🚀 go-pugleaf

"jay" <jay_stutz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:66d7f5b0.0408261020.28bc122d@posting.google.com...
> My gracious, those nasty Republicans are proposing amnesty for
> illegals and more legal immigrants. Expect Kerry to do the same. Both
> of the parties are vehicles for business and do-gooder whores. Where
> is the Sierra Club? But why get excited about population growth. It's
> all about doing feel-good stuff.
>
> Jay

Kerry is already on record saying he will provide amnesty.

I expect that a substantial amount of the money that flows into the 
Sierra Club might fade away if they were to take a visible anti-
immigration stand.

The overlap within the liberal faith of active enviros and pro-
immigration people may be substantial.

In article <am0ti01pf0s3d91drlaspuldb5gbdhpt81@4ax.com>, 
r_obert@REMOVE_THIS.hotmail.com says...
> jay_stutz@yahoo.com (jay) wrote:
> 
> >My gracious, those nasty Republicans are proposing amnesty for
> >illegals and more legal immigrants. Expect Kerry to do the same. Both
> >of the parties are vehicles for business and do-gooder whores. Where
> >is the Sierra Club? But why get excited about population growth. It's
> >all about doing feel-good stuff.
> 
> Supposedly the prime objective of the Sierra Club ( or they say ), is
> *protecting the environment*, not benovolence towards all the world's
> downtrodden.  In that regard, they fail miserably by refusing to
> acknowledge the HUGE impact that massive levels of immigration are
> having on our environment, and will continue to do ( exponentially ).
> To me, it's unbelievable that they refuse to even acknowledge that,
> much less take a stance against it.  Hopefully, this will be the basis
> of Sierra's demise as a serious, viable environmental protection
> organization.  And hopefully to be replaced by one with more of a
> backbone, who's capable of dealing with the environmental realities we
> are facing because of uncontrolled immigration, without being crippled
> by political correctness.
> 
> 
> 
> ( modify address for return email )
> 
> www.numbersusa.com
> www.americanpatrol.com
> 

r_obert@REMOVE_THIS.hotmail.com wrote:
> jay_stutz@yahoo.com (jay) wrote:
> 
> 
>>My gracious, those nasty Republicans are proposing amnesty for
>>illegals and more legal immigrants. Expect Kerry to do the same. Both
>>of the parties are vehicles for business and do-gooder whores. Where
>>is the Sierra Club? But why get excited about population growth. It's
>>all about doing feel-good stuff.
> 
> 
> Supposedly the prime objective of the Sierra Club ( or they say ), is
> *protecting the environment*, not benovolence towards all the world's
> downtrodden.  In that regard, they fail miserably by refusing to
> acknowledge the HUGE impact that massive levels of immigration are
> having on our environment, and will continue to do ( exponentially ).
> To me, it's unbelievable that they refuse to even acknowledge that,
> much less take a stance against it.  Hopefully, this will be the basis
> of Sierra's demise as a serious, viable environmental protection
> organization.  And hopefully to be replaced by one with more of a
> backbone, who's capable of dealing with the environmental realities we
> are facing because of uncontrolled immigration, without being crippled
> by political correctness.
> 
> 
> 
> ( modify address for return email )
> 
> www.numbersusa.com
> www.americanpatrol.com


Well, let's see ...

In 1996, the BoD of the Club was quite clear that it "will take no 
position on immigration levels or on the policies governing immigration 
into the United States.  The Club remains committed to environmental 
rights and protections ... without discrimination based on immigration 
status."

In 2003, the Club BoD re-amplified that the "Sierra Club can more 
effectively address the root causes of global and United States 
population problems through its existing comprehensive approach ..."

What the heck does that mean?  Backtracking to 1970, for instance, we 
see that the Club BoD endorsed resolutions of the organization Zero 
Population Growth, inclusive of widespread support, in the US and 
developing countries, for sex education, economic reform, family 
planning, contraception, and abortion.  Specifically, they stated:
      "That we must find, encourage and implement at the earliest 
possible time the necessary policies, attitudes, social standards, and 
actions that will, by voluntary and humane means consistent with human 
rights and individual conscience, bring about the stabilization of 
population first of the United States and then of the world."

Over the years, from 1965 to the present, the Sierra Club Board of 
Directors has adopted, issued, and promoted a wide range of policies 
consistent with these principles.

So:  You may not agree with the Club, and you may wish that it had 
adopted policies more consistent with your own views.  But you cannot 
say that the Club is "refusing to acknowledge" the monumental challenges 
of population stabilization.

Well, actually, you can say so if you want.  This is usenet, and we 
operate unencumbered by information.

RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

<r_obert@REMOVE_THIS.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:am0ti01pf0s3d91drlaspuldb5gbdhpt81@4ax.com...

> Supposedly the prime objective of the Sierra Club ( or they say ),
is
> *protecting the environment*, not benovolence towards all the
world's
> downtrodden.  In that regard, they fail miserably by refusing to
> acknowledge the HUGE impact that massive levels of immigration are
> having on our environment, and will continue to do (
exponentially ).
> To me, it's unbelievable that they refuse to even acknowledge that,
> much less take a stance against it.  Hopefully, this will be the
basis
> of Sierra's demise as a serious, viable environmental protection
> organization.  And hopefully to be replaced by one with more of a
> backbone, who's capable of dealing with the environmental realities
we
> are facing because of uncontrolled immigration, without being
crippled
> by political correctness.
>
> www.numbersusa.com
> www.americanpatrol.com

Why isn't it surprising to see an advocate of NumbersUSA attacking the
Sierra Club? The immigration reductionists allied with John Tanton
seem to have declared war on the all who do not agree with them.

jay_stutz@yahoo.com (jay) wrote in message news:<66d7f5b0.0408261020.28bc122d@posting.google.com>...
> Where is the Sierra Club?

Jesus in an EV, what is your problem with the Sierra Club? There are
literally dozens of environmental groups, from Greenpeace all the way
to Nature Conservancy, all with the pledge "to protect the
environment". Yet you anti-immigration yahoos seem to have this raging
hard-on of hatred that won't be satisfied until you ram it right up
the Sierra CLub's ass.

Did you have an ex-girlfriend in the Sierra Club, and when she stopped
polishing your winky, you took it out on the SC? Get over it already,
and move on.

<r_obert@REMOVE_THIS.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:am0ti01pf0s3d91drlaspuldb5gbdhpt81@4ax.com...
> jay_stutz@yahoo.com (jay) wrote:

> ...the HUGE impact that massive levels
> of immigration are having on our environment,
> and will continue to do ( exponentially ).


    I've heard this said before, but I don't of any real science
that proves it.

    Anyone have any credible evidence on the matter, any
authoritative literature?


"R Philip Dowds" <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HkvXc.13953$2L3.5804@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> ...you cannot
> say that the Club is "refusing to
> acknowledge" the monumental challenges
> of population stabilization.


    You appear to be equating population growth with immigration,
though they arguably are two distinct issues.

"Roy. Just Roy." <soylent_purple@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6fca96.0408270656.29258cbf@posting.google.com...
> jay_stutz@yahoo.com (jay) wrote in message
news:<66d7f5b0.0408261020.28bc122d@posting.google.com>...
> > Where is the Sierra Club?
>
> Jesus in an EV, what is your problem with the Sierra Club? There are
> literally dozens of environmental groups, from Greenpeace all the way
> to Nature Conservancy, all with the pledge "to protect the
> environment". Yet you anti-immigration yahoos seem to have this raging
> hard-on of hatred that won't be satisfied until you ram it right up
> the Sierra CLub's ass.
>
> Did you have an ex-girlfriend in the Sierra Club, and when she stopped
> polishing your winky, you took it out on the SC? Get over it already,
> and move on.

Didn't you mean moveon.org :-)

soylent_purple@hotmail.com (Roy. Just Roy.) wrote in message news:<da6fca96.0408270656.29258cbf@posting.google.com>...
> jay_stutz@yahoo.com (jay) wrote in message news:<66d7f5b0.0408261020.28bc122d@posting.google.com>...
> > Where is the Sierra Club?
> 
> Jesus in an EV, what is your problem with the Sierra Club? There are
> literally dozens of environmental groups, from Greenpeace all the way
> to Nature Conservancy, all with the pledge "to protect the
> environment". Yet you anti-immigration yahoos seem to have this raging
> hard-on of hatred that won't be satisfied until you ram it right up
> the Sierra CLub's ass.
> 
> Did you have an ex-girlfriend in the Sierra Club, and when she stopped
> polishing your winky, you took it out on the SC? Get over it already,
> and move on.


I think the Sierra Club, along with most environmental groups, is
doing the ass ramming. They refuse to take action but they plead
wimper for monies for projects of much less importance then population
control. America's population growth is coming from immigration, legal
and illegal. Without action very soon you might just as forget the
environment.

James

The NYT Almanac 2004 holds that in the Clinton Years (nominally the 
1990's), immigration accounted for 28% of total US population growth. 
This is a lot higher than the Vietnam Years (the 1960's), when 
immigration was contained at about 16% of total growth.  But, on the 
other hand, it's a lot *lower* than the Reagan Years (the 1980's), when 
immigration contributed a whopping 33% to total growth.  ???

In any event, you exaggerate when you insist that our population growth 
is "coming from immigration".  Plainly, it's healthy all-American 
couples, busy as little bunnies, which account for the lion's share of 
all-American population growth.

RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

Also worth noting that in a country which grows at about 1% a year, 
annual job or GDP increases of 0.7% a year means we're slipping backwards.

RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

Jim wrote:
...
> I think the Sierra Club, along with most environmental groups, is
> doing the ass ramming. They refuse to take action but they plead
> wimper for monies for projects of much less importance then population
> control. America's population growth is coming from immigration, legal
> and illegal. Without action very soon you might just as forget the
> environment.
> 
> James

 John Wofford <jwoff@serpoma.com> wrote:

>I expect that a substantial amount of the money that flows into the 
>Sierra Club might fade away if they were to take a visible anti-
>immigration stand.
>
>The overlap within the liberal faith of active enviros and pro-
>immigration people may be substantial.
>

But they will also lose those who decide to support Greenpeace
instead.

Mach Twain

I checked out your link, and its links, and am not sure what I learned. 
  For instance, what's the definition of "native" used in producing a 
negative growth rate for "native" fertility?  And for growth due to the 
arrival of immigrants, the 250% number from the website doesn't begin to 
square with the numbers I produced from an Almanac.  Before we can make 
further progress in this war of statistics, we may need to understand 
better the methodologies.

But never mind all that:  For sake of debate, I'm ready to concede that 
America continues to honor its amazing tradition of being a nation of 
immigrants.  Even so ...

US population continues to grow at about 1% a year (perhaps it's mostly 
immigrants ...).  Some European countries are nearly stable, and some, 
like Ireland, have had a negative average for recent history.  Many 
third world countries are growing at rates of 2% to 3% annually. 
Overall, world population is heading from 6+ billion to 8 to 11 billion, 
if you believe the demographers.

Remind me again, please, how limiting immigration to the US, without 
successfully addressing world population and consumer lifestyles as a 
whole, will protect the environment and serve the goals of conservation.

RPD / by lineage, O'Dowd clan of Ireland / currently Cambridge MA
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

r_obert@REMOVE_THIS.hotmail.com wrote:

> R Philip Dowds <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>The NYT Almanac 2004 holds that in the Clinton Years (nominally the 
>>1990's), immigration accounted for 28% of total US population growth. 
>>This is a lot higher than the Vietnam Years (the 1960's), when 
>>immigration was contained at about 16% of total growth.  But, on the 
>>other hand, it's a lot *lower* than the Reagan Years (the 1980's), when 
>>immigration contributed a whopping 33% to total growth.  ???
>>
>>In any event, you exaggerate when you insist that our population growth 
>>is "coming from immigration".  Plainly, it's healthy all-American 
>>couples, busy as little bunnies, which account for the lion's share of 
>>all-American population growth.
> 
> 
> Native fertility has been below the the replacement level since 1972.
> 
> http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/threecauses.html
> 
> 
>>RPD / Cambridge
>>Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
> 
> 
> Ironic that you would say that, since you're obviously not dealing
> with them at all.
> 
> ( modify address for return email )
> 
> www.numbersusa.com
> www.americanpatrol.com

"R Philip Dowds" <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote

> Remind me again, please, how limiting immigration to the US, without
> successfully addressing world population and consumer lifestyles as a
> whole, will protect the environment and serve the goals of conservation.

There you go again: bringing facts & logic to a political debate.  Sheesh...

Dan

In article <yNiYc.4006$6o3.557@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
R Philip Dowds  <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote:
.....
>Remind me again, please, how limiting immigration to the US, without 
>successfully addressing world population and consumer lifestyles as a 
>whole, will protect the environment and serve the goals of conservation.

It probably won't over the longer term.

But the immediate effect is to have a lower population
in the place with the highest per capita use of energy
and non-renewable resources.

In other words, if a single third world person moves to the US,
they will use more energy and use more natural resources than if
they had stayed in their original country.

-- 
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu

Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article
> <yNiYc.4006$6o3.557@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> R Philip Dowds  <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote:
> .....
>> Remind me again, please, how limiting immigration to the
>> US, without successfully addressing world population and
>> consumer lifestyles as a whole, will protect the
>> environment and serve the goals of conservation.
>
> It probably won't over the longer term.
>
> But the immediate effect is to have a lower population
> in the place with the highest per capita use of energy
> and non-renewable resources.
>
> In other words, if a single third world person moves to the
> US, they will use more energy and use more natural resources
> than if they had stayed in their original country.

Yep, and the economists and environmental scientists have
shown that if just 1/2 of China's population ever reaches
the level of U$ middle class, the entire world would be depleted
of recourses, a barren wasteland.

So what ya gonna do? Invade China to prohibit them from
developing?

In article <4gxYc.224$vf3.110635@news.uswest.net>,
S. O. Damocles <so@damocl.es> wrote:
>Daniel Packman wrote:
.....
>> In other words, if a single third world person moves to the
>> US, they will use more energy and use more natural resources
>> than if they had stayed in their original country.

>Yep, and the economists and environmental scientists have
>shown that if just 1/2 of China's population ever reaches
>the level of U$ middle class, the entire world would be depleted
>of recourses, a barren wasteland.

Indeed. And with world oil production nearing its
worldwide annual peak, demand for this resource is
just starting to take off in many countries such as China.

>So what ya gonna do? Invade China to prohibit them from
>developing?

Perhaps recognize that we have a potential global
crisis and it is ultimately in every country's best
interest to rapidly develop renewable energy sources.


-- 
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu

["Followup-To:" header set to az.general.]
On 2004-08-30, Daniel Packman <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote:
> In article <4gxYc.224$vf3.110635@news.uswest.net>,
> S. O. Damocles <so@damocl.es> wrote:
>>Daniel Packman wrote:
> .....
>>> In other words, if a single third world person moves to the
>>> US, they will use more energy and use more natural resources
>>> than if they had stayed in their original country.
>
>>Yep, and the economists and environmental scientists have
>>shown that if just 1/2 of China's population ever reaches
>>the level of U$ middle class, the entire world would be depleted
>>of recourses, a barren wasteland.
>
> Indeed. And with world oil production nearing its
> worldwide annual peak, demand for this resource is
> just starting to take off in many countries such as China.
>
>>So what ya gonna do? Invade China to prohibit them from
>>developing?
>
> Perhaps recognize that we have a potential global
> crisis and it is ultimately in every country's best
> interest to rapidly develop renewable energy sources.

Those countries actually planning for the loss of oil and gas will be
better off than those that aren't.  (As, I suppose, will be those
countries that haven't yet developed as much dependence on electricity
and gasoline.)  Germany seems to be a world leader among developed
nations--they currently produce more than a third of the world's wind
energy.  (Germany has been replacing first-generation wind turbines with
second-generation... it will be interesting to see who, if anyone, buys
up the decommissioned equipment.)

If you want to invest in a forward-looking company that has started to
devote huge resources to wind and solar, that's General Electric,
which has been buying up wind energy production companies and
photoelectric part production companies, and just built a
multiple-hundred-million-dollar renewable energy research facility in
Germany.

-- 
Jim Lippard   lippard-usenet@discord.org    http://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE

Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <4gxYc.224$vf3.110635@news.uswest.net>,
> S. O. Damocles <so@damocl.es> wrote:
>> Daniel Packman wrote:
> .....
>>> In other words, if a single third world person moves to
>>> the US, they will use more energy and use more natural
>>> resources than if they had stayed in their original
>>> country.
>
>> Yep, and the economists and environmental scientists have
>> shown that if just 1/2 of China's population ever reaches
>> the level of U$ middle class, the entire world would be
>> depleted of recourses, a barren wasteland.
>
> Indeed. And with world oil production nearing its
> worldwide annual peak, demand for this resource is
> just starting to take off in many countries such as China.
>
>> So what ya gonna do? Invade China to prohibit them from
>> developing?
>
> Perhaps recognize that we have a potential global
> crisis and it is ultimately in every country's best
> interest to rapidly develop renewable energy sources.

And of course the U$A does that by attacking and invading
Iraq on the pretext of blatant fabrications, falsehoods and lies.

Feel safe yet, Daniel?

r_obert@REMOVE_THIS.hotmail.com wrote:
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"jay" <jay_stutz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:66d7f5b0.0408261020.28bc122d@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>My gracious, those nasty Republicans are proposing amnesty for
>>>illegals and more legal immigrants. Expect Kerry to do the same. Both
>>>of the parties are vehicles for business and do-gooder whores. Where
>>>is the Sierra Club? But why get excited about population growth. It's
>>>all about doing feel-good stuff.
>>>
>>>Jay
>>
>>Kerry is already on record saying he will provide amnesty.
> 
> 
> Which is why he lost my vote.
> 
> ( modify address for return email )
> 
> www.numbersusa.com
> www.americanpatrol.com
==========================================

So you will be voting for Nader?

Then I gather that part of this planet-saving strategy is to identify 
permanent zones of low production/consumption, and to confine certain 
people to these zones, such that they never use as much energy and 
resources as Americans.

China and India (accounting, jointly, for a third of the world's 
population) would be good low-consumption zones to start with, although 
I'm not convinced that they are on board with this strategy.  For 
example, some energy analysts are now concerned that continually rising 
fossil fuel prices are now inevitable because of great Chinese leaps in 
energy demand and oil imports.  In any event, we're working at 
cross-purposes with ourselves, since many of our global corporations, 
from Coca Cola to Brown & Williamson, want to sell or make their stuff 
in the third world.

RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <yNiYc.4006$6o3.557@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> R Philip Dowds  <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote:
> .....
> 
>>Remind me again, please, how limiting immigration to the US, without 
>>successfully addressing world population and consumer lifestyles as a 
>>whole, will protect the environment and serve the goals of conservation.
> 
> 
> It probably won't over the longer term.
> 
> But the immediate effect is to have a lower population
> in the place with the highest per capita use of energy
> and non-renewable resources.
> 
> In other words, if a single third world person moves to the US,
> they will use more energy and use more natural resources than if
> they had stayed in their original country.
>