🚀 go-pugleaf

<bentbirkenstock@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1152425326.082670.55320@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Please note the remarkable changes in membership between the two
> environmental groups sited in this piece. The Sierra Club and the
> Wilderness Society chose separate paths on the taboo topic of the 21st
> century amongst environmentalists and 'leftists' Re:world mass
> immigration policies, and you might be surprised of the outcome.
> ***
>
> http://www.susps.org/ibq1998/faq.html
>
> (excerpt)
> Why should Sierra Club have to take the lead on dealing with
> immigration?
>
>
> The Sierra Club has taken the lead on population issues for over 30
> years, and actively on mass immigration since 1978. The Wilderness
> Society took a strong environmental position including mass immigration
> as component of population growth three years ago, at the same time
> that the Sierra Club issued its surprising reversal of long-standing
> club policy.
>
>
> Isn't this issue an internal Club matter - not relevant to non-members
> and most members?
> The Population Ballot Question is not simply an "internal Club matter".
> The outcome of the vote will likely have very significant ramifications
> for the future relationship between the U.S. environmental movement and
> the question of U.S. population stabilization. Anyone, member or
> otherwise, who would like to end the environmental community's nearly
> invisible presence on this issue should be willing to support the
> Petitioners' Ballot Question.
>
>
> Why should Sierra Club focus on U.S. immigration, when population is a
> global problem?
>
>
> Population is both a global problem and a national problem for the U.S.
> and many other countries. We must "think globally and act locally" on
> the issue of population growth within our borders. Each nation has not
> only the right, but the responsibility to implement policies on
> population, and to work towards its own sustainability.
>
> To make an analogy, think about the global pothole problem - it
> manifests itself in every country. Yet it is clear that the best way to
> deal with the problem is not at the U.N., but rather at lowest level of
> government that has appropriate jurisdiction over the problem.
> "Population policy must be a policy for a nation, not for the whole
> world, because there is no world sovereignty to back up a global
> policy. We can, and should, seek to persuade other nations to take
> steps to control their population growth; but our primary focus should
> be on the population growth within our own borders."
> -- Garret Hardin, Living within Limits, 1993
>
>
> Won't the Sierra Club lose members on this issue?
>
>
> On virtually the same day in February 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club
> and The Wilderness Society chose to take opposite paths concerning U.S.
> population growth.
> Since 1995, membership in the Wilderness Society increased by 9%. Since
> 1995, Sierra Club membership decreased by 11%. In other words, The
> Wilderness Society took the sound environmental position and its
> membership increased. This is not necessarily a causal relationship,
> however assertion that passage of the initiative will result in net
> loss of members is clearly unwarranted.
>
>
> Shouldn't the Sierra Club focus on what it does best - on preserving
> wild lands, forests, and clean air?
>
>
> Any cause is a lost cause without population stabilization, both within
> the US, and world-wide. Environmental gains which we have fought so
> hard to win will be threatened, and many will be lost as demands from
> doubling U.S. population mount. Pressure will increase to drill for oil
> in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to mine coal in the new
> Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument. Likewise, the demand for
> timber will increase along with sprawl and resultant air pollution. To
> preserve wilderness, wild rivers, forests, species, and ecosystems,
> Sierra Club policy has long called for stabilizing population "first of
> the United States and then of the world." (1970).
>
>
> Wouldn't the Sierra Club lose political allies?
>
>
> White, Black, Asian, and Latino Democratic voting records in Congress
> are within 4% of each other on environmental issues, according to 1996
> League of Conservation Voters ratings. Thus there is no basis for the
> assertion of a race-based track record in Congress showing that Latinos
> have a better environmental record.
>
>
> Won't a major campaign on immigration be too expensive for the Club?
>
>
> The Petitioner's Ballot Question simply called for reinstatement of
> traditional Sierra Club population policy, which addresses role mass
> immigration plays in U.S. population growth. There would be no campaign
> or expenditure associated with this other than that normally associated
> with Club population committees and efforts.
>
>
> Shouldn't we help to forge strong alliances based upon mutual respect
> to solve our environmental problems?
>
>
> Most certainly, but voting for the official Board of Directors position
> is not the answer. That position dismisses the fact that mass
> immigration as it contributes to population growth is an environmental
> problem -- a problem caused only by overall numbers, and one which
> affects every American, their children, and their environment.
>
>
> Why don't Sierra Club leaders have the fortitude to face this pressing
> issue?
>
>
> Some do, some are uneducated on the importance of the
> population-environment connection, and others prioritize Social Justice
> issues above environmental issues.
>
My 22 year membership was ended 5 years ago because of the Sierra Club's
failure on immigration.

Hank