Does immigration hurt the environment?

I heard a commentator on the radio yesterday claim that when someone emigrates to Canada, their footprint increases 10 fold. This is due to the higher standard of living, the fact they come from a warmer climate to one needing central heating, higher use of transportation, etc.

Also, Kyoto is an absolute reduction of carbon emissions, not a per capita (as Harper endorses). To begin to meet Kyoto,don't we need to move to cap our growth rate as much as possible?

Thus, is immigration anti-green?

we have a lot more things to worry about......
How about all the incadescent light bulbs that are still being used?
all the non-LED xmas lights?
SUV's? do we really need SUV's? Couldnt a AWD station wagon or good winter tires do it?

How about recycling? how efficient is our recycling...

Many immigrants come from countries where there is LESS of a "disposable/built-in obsolescence" mentality than many north americans. That is, they are used to making things last longer and having fewer frills.
As UP says, there are bigger things to worry about (altho I dont consider xmas lights to be one of them).
I think we're really nitpicking with these sorts of topics and agendas and suspect they're really masking other political agendas.
Kyoto's a joke.

Originally Posted by stealth

Many immigrants come from countries where there is LESS of a "disposable/built-in obsolescence" mentality than many north americans. That is, they are used to making things last longer and having fewer frills.
As UP says, there are bigger things to worry about (altho I dont consider xmas lights to be one of them).
I think we're really nitpicking with these sorts of topics and agendas and suspect they're really masking other political agendas.
Kyoto's a joke.

Is it ever! China + India modernizing w/o any emission restrictions = the death of our planet.

Originally Posted by UrbanPoet

we have a lot more things to worry about......
How about all the incadescent light bulbs that are still being used?
all the non-LED xmas lights?
SUV's? do we really need SUV's? Couldnt a AWD station wagon or good winter tires do it?

How about recycling? how efficient is our recycling...

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

Is it fair that immigration, pushed by big business to fuel economic growth, is allowed to cancel out my choices and action?

Originally Posted by stewpy

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

Is it fair that immigration, pushed by big business to fuel economic growth, is allowed to cancel out my choices and action?

Yes.

Choices such as these are voluntary, not imposed...Thats the whole point of much of the eco-gimmickry going on...the concept is you (business or people) can buy their way out of doing whats right through carbon credits, offsets, etc.

Your heart is in the right place, but you're worrying too much about it. I say, if you want more than 1 kid and can afford it, do it. Who knows...He/she may invent some new alternative fuel or device to purify lakes or something someday. You cant perceive all humans as parasites on the planet and live self-loathing like that. Thats not healthy.

Besides, many of the immigrants I see will jam 7-10 people into a house, maximizing every sq. ft. of living space, vs the north americans I know who either already to plan to live as a couple in a 2700 sq ft house, maybe with a small dog as well.

Originally Posted by stewpy

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

I support this, and I'll even take it one step further, I think we should ship you and your family off to Africa. That will help the rest of us out quite nicely in my opinion.

Your fat wasteful footprint will be reduced by a significant factor.

We CANNOT afford not to do this, please pack your bags friend.

Originally Posted by fakishan

I support this, and I'll even take it one step further, I think we should ship you and your family off to Africa. That will help the rest of us out quite nicely in my opinion.

Your fat wasteful footprint will be reduced by a significant factor.

We CANNOT afford not to do this, please pack your bags friend.

I can not fault your logic and will consider your proposal seriously! It might be nice to live in a warmer climate, after all.

Originally Posted by fakishan

I support this, and I'll even take it one step further, I think we should ship you and your family off to Africa. That will help the rest of us out quite nicely in my opinion.

Your fat wasteful footprint will be reduced by a significant factor.

We CANNOT afford not to do this, please pack your bags friend.

lol...

But that brings another point...Its not the amount of people in this country that is bad for the planet, its the worlds population that really counts. Keeping them in another country, or wherever, doesnt really solve the situation. Managing the birth rate in some of these countries to a sustainable amount, does.

Originally Posted by UrbanPoet

we have a lot more things to worry about......

+1

seriously....have another kid if you want. I'm sure that excuse goes a long way with someones wife. "Hunny, I'd love to have another kid but I don't think I can live with his/her carbon footprint"

you have just discovered what most environmentalist either dont want to tell or are blissfully ignorant of, we have to many people living too good of lives right now. Keeping people in the stone ages helps the environment.

Originally Posted by stewpy

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

Is it fair that immigration, pushed by big business to fuel economic growth, is allowed to cancel out my choices and action?

We're inefficient compared to the rest of the G8 but not compared to the 3rd world.

And this whole line of thinking IMO is stupid. Of course someone coming from a poor country where they hardly use electricity to Canada is not "as green". But for that person whose standard of living has improved a hundred fold, his life is now so much better.

It is just as arrogant as saying "Oh look we're using too much power, so lets cull 25% of the population, the ones who waste power the most. That way we'll be more green".

Originally Posted by stealth

lol...

But that brings another point...Its not the amount of people in this country that is bad for the planet, its the worlds population that really counts. Keeping them in another country, or wherever, doesnt really solve the situation. Managing the birth rate in some of these countries to a sustainable amount, does.

There is no danger of the world becoming overpopulated.

Experts believe global population is going to peak in a few years, then start to shrink, then level off.

Numbers are still growing; but recently—it is impossible to know exactly when—an inflection point seems to have been reached. The rate of population increase began to slow. In more and more countries, women started having fewer children than the number required to keep populations stable. Four out of nine people already live in countries in which the fertility rate has dipped below the replacement rate. Last year the United Nations said it thought the world's average fertility would fall below replacement by 2025. Demographers expect the global population to peak at around 10 billion (it is now 6.5 billion) by mid-century.

...

Some regard this as a cause for celebration, on the ground that there are obviously too many people on the planet. But too many for what? There doesn't seem to be much danger of a Malthusian catastrophe. Mankind appropriates about a quarter of what is known as the net primary production of the Earth (this is the plant tissue created by photosynthesis)—a lot, but hardly near the point of exhaustion. The price of raw materials reflects their scarcity and, despite recent rises, commodity prices have fallen sharply in real terms during the past century. By that measure, raw materials have become more abundant, not scarcer. Certainly, the impact that people have on the climate is a problem; but the solution lies in consuming less fossil fuel, not in manipulating population levels.

Nor does the opposite problem—that the population will fall so fast or so far that civilisation is threatened—seem a real danger. The projections suggest a flattening off and then a slight decline in the foreseeable future.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ory_id=9545933

Originally Posted by UrbanPoet

we have a lot more things to worry about......
How about all the incadescent light bulbs that are still being used?
all the non-LED xmas lights?
SUV's? do we really need SUV's? Couldnt a AWD station wagon or good winter tires do it?

How about recycling? how efficient is our recycling...

Check this site out, it has some really interesting stats about countries and their consumption of most consumables that affect the enviroment. Maybe you have seen it before, maybe not, but here it is...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...ty-consumption

Check the drop-downs to change parameters.

Originally Posted by stewpy

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

Is it fair that immigration, pushed by big business to fuel economic growth, is allowed to cancel out my choices and action?

I am not sure if I read you correctly. Are you saying you born one less child because of the environment?

Do you know why the government keeps on immigrating people here? It is because we don't born enough young one ourselves to support our will be seniors and generate enough tax dollar to support this country. Canada is a big country in size and each person needs to spend more to support it than US.

If I remember correctly, without immigration, our population would be decreasing and number of senior will soon be higher than number of non-senior.