. Main stream America must unite and act econically. People like scafe only understand hit in pocket book. So let us the language they can understand.sincerely
bill sharma
Posted by virinderksharma on Mar 20, 2004 at 12:54 AM There is a blog at: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_02_29_dneiwert_archive.html
which has a pdf file w/ the anti-immigration candidates names and an analysis.
Posted by Melinda Beuf on Mar 20, 2004 at 2:45 AM If you want to protect the environment, wouldn’t you rather have _more_ people in the US driving cars that are subject to strict pollution controls and having access to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, than driving ancient high-smog cars and living in majority-Catholic countries where access to birth control is much more limited? Sierra Club should _support_ immigration to the U.S.!
Posted by Emily A-F on Mar 20, 2004 at 3:52 PM Unity! I believe working to stop immigration is pissing up a rope: even if these people (irregardless their motives) are successful, the environmental problems in the source countries spill over our barricaded borders. Yo, Nationalists; let’s think globally (por favor, please, bitte, si vous plais).
Posted by Mike Beaty on Mar 20, 2004 at 10:01 PM Based on their recent support for corporate freindly Medicare reform, the AARP has already been copted by the adminisitration. The idea of a right wing conspiracy to take-over non-governmental powers seems less paranoid than it once did.
Posted by Lee Neulicht on Mar 21, 2004 at 8:21 AM Al one needs to do is read the disingeneous screeds posted by the anti-immigrant crowd to understand why this is such an important issue. Many of their arguments(sic) are so openly bigoted it’s scary. For example “People developing nation have more children. Their children have lots of children, and so on. “ Sheeeessssh!
Posted by Aram on Mar 21, 2004 at 11:44 AM It is interesting to read the accusations of polluting and environmental abuse levied against hispanic immigrants. I have recently been observing several Marin County car washes that daily send hundreds of gallons of polluted water to the protected waterways of San Francisco Bay. They employ many hispanic immigrants probably at minimum wage and illegally(many of them hide their faces if I am taking photographs). I question these immigrant’s responsiblilty for the constant stream of contaminated water that flows from these facilities and the garbage on the adjacent marsh. The affluent patrons of these facilities see the water flowing off the lot into storm drains and never question it, they drop their trash just like the ‘immigrants’ and never seem to make it a priority to pick up after someone else “just because they care”. The owners of these facilities lie and say this is “clean water” that drips off the vehicles. And MOST importantly the county enforcement agency and the BAWQCB has not issued a single citation to the owners for illegal discharge in the 2 1/2 years I have been documenting and requesting regulation.
If immigrants trash ‘our environment” it is only because we set such a fine example and our law enforcement stands by idle while enviromental crime goes on.
Population, immigration and the environment are global issues not to be solved by isolationism. We need to hold ourselves (largest users of energy and resources per capita) accountable and not point fingers at the less fortunate people that make our wasteful lifestyles possible.
Posted by Sarah Mannell on Mar 21, 2004 at 2:05 PM A persons history or herstory is always a problem when it comes to choice. Paul Watson seems to be the right candidate so of course the rap sheet in Canada would surface. Frankly, radical approaches such as his should be admired unfortunately the sinking of fishery vessels and or hostile take overs of the Sierra Club will not stop all of these things from occuring. Quite frankly people are frozen because they are confused and they are confused because of forces far greater than us that are at work creating this confusion- better written illusion.
Posted by Veronica on Mar 21, 2004 at 4:07 PM I think immigration ought to have some controls; we can’t be the social safety valve for bad governance in half the world. I also think we should get rid of our antediluvian attitudes toward supporting birth control and abortion, coming out foursquare in favor of funding both throughout the world. If other countries, on the other hand, want to obey mystically based authorities on the subject, and foster unlimited population growth, I don’t see that we should have to pay for their shortsightedness. It’s all well and good to have sympathy for children and the poor, but other nations’ elites have a responsibility to lead their countries on economically and ecologically sustainable paths. Arguments coming from the Vatican and fundamentalists on the one hand, and open-borders activists on the other, don’t address those questions. Certainly, our own land-use policies here at home, coupled with Americans’ appetites for big houses and big cars, are central to our sprawl dilemma, but untrammeled immigration only contributes to the anti-nature, pro-growth juggernaut in this country.
I don’t dislike immigrants; I am one. I certainly don’t think that individuals who can trace their state-side ancestry back two or more generations are culturally superior. I do think, however, that these Sierra Club activists are trying to grapple with an issue that has great environmental ramifications, but has been--and continues to be here--entirely arrogated by a homocentric bias.
Posted by Ahmet on Mar 22, 2004 at 10:30 AM It is clear that the mission of Sierra Club is lost for those that seek immigration control in the US. Have we forgotten this? Explore, enjoy and protect the Earth. This means we need global solutions not ethnocentrically focused ones on the US. It makes you wonder then, why these candidates are so focused on immigration control in the US. It seems clear to me that they truly have no understanding of what Sierra Club is really about. Get out and vote - see Groundswell Sierra!!!
Posted by Jessica A. Ollis on Mar 22, 2004 at 11:11 AM The Sierra Club should stay out of immigration politics and stick to the issues of environmental protection.
This should include promoting population control by all medically approved methods and family planning education.
Posted by m.enghardt on Mar 22, 2004 at 10:18 PM I do not support immigration!!!! It puts even more of a burden on the enviroment.
Posted by Denise Young on Mar 22, 2004 at 10:32 PM Story seemed incomplete to me. What about the views of the other two mentioned in the article?
Posted by Robert Emery on Mar 22, 2004 at 11:07 PM The “takeover” candidates endorsed by the immigration-reductionist SUSPS caucus are: Dick Lamm, Frank Morris, and David Pimental. They are running on a common slate with Kim McCoy and Roy Van de Hoek.
The slate endorsed by Groundswell Sierra, which is opposing the immigration-reductionists, includes: Nick Aumen, Dave Karpf, Jan O’Connell, Sanjay Ranchod, and Lisa Renstrom. They also support the candidacies of Ed Dobson, Miichael Dorsey, and Chad Hanson.
Posted by Will McW. on Mar 23, 2004 at 4:53 AM insightful...better to know
what’s really happening than
not! thanx
Posted by ms.de'vorah l.kappers on Mar 23, 2004 at 5:02 PM This article and the ensuing debate shows how difficult it remains to talk about mass immigration and its effects on America’s economy, environment, etc.
We on the left need to talk about these issues honestly instead of throwing up calls of ‘racism’ to quell a very important conversation. We forget that our own ‘internal globalization’ hurts the poorest of our American citizens who will work and do work the dirtiest most dangerous jobs in America but because we somehow think it’s ok to give people, any people horrible wages, we are creating a future with more divides to ignite a dynamite of civil strife.
It’s not about ANTI Immigration it’s about ANTi MASS Immigratio, living wages, etc. We don’t help other countries by helping them depopulate their countries.
Posted by Haynes on Mar 23, 2004 at 9:28 PM Let all those who wish to stop immigration do so, but not if YOUR OWN ancestors came from a different part of the world!!!
PS It is so shallow to be part of the polarizing mess: what do the polarizers want? Civil War?!
Posted by Bob Fritsch on Mar 23, 2004 at 9:34 PM I am not a member of the Sierra Club. I am a supporter of Move-On.Com. But I am totally stunned by what I see on Move-Onís splash page.
Some one named ëWes Boydí has a sidebar taking sides on an internal dispute within the Sierra Club.
Who is this guy Wes Boyd, and who gave him this space for such a wrong-minded and divisive purpose?
Itís not as if Move-On has resources to spare, or that it finds itself on cruise control with respect to its mission of removing Bush from the White House. I canít for the life of me understand why Wes Boyd has attempted to divert Move-On from its mandated purpose of replacing the current President with a to a peripheral project of dabbling in the internal politics of the Sierra Club.
Not being a Sierra Club member, I am not privy to all of the recent nuanced political history with respect to the Clubís position on population control. But I will say that it seems perfectly natural for an NGO with environmental preservation as its organizational mission to be concerned with population control. As a matter of fact, the Sierra Club has for decades advocated stabilizing the American population for the sake of the environment. Overpopulation and over-consumption are critical root causes of excessive resource extraction, habitat destruction wilderness loss and biodiversity loss etc., etc. Finally, along with other means of population control immigration reduction is an appropriate policy to pursue if our environment is to be protected against the current demographic and consumption trends.
I have to add that Boyd has provided s link to an anti-democratic political clique within the Sierra Club that is only bent on perpetuating the current incumbent Board of Directors; a Board which refuses to take a position on immigration because of its ëcontroversyí. Finally, the site to which Boyd links us has resorted to orchestrating Rove-like distortions and defamation when it characterizes the well respected environmentalists it opposes as ìright wing racistsî. Dick Lamm? David Pimentel? Frank Morris? Robert Roy van de Hoek? These guys are neither racists nor the unwilling tools of racists. I think they are the real deal.
Whatís going on here? Wes Boyd is leading Move-On.Com on an errant hay ride. Letís get back on task before we get split off on divergent wedge issues.
Posted by Vigilante on Mar 24, 2004 at 12:36 AM This anti immigration stance will lead to more hate. That’s not what we need here in the USA.
Posted by Linda Yannone on Mar 24, 2004 at 6:40 AM A Sierra Club Election Without Fair Play
by Stuart H. Hurlbert
Ballots are now out to elect new five members to the Sierra Club Board of Directors.
A progressive caucus of Sierra Club members is promoting five top board candidates - Dick Lamm, Frank Morris, David Pimentel, Kim McCoy, and Robert Roy van de Hoek.
All have excellent environmentalist and other professional credentials. They are grassroots activists who favor more democratic procedures in the Club, and they all became board candidates via the petition process. They would contribute diverse expertise in environmental justice, environmental education, environmental law, and environmental issues relating to agriculture.
Importantly, all five of these candidates support the Sierra Club advocating policies that will lead to stabilization of U.S. and world population. They support implementing those policies now, not in some distant future.
None of the 12 other board candidates has stated their support for moving quickly toward U.S. population stabilization. If you understand how the current high rate of population growth in California and the U.S. generally is a major cause of declining environmental quality, then the five candidates above are the ones to vote for.
Unfortunately, these five candidates and their supporters have been attacked with vicious innuendo and falsehoods by some members of the Sierra Club establishment. Attackers include Sierra Club president Larry Fahn and executive director Carl Pope. And they include those leaders of the San Diego chapter of the Club who allowed three hit pieces on these activist candidates and their supporters to be published, just prior to the election, in the March/April 2004 issue of the chapter’s newsletter, the Hi Sierran.
Posted by Stuart Hurlbert on Mar 25, 2004 at 8:20 PM In that issue (and in a message accompanying the ballot!!) president Fahn implies the five candidates and their supporters on the national board are associated with racist or white nationalist groups. Not likely! One of these five petition candidates is African-American and another is Latino! In his column, San Diego chapter chair Richard Miller calls these candidates “hijackers” and representatives of “outside forces.” In the lead article, Sierra Club member Drusha Mayhue accuses these five candidates as having “narrow, personal, one issue agendas ñ like animal rights and anti-immigration.” It also accuses activist national board member Ben Zuckerman, a member of the Club for 35 years, as having “close to zero experience when he was elected to the Board [in 2002].” Knowing of Mayhue’s hit piece, Zuckerman asked, more than a month before publication of this Hi Sierran issue, that his letter refuting the inaccuracies of Mayhue’s piece also be printed. Our San Diego Sierra Club leaders refused him that courtesy. So much for democracy, diversity, and fairness.
Are these petition candidates really “outsiders?” You betcha!
Just like those Democrat “outsiders” that hope to take over Congress and the White House in the fall to halt further damage from Bush’s environmental policies.
Just like those “outsiders” brought into Enron Corporation to bring order and integrity to its operations.
Just like that those “outsider” Sierra Club voters (40%) who in 1998 went against the Sierra Club establishment in voting for a resolution saying that immigration levels needed to be considered as a factor in national environmental policy. And who were defeated in part because those same Sierra Club power brokers corruptly manipulated the initiative process, as they had done previously in 1994.
Posted by Stuart Hurlbert on Mar 25, 2004 at 8:21 PM Not one of these five petition candidates is anti-immigration or anti-immigrant. Some Sierra Club twisters of truth have accused them of being so. We wonder whether those twisters also call people who favor family planning and moderate family sizes as being “anti-reproduction” or “anti-baby?” Or do they resort to dishonest rhetoric only some of the time?
Immigration is at record levels and reform is needed, yes. Can anyone be taken seriously as an environmentalist who thinks nothing should be done now to slow the U.S.’s third world population growth rate?
That’s what we call being “environmentalish” ñ having an environmental heart, but a foolish head ñ a recipe for inaction and long-term ineffectiveness.
It is the self interest, myopia, and improper behavior of certain Sierra Club leaders that are at issue in this election of board members. Those leaders are learning about democracy - and it clearly is not the system they prefer.
- Stuart Hurlbert is a Sierra Club member, Director of the Center for Inland Waters, San Diego State University, and co-author, with Kevin Doyle of the National Wildlife Federation, of the “Declaration of Concerned Scientists and Environmental Leaders of San Diego County: A Call for the Protection of the Natural Resources of the Salton Sea Basin and San Diego County.,”
Posted by Stuart Hurlbert on Mar 25, 2004 at 8:28 PM Alas, the anti-immigrant trend is a historic one within the environmental and conservation movements. A hundred years ago the Audubon movement, led by Yankee blue-bloods, agued strongly against immigrants (focusing mainly on those swarthy Italians). Soon there were other points of intersection between population-control advocates and conservationists, joining in support for the pseudoscience of eugenics. After WWI the population control movement retained its “hint of WASPY condescension” as characterized by Stephen Fox in his THE AMERICAN CONSERVATION MOVEMENT (Wisconsin, 1981), and its favor toward sterilization bonuses.
It is no accident that these efforts were invariably aimed at the little brown peoples of the world.
Even the rise of environmentalism, by the 1970s, has not be immune from this ugly trend, from regular distractions on the issue of population, as opposed to the issue of exploitation, to the use of “wilderness” to keep the great unwashed from “ruining” the great Americanout outdoors. Deep Ecology is the current end of the misanthropic (as opposed to “simply” anti-immigrant) spectrum in environmentalism, with its virtual glee over disease and pestilence to create more living space for the fortunate survivors.
Just because this trend is an old one, however, doesn’t mean it has to last forever.
One way to fight it from the inside is at the Sierra Club, not only fighting the “hostile take-over,
but learning from the historic experience. Another way is through support of the environmental justice movement, rising in minority communities, here and there, across the country.
Posted by Paul J. Baicich on Mar 26, 2004 at 9:23 AM Aram,
I should point out that the example you cite to illustrate how bigoted the “anti-immigration” people are was actually taken from a post supporting open immigration.
Sheeeesh!
Posted by Nus on Mar 26, 2004 at 3:03 PM A fundamental question is raised by the current Sierra Club debate: “Can anyone be taken seriously as an environmentalist who thinks nothing should be done now to slow the U.S.’s third world population growth rate?” The current debate regarding the Sierra Club, population growth, and immigration policy has made it much clearer to me how much the current popular notion of “environmentalism” represents an evolutionary divergence from an originally well-intended and inspired problem solving movement into a sort of green cosmetic applied to symptom-treating and short-term-fix ideologies, and as well to the political influences of pro-growth interests. I think the answer to the question is “yes” if you should ask anyone who is among those who have reframed the definition of environmentalism in this way. However, I cannot conceive of a real solution to human-induced environmental problems that distinguishes environmental degradation from its causes. Accordingly, I can neither take anyone seriously as an environmentalist who would. It amazes me and fills me with trepidation that that there are so many self-proclaimed “environmentalists” who would assign this important issue an insignificant status within the policies of mainstream environmental groups at a time when our natural environment and our economy are so severely stressed. A great many Americans look to mainstream environmental groups to provide effective leadership and direction on matters of the environment; so, I sincerely hope there are both a shakeup and a wakeup within the Sierra Club this year. My ballot will be in the mail shortly. — mb
Posted by Michael W. Brewster on Mar 26, 2004 at 7:50 PM Whew!
I just spent the morning reading the entire list of comments, as well as the pdf “Hostile Takeover: Race, Immigration and the Sierra Club”, located at: http://www.newcomm.org/hostiletakeover.pdf (an excellent read).
My first observation is that there is very little (if any) disagreement between the two sides over the fact that there are simply too many people on this planet, and that on a macro level all - humans, other creatures, and the earth itself - will continue to be degraded until this situation is remedied. The disagreements creep in over the ‘where’ and the ‘how’ that a remedy will be applied.
My overriding concern is that we, as Americans, are way too focused on addressing symptoms instead of causes. Think of the effectiveness of our War on Drugs, or our implicit support of Israel’s decades old offensive against Palastinian suicide bombers.
As to our immigration problem: enough people already here and too many people want in? Trying to shut the door won’t work - that is only addressing a symptom - they’ll come in the window. We’ll never scare them away at the borders; the ones that we catch simply try again. The only way to effectively reduce the pressure at the border is to address the causes that bring the immigrants there. Unless they can viably provide for themselves and their families in their country of origin, they will go elsewhere, i.e., here. What would you do?
The culture of consumerism that this society revels in is a huge - if not the primary - component of the environmental distress inflicted upon both our own land and the rest of the world. As I am a member of the ‘me’ generation, so is our country the primary proponent of the ‘me first’ mindset. You need look no further than the current administration’s cavilier attitude towards the rest of the world.
Until we can truly view the world’s problems from the other guy’s perspective, “walk a mile in another man’s shoes”, we can never hope to truly solve these problems.
I yield the soapbox.
Posted by Chris on Mar 27, 2004 at 3:34 PM As to comments on the Sierra Club, I confess that my sympathies lie with the Dick Lamm ticket. I detest the illiberal idiocy that one cannot argue in favor of regulating immigration without being called a racist. I rank that idiocy down there with not being able to talk about an evenhanded policy toward Israelis/Palestinians without being called anti-Semitic or pro-terrorist. Both issues are of critical importance to the USA, and both are not being talked about, faced up to, and dealt with because the two polarized establishments in this country have placed taboos on them.
http://www.sozadee.com/e107/news.php
Posted by Vigilante on Mar 28, 2004 at 10:48 AM Some responses about this issue:
(Ingrid) Your comment about us taking 35 times more resources “than the poorest countries” is quite accurate, but misses the point. Mexico - which is where most of the immigrants come from, though one would have to find exact numbers to do the calcuations - is not at a 1/35 ratio. To be really acurate about this, one would have to find the number of people from each nation and the multiplier for that nation and do the calculation. I think from that we would get that those 120 people would still produce less that 1700+ people.
(Aram) The tendency of people in developing nations to have more children is driven by some simple factors: If you are farming land to survive, the more children you have the more hands there are to tend the fields (because you generally don’t have mechanized farming in developing nations). Also if you are in a nation with disease and dangers which can kill several of your children before they can become productive citizens, then you have more as a hedge against the odds. A tragic concept, but a sound response to the possibility of loosing your children (who you will rely on when you get older since you don’t have the luxury of Social Security). While it seems incongruous that you would try to curb disease in developing nations to help control population, it actually makes sense over time. If you know all of your children will survive to support you then it’s ok to have less children.
(Patrick) Your comment about how advocating prosperity for women is somehow misandrous is assigning nefarious purposes to a really good idea. Population studies have shown that when women are prosperous, they have less children. While it is true that all people and the world in general would be better off if the status of all people were raised up - a concept I very much support - the prosperity of women has been studied to have a very direct effect on population. So you tweak the knobs you know about and which you know can have the effect desired.
Posted by Patrick Bennett on Mar 28, 2004 at 1:30 PM (Since there’s a size limit to postings and this section isn’t a direct response to any one person’s comments, I’ve placed it in a second posting)
To all who say that people flooding into the United States should be kept out for the good of the world, I ask you: Are you living on the land, tilling it with your hands, consuming only what you need and living simply as they would in their homelands? Are you willing to face the poverty they face? Are you willing to give up your car, your fancy mountain bike, your coffee from Starbucks, your cozy well insulated house? I bet you aren’t. And neither have I been. So I don’t criticize these people who see our lifestyle and want to be a part of it. Until my life is simplified and brought down to the level where my impact on the earth is equal to theirs, I’ve got no room to be angry that they want my lifestyle. It’s hypocritical for us to deride immigrants and tell them “You stay there in your misery, we don’t want you. You don’t deserve our lifestyle. You deserve to die at a young age, watch your children die as infants, face hunger on a daily basis, and live in fear of repressive governments”. Hypocritical and mean. If you believe in population control, go to developing nations, pick up a shovel or a hammer and help them make their world a better place so they don’t feel driven to flee to our nation. If you believe in saving the environment, change your life. Every time you take the bus or recycle or don’t buy that thing that you really don’t need, then you can think to your self “I have made the world a better place for everyone in the best way I can”. And let the immigrants come.
I was struck by an image just now: Americans who support closing our borders to immigrants are like a fat person in an elevator pushing away others who need to get a ride up the elevator saying “There’s no room! There’s no room!”. Well if you lost a little weight, there would be…
Posted by Patrick Bennett on Mar 28, 2004 at 1:33 PM Population is a serious problem and should be high on the U.S.’s adgenda. Over population pressures in under developed countries put pressure on the environment as well as encouraging immigration to the U.S. The best course of action would be to make family planning available to all couples in the third world. (President Bush’s budget has reduced support for such family planning assistance.)
Finally, family planning and women’s issues are not the providence of the Sierra Club, and should be left to other organizations better qualified in these arenas.
Posted by Walter Gamble, M.D. on Mar 28, 2004 at 5:53 PM i feel that the sierra club is a worth while organization whose policies deal with the environment and the laws that are trying to wreak it. these policies can be anything from mercury, to devestating our national resources to immigration (legal or illegal) and the effect of our overcrowding is having on our ecology and our environment.
bush’s only policy for this is to sell out the american people for the big business and the profits that can be generated to make the rich richer and the majority of the people poorer, not only in wealth, but by the destruction of our forests, wildlife refuges, endangered species and marine population and environment. he has no ‘green policy’ only greed.
Posted by mrs. brenda h. machen on Apr 3, 2004 at 4:25 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Adam Werbach
- No More of the Same
- Environmentalism is dead. Whats next?
- A Dangerous Legacy
Bush’s “ownership society” champions a hyper-individualism that threatens the commons. - Be a Good Steward
Using Bush’s playbook, Kerry could employ executive orders to create a sustainable century - Hostile Takeover
Anti-immigration coalition seeks control of Sierra Club - Bridging the Labor-Environment Gap
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
