Looking for answers, a slight cough, and thoughts on Boone's plan
Posted by Heading Out on July 18, 2008 - 9:00am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: maine, natural gas, t. boone pickens, wind farms [list all tags]
An increasing number of stories in Drumbeat, and in the world press, are focusing on the impacts of higher oil prices. Whether it is in the sacrifices that families must make to stretch their incomes to cover costs, the lack of city and state funding to cover all the utility and maintenance cost increases , or the rising fuel bill that the military must meet, often, particularly in national bases, from existing budgets. And even in field operations the use of alternate approaches is being considered.
The different sizes and scales of the price impact mean that, short of greatly increased supplies of oil becoming available at low cost, (as readers know an unattainable dream) alternate solutions and changes to lifestyles and practices will have to be implemented, on a growing scale as the costs of supply continue to rise. But these answers must be different in different places, and as they seek to address different scales of problem.
From time to time, and particularly in Comments, there are suggestions and reality based discussions on what individuals can do to change or help with their personal lifestyle changes. At the other extreme we debate the success, or otherwise, of national programs to address the issue, and certainly there is a need for such a debate. But there is also an intermediate level, the one where the impact of oil and natural gas cost increases is already clearly apparent, and that is at the level of local, and state government. And here, while the pain is immediate, remedial steps can either occur quite quickly or much more slowly – depending on the local government understanding of the situation.
It is also at this level that most of the decisions are made about permitting new power plants. I was thinking about that, and the factors that lead to permitting decisions when I looked at the announcement about T. Boone Pickens new wind farm program. The plan does not have as immediate an impact as I first understood.
T. Boone Pickens: Well, that's the first step to a 4,000-megawatt wind farm. This is 1,000 megawatts. We start receiving those turbines in mid 2010. We will have the total 4,000 megawatts finished by the end of 2015. That power will go into a transmission line that will tie into the Electric Reliability Council of Texas system in the state of Texas, and it will be transmitted downstate
I first heard him talk about the idea at the ASPO meeting last year in Houston. At that time the installation of the wind farm was intended just to help with the supply of electricity to the nation. In the latest version, however, the benefit of the farm is also directed towards the displacement of natural gas as the source of electrical power.
Natural gas use, as you may have noted, has been increasingly, over the last few years, the fuel of choice for new power stations. And the increase in demand has led to a current increase in US production, although at a significantly higher price.However, a significant fraction of this new production is coming from shale deposits, where the high level of demand and the decline pattern of the wells (50% drop in the first year and economic exhaustion within 4 years) means that this is really a transient resource, with drilling having to increase more and more just to keep up with existing demand, and with the likelihood of that not being possible within the next few years. This becomes germane relative to the Pickens Plan, since by the time it becomes fully effective, it is likely that natural gas will be in significantly shorter supply than it is at present.
As a result any move to change, on a significant scale, the motive fuel for the American fleet from gas and diesel to natural gas power is likely to run out of that fuel, before there has been a significant economic return on the investment. It runs the risk of becoming an alternative, like corn-based ethanol, which will have limited impact, and where its contribution will turn out to be much less than had been originally hoped.
There have been a couple of stories recently about those seeking divine intervention to lower the prices of gas. It has been mentioned that, after prayer, it did rain in Georgia last year to help with the drought. But, sadly, the drought appears to be getting worse. Should the drought continue, then not only will water levels possibly fall to the level that affects local power stations (they need cooling water and if the level falls below the intake level then they must shut down), but also normal drinking and domestic water supplies will come under increasing threat. This was quite a concern last year but doesn’t seem to be mentioned in recent discussions. In these times I am more inclined to the thought that I think I first heard in the Alec Guinness movie The Lavender Hill Mob where it is quoted by a ruffian shoplifting a toy train in a department store, “God helps those, who help themselves!”
So what can we do to help ourselves. There will be local solutions that can be implemented faster than national ones – the Governor in Maine and New England seem to indicate a closer feel to reality than some other states have yet shown. Each region will have to look to the resources of the region to help with their local needs. The solar farms in California will not be as successful in Alaska in December, and the wind farms that may be productive where the wind blows strongly may not contribute as strongly in less windy parts of the country. (When I drove past the wind farm near Hel not all the turbines were turning). On the other hand the pellet stoves that might be a partial solution in places with significant forests, don’t work too well as a significant fuel contribution in Arizona. There is considerable awareness, at the local level, of the need to find these solutions.
The problem however, T. Boone Pickens attempts to the contrary, is that most of these local solutions are not going to have much impact on the more critical need, which is for liquid fuels to drive the cars and trucks in the next few years. And while a number of small companies are now using waste cooling oil, that can only go so far. It is here, I believe, that we need to have more of a national effort. So far that effort hasn’t seemed to do much for supply. Apart from playing the blame game, what are we really doing to find new sources of fuel?
The incentives for corn-based ethanol, and the encouragement of cellulosic ethanol are beginning to appear less than attractive (except to junior senators from corn growing states such as Illinois). What then can local authorities do about the situation? Firstly they need to be aware of the problem, and so, , let me take my hat off to those ( Gail the Actuary being a prime example) who are willing to go out and talk to local service clubs, council members and folk at that level. It does not get you the publicity that talking on national TV does, but often it can be more useful. Talking heads on TV don’t reach the folk that run the town or city, and who have immediate problems in paying for their fuel bills, or affording asphalt for the road resurfacing program. Yet these are the folk that need to know what is coming down the pike. Debbie Cook had some good advice (pdf) about how to talk to folk at this level at the Cork ASPO meeting last year. But before talking to them it might be better to start with the service club programs. Program chairs for these clubs are always looking for informative talks to their membership (and it generally comes with a free meal). They are friendly groups of your neighbors and it is a good way to start spreading the word.
Oh, if only Alec Guiness were the Governor of Maine.. (Link on 'Maine Gov' points to Lavender Hill Mob)
But I'd love to hear what Baldacci has to say, just the same.
Thanks, Prof!
Sorry - fixed.
HO
.. erm, I mean HO.
The link to maine gov pointing to lavender hill mob is probably right. The State of Maine energy policy is martial "law" - after the corporations have looted whatever they can get, it moves to point of gun. The Governor's policies are designed to maximize resource extraction. The TX model appears like it is aimed at keeping energy resources in state where the ME model is aimed at facilitating export of resources out of state. Town selectmen are getting permitting applications redacted and blacked out for "national security". But, of course, Baldacci administration let sale of distribution (CMP) to Spanish owners take place just a little while ago. There is further drama going on with the dams and fisheries, where Baldacci seems in collusion with dam owners - bye-bye a good number of native fish species: salmon, eel. 25 years ago Maine was in a much better place. Now energy policy is strictly "free market" - which in practice means corporate subsidies and get your permit here while DEP looks the other way.
Growth uber alles - but it won't work. We're choking in our shit already. We might take a while to recognize it as such though, the environmental, economic and social degradation.
cfm in Gray, ME
There are things that can be done. Unfortunately, they're all un-American.
Conserve. I won't list all the ways. It's been do so many times in so many places.
Work and live more collectively. An entire change in ethos is needed.
Return to the soil. The small towns that are being abandoned need to be repopulated and built up, a la Kunstler.
Drastically reduce the military, and change the function of what's left. Empire is obsolete, and not just for us (US). The EROEI of war seems to be negative. Refocus resources on survival.
Chances of much of this happening soon? Zilch.
Conserve. I won't list all the ways. It's been do so many times in so many places.
I will list one that has not been done often enough or loud enough.
a) stop population growth.
One of the biggest ironies of our time is that with oil starting to skyrocket in price enough that even the business shows have people discussing finite limits, with websites appearing that deal with the coming decline in global oil production, with former politicians and oil billionaires talking up wind energy and against business as usual with fossil fuels - the amount of people in the media calling for a stoppage of immigration into the United States is zip, zilch, zero, nada, nothing. Right now the vast prevailing thought - both the conventional and the unconventional wisdom - is that we not only have enough oil, natural gas, and coal to produce energy for 304 million Americans, but we have enough to produce it for 400 million Americans. Or is it enough for 500 million Americans? I guess until one of the many many immigration cheerleaders puts an end date on it, it means we have enough fossil fuel for an infinite amount of Americans.
If I could paraphrase one person who had the clarity of thought and cajones to express it - Tad Patzek - talking about energy solutions without talking about population control is like mopping the floor with the pipe still leaking.
Hi FQ,
Are there any truly effective ways to limit population growth that are also politically and morally palatable?
Cheers,
Paul
Not really. Bashing on morals and responsibility is counter productive, for Darwinian reasons. People who answer to the call to 'responsibility' (ie have less children) will reproduce much less than those who don't. Those who have more children will proliferate, and their children are more likely to have more children too. Thus, the effort will result in more population growth.
The only way to do it is by very restrictive birth control, which is a total social and political non-starter. It won't happen, especially not globally.
Population is going to level off anyway. We just have to manage the affluence of a population that's perhaps 40-60 percent bigger than today's.
And the Pope's in town at the moment, asking us to go forth and multiply. Religion, now there's a topic!
Regards, Matt B
PS. The "baby bonus" in Australia is still around $7000 cash! Think there's a baby-boom on at the moment over here?
If there's anything we know how to do, it's stop population growth.
1. Install social security and public health care.
2. Install cable tv.
That's really all you need to do to smash population growth. It has worked every single time, no exceptions.
Well, except for Mennonites and Orthodox Jews in the US. Don't know why they are so resistant.
Even religion cannot escape the Darwinian logic. Religions that are peace loving, that don't force others into their religion, that don't urge people to be 'productive', end up losing the Darwinian battle.
Are there any truly effective ways to limit population growth that are also politically and morally palatable?
I am going to speak about American population growth only. You won't get the majority of people to immediately embrace a stoppage of immigration because it has been romantized for so long and they have been taught for so long by its proponents that it is "what makes America great". And the proponents have also been very effective in painting anyone who is against immigration as a racist. And business people wield undemocratic influence over politicians since they are allowed to bribe them (euphemistically referred to as a contribution) and these business people absolutely love a never-ending wave of extra workers from which to choose and a never-ending wave of extra-customers to sell to. Even among the sharp number crunchers of this site, you won't see graphs or bar charts or tables comparing energy needs with a stable population (forget declining) versus growing population or captions that say something like "I have factored in an annual growth in US population of 1.5% compounded" or the words "due to population increasing".
But I don't believe it is an impossible task. It has to be done in steps. First politicians and business leaders have to realize there are finite resources that are in productional decline and that the amount of coal we have and can produce is vastly overstated. Then second, some of those politicians that are retiring - like George Bush - can begin to speak the truth about it and start to convince the people that fossil fuels are finite. Right now there is some bizarre thinking that takes place in the mind of both the elite and the common person in America. They somehow believe that there is plenty of oil - we just have to drill for it, both in America and overseas. They don't know how much is remaining, how much we have already used, how much we need now, how much we will need in the future - they only "know" that there is plenty of oil. Prices are rising from "greedy oil companies" or "greedy Arabs" or anything else unrelated to using up a finite resource. But people are amazingly sheep-like in their thinking and also very deferential to authority. Tell them Iraq has WMDs and you are sure of it, even though you cannot tell UN Inspectors a single place in the country where they are, and they will not only not impeach you or try you for war crimes when it is found out that you lied in order to invade and destroy a country, they will reelect you. So they will ultimately come on board to the idea that we don't have enough fossil fuel. Particularly if a Republican President does it. Then you immediately get an entire network, FoxNews, speaking about limited fossil fuels and the majority of a political party coming on board.
Once you have them convinced there is a PERMANENT shortage, then the third step, stopping population growth via immigration becomes much much easier. Years ago in California there were two years of a severe drought. In the second year, amidst bans and restrictions on watering your lawn and washing your car, they stopped issuing building permits in some areas. An amazing amazing thing. The system is hard-wired for builders to pay bureaucrats to issue building permits forever and ever and yet they stopped. In the face of scarcity they suddenly saw a link between population growth and a finite resource. Now this didn't last, because they apparently thought that it was the last drought. So the emphasis would need to be on PERMANENT shortage of fossil fuels. We aren't going to drill our way out. We aren't going to "coal-to-liquid" our way out. There aren't "political factors" or "above the ground factors" causing a temporary shortage. At the very least, even if it turned out population growth was so ingrained in the minds of Americans that it could not be stopped even when people realized that resources were finite and expendable, the population growth advocates (via immigration or lack of abortion and birth control or what have you) would be forced to become the biggest chearleaders for wind/solar/wave/nuclear the world has seen to date.
Hi FQ,
Thanks for fleshing-out your thoughts. Would it be fair to say the measures you propose are not intended to limit population growth as such, but rather to restrict U.S. immigration? And at the end of the day, would that resolve our issues with excess resource use and environmental degradation?
Cheers,
Paul
Would it be fair to say the measures you propose are not intended to limit population growth as such, but rather to restrict U.S. immigration?
Since I prefaced it by saying I was speaking from an American perspective limiting immigration drastically limits population growth where I live - America. Al Gore didn't call for the world to have 100% renewable energy by 2020 - he called for America to do it. We won't hit 100% by 2020, but whatever percent we hit, will be higher if we end immigration today. And ultimately ending US immigration will limit total world population as well since the countries that are overpopulating through births (which is now the US as well thanks to immigrant mothers), most notably Mexico, but also India, Pakistan, the Phillipines, and others, will have to deal with their population problem sooner. Mexico can't shreak loud enough at any proposal to stop illegal immigration. They see it as a big solution to their problems. Stop it and they need to find other solutions. Like maybe birth control.
And at the end of the day, would that resolve our issues with excess resource use and environmental degradation?
An American uses more resources than a Philipino or a Mexican or an Indian. Allowing them to come to the US causes more resource use and environmental degradation than if they had remained home. At the end of any day in which people immigrant from the 3rd world to the US, there is more resources used than there was the day before, more environmental degradation that day than there was the day before. No one thing will resolve our issues with "excess resource use and environmental degradation" so I think it is unfair to say that if something doesn't solve the problem completely than it shouldn't be done. That is what people that don't want a local wind farm always say. They point to how small that wind farm's output will be in relation to what the state needs and then say "this wind farm will not solve our energy problem, therefore it can be canceled with no bad effect".
At the end of many many days, 2 million immigrants a year into the US, plus their offspring ends up being 10s of millions and uses tremendous resources and causes tremendous environmental degradation - if nothing else - for the US.
Limiting immigration as long as WE in the US have such a disproportionally larger share than anyone else, as long as that disproportional share is based on taking away from those same people who then must try to work their way here, no, it will not work. No, if we want to stop the urge to come to US, we need to
take less and help others have more.
Or put all our efforts into guns. Maybe just shooting people at the border. And it won't be long before we start shooting people within our borders with equal abandon. How we make and pay for those guns is going to be an interesting question. Nuclear and biological weapons - on a mass scale - that's probably what US will do. After all, we already have the stockpiles.
Before we do that, however, we're going to need a Pinochet-like purge of the unpatriotic elements within US society. Which is why Homeland Security's terrorist watch list is now over 1 million Americans. Nixon was just playing around.
cfm in Gray, ME
We can stop immigration without stopping "the urge to come to the US" or using guns to kill people. And we likely will, only for very sad reasons. As horrible and "immoral" as the pro-immigration crowd want to paint a stoppage of immigration, it happened once before - during the Great Depression. And it wasn't turned on again (for the most part) until Teddy Kennedy and his team got fired up about it in the 1960's. That's 30 years without significant immigration. The country survived fine, the world survived fine. No one went to hell because of it.
Ultimately I don't see how that won't be the story again if things go as badly as they could once oil production starts to decline. You will not have a Great Depression II, with high 25% unemployment, and a government that looks the other way as employers hire illegals from Mexico.You will not have a Great Depression II and have a government that cows to the incessant begging and whining of greedy businessmen who claim they must have more and more foreign workers or they won't be able to compete ... with the American company down the block. And you will not have a Great Depression II with 25% unemployment and a million new immigrants each year waiting for their citizenship papers.
And also, you will not have a Great Depression II, and have a government that looks the other way as employers send jobs to China and India in massive amounts. Pulling back jobs from China and India while simultaneously freezing the US population would be a great way to lesson world demand for oil, just as sending massive amounts of jobs over there was a great way to hit Peak Oil sooner rather than later.
...
Where do people like you come from? Are you posting from your bunker in the hills, or what?
The mind boggles.
An American uses more resources than a Philipino or a Mexican or an Indian.
Surely, Americans do consume and waste enormous resources. Why do you feel you have the right to spend a life of luxury, while others should be denied of these things? Everyone here wants a better life for themselves and their loved ones. And if its in America, people will go. If not legally, then by illegally crossing the borders.
Do you know how many illegal immigrants enter the US every year?
Surely, Americans do consume and waste enormous resources. Why do you feel you have the right to spend a life of luxury, while others should be denied of these things?
I am not denying anyone anywhere in the world the ability to live a life of luxury. You don't have to come to America to live a life of luxury.
Everyone here wants a better life for themselves and their loved ones. And if its in America, people will go. If not legally, then by illegally crossing the borders.
It is a simple matter to stop illegal immigration. People can't come to where they aren't wanted. Right now the people in power want illegal immigration so it occurs, but if they decide they don't want it then it wouldn't matter how much a Mexican crossing the border or an Indian or Chinese overstaying their visa wants to come they wouldn't be able to get a job, get any services, etc. because Americans would know the penalty was too to severe if they deal with them.
Do you know how many illegal immigrants enter the US every year?
Tons, but you have both George Bush and John McCain who want to give them another amnesty. Rich men love illegal immigration. They lose no jobs due to it, have no salary lowered from it, don't have their neighborhoods taken over by it, have no gangs in their kids schools because of it, etc. - they only see it benefiting them as they hire cheap and desperate gardeners and nannies and maids and what have you while all of society, rich and poor alike has to share the burden of the costs of the illegals. I wouldn't be surprised if Barack Obama was all for it. If the people in power ever decide they don't like illegal immigration they will stop it. If we go into a Great Depression both legal and illegal immigration will stop. Any politician who continues the "great immigration propaganda" at that point will be voted out of office.
I for one would like to see churches sponsoring family planning clinics in Mexico. It is the biggest waste of resources for all these churches to drive a bunch of cars down to Mexico all the time to build houses. One family planning clinic could save 10's of thousands of car trips to Mexico. I am not going on anymore of these missions. I supose they do offer a modicum of help to needy people. But family plannning is the hot ticket.
At least that is the way I see it.
It's like African aid. It should go hand in hand with population control. They are very poor and beset with numerous challenges and frequent crisis, and yet have a very high population growth rate.
I read once that Warren Buffet was a big contributor to Planned Parenthood or something similar. But now he has turned all his money over to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Their foundation lists these Grantees:
----------------------------------------------------
Global Development Grantee Profiles
Our partners in global development are committed to helping hundreds of millions of families in the developing world emerge from extreme hunger and poverty.
Global Health Grantee Profiles
Organizations we support are working on innovative solutions to prevent and treat disease and provide access to health interventions in developing countries.
United States Grantee Profiles
Organizations in the U.S. are expanding access to technology and making a difference in the lives of students, and vulnerable children and families.
--------------------------------------------------------
Even clicking on the "Read more" links for the above shows nothing about population control. So you have to wonder - did Warren Buffet help or hurt people by diverting his billions from a situation where he was donating part of it to population control - to a situation where it is all going to things that are worthy and good but that do nothing to solve the underlying problem of overpopulation and increasing population. The hope I suppose is that all the poor areas will become rich enough to where parents have better things to do with their time than raise more than about 2 kids. But do we have the time and the resources to get to that point?
I didn't know we were giving money to poor people in Africa. I thought we were just propping up corrupt governments with money that we borrowed from Swiss banks that got the funds from the corrupt government officials that we bribed.
Just goes to show that you learn something new every day.
Actually, a good part of that money comes straight back to us in the West. Typically 50-75% of foreign aid is "tied" foreign aid, that is the receiving country must use it to buy goods and services from the donating country.
For example, a few years back the US gave $175 million in aid to Afghanistan, and $125 million of that went on building a luxury hotel for foreign VIPs to stay in. Entirely built by foreign contractors, and staffed at most levels by them, I think they might have let some Afghans sweep the street outside or something... But hey, it's foreign aid, honest!
FQ
a) stop population growth.
I'm with you all the way - in fact I stumbled into PO while doing research on projected oil consumption to 2050. The curve looks like a wall by 2012.
But -
Just as their is a 1:1 relationship between unitl fossil fuel and unit GDP, there is a similar relationship between unit human and unit GDP.
Roughly expressed.
Unit GDP:Unit Fossil Fuel:Unit Human
By extension throw in the byproduct of burning fossil fuel and you get.
Unit GDP:Unit Fossil Fuel:Unit Human:Unit GHG
Constraining the growth of any one of these units slows, stops, or shrinks the economy.(Remember Bush rebuffed Kyoto because it would negatively impact the economy)
So as a guess, the only thing that is going to downsize the population is PO or GHG as humans are too selfish to give up money or percieved wealth voluntairly for any reason. Including saving themselves.
Believe me, I'm with you though. No money = no 'work' other than food, clothing, shelter, art & entertainment, and heat. I'd much rather be doing that than what I do now!
Carl
Although Unit Human:Unit GDP, Unit Human has no relation to Unit GDP Per Capita. If population stays stable, GDP only grows slightly (due to efficiency gains etc), but the increase in GDP goes straight into people's incomes, so they actually get more wealthy, not less.
But alas, it is the percieved wealth that matters, not the actual wealth, and percieved wealth is measured in GDP...
Money is too abstract. Look at the relation between population growth and primary energy use: the per capita primary energy use over time is almost flat. This is because we are more efficient with energy, both on the generation side as on the demand side. With population levelling off maybe at 40-60 percent bigger than today's, that strongly suggests that at least the problem of exponential energy growth isn't escalating ad infinitum like some doomers believe.
There was a time when the term population control referred to the right to decide whether or not to have more kids. I guess 'population control' is now just a euphemism for xenophobia.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3672
White House Defines Contraception as Abortion
I guess 'population control' is now just a euphemism for xenophobia.
What we need is a non-euphemism for the phenomenon of people worshiping immigration and immigrants and/or romantically spinning immigration into some fairy tale that never ends. Isn't it amazing that even on a site dedicated to discussing the decline in production of a critical natural resource the politically manufactured term "xenophobia" is still used.
The media circus around anti-immigration sentiment is a drug-induced haze that prevents realistic assessment of this government's counter-productive anti-birth control policies. That you can rant against immigrants as a form of population control but ignore the contradictory pro-population/ anti-reproductive rights issue is a testament to the power of that drug.
If you want world population control, then stop trying to prevent US Citizens [AND non US citizens here and abroad] from limiting the size of their own families.
If you REALLY want to stop illegal immigration, you'd undo NAFTA and you'd crack down on their non-law-abiding US corporate employers. But cracking down on the illegal immigrants themselves is only token zenophobic action - whose sole purpose is to rile up the political base before an election: suckers!
That you can rant against immigrants as a form of population control but ignore the contradictory pro-population/ anti-reproductive rights issue is a testament to the power of that drug.
Even with the birth-control views of the right wing, had liberal Teddy Kennedy not gotten the immigration spigot turned on again in 1965, we would be at negative population growth. The birth rate just went above the 2.1 per woman replacement level recently and it was ascribed to a higher birth rate from immigrant mothers.
That you can rant against immigrants as a form of population control but ignore the contradictory pro-population/ anti-reproductive rights issue is a testament to the power of that drug.
I am with you 100% on the US promoting birth control, regardless of whether abortion is part of it, but I don't think American policy has that much affect on births in other countries.
If you REALLY want to stop illegal immigration, you'd undo NAFTA and you'd crack down on their non-law-abiding US corporate employers. But cracking down on the illegal immigrants themselves is only token zenophobic action - whose sole purpose is to rile up the political base before an election: suckers!
I agree, this "crackdown" is just for show to placate the right wing. We have never done more than give token enforcement to employers hiring illegals. I have seen cases get thrown out of court because a plant was inspected for illegal hiring without giving the employer sufficient advance notification. The penalties should be so severe that hiring just one illegal puts the business at risk of going under and the second offense puts it out of business. But I disagree on NAFTA. NAFTA sends jobs from the US to Mexico which to some degree would lower the amount that are streaming here illegally.
But I don't think there are many people who have xenophobia - "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign". Which has an implied "irrational" tacked on to the front of it. There are clearly many many harmful effects of immigration that go hand in hand with the harmful effects of native population growth and are far from irrational. It's actually irrational to ignore them or pretend they don't exist. Housing and land become more expensive and life is more crowded and congested. Finite resources have to be divied up in smaller allotments and run out sooner. Renewable resources like wood and fish are harder to renew. Garbage must be piled higher and further away, pollution increases, democracy decreases - each vote is worth less. Employers have more power over their workers as the population growth puts supply/demand in their favor (which is one of the reasons they absolutely love it). And immigration adds problems that native population growth doesn't - like increased crime among immigrant groups versus natives, extra costs for educating and other activities for non-English speakers. And there is the negative that the poor feel the worst - the phenomenon of living in the same house or apartment and yet, in effect, ending up in a foreign country - where you are not welcome.
If you really have a population argument rather than a
xenophobicracist one, then you must argue instead to ban all immigration legal and illegal, and not differentiate between the two. But the insistence upon differentiation is the clue to the racism in the arguments made against illegals.Whether they realize it or not, most Americans concerned about illegal immigration DO have xenophobia and blatant racism, fuelled by right-wingnuts in power in politics and media. They are not clamoring for waspy-looking immigrants to be stopped at the borders. They are upset about the brown impoverished non-english speakers from south of the border.
Regarding the increased crime comparison you cite: Many illegal immigrants are the victims of crime. They are known to be 'walking ATMs' because they can't open checking accounts, and so they are targets of 'native' thieves looking for an easy mark so they can go do more meth amphetamines while the immigrants go do underpaid outdoor manual labor all day.
If you really have a population argument rather than a xenophobicracist one, then you must argue instead to ban all immigration legal and illegal, and not differentiate between the two. But the insistence upon differentiation is the clue to the racism in the arguments made against illegals.
You pulled out the race card on the wrong guy. I am against all immigration.
Whether they realize it or not, most Americans concerned about illegal immigration DO have xenophobia and blatant racism, fuelled by right-wingnuts in power in politics and media. They are not clamoring for waspy-looking immigrants to be stopped at the borders. They are upset about the brown impoverished non-english speakers from south of the border.
Doesn't matter if they are calling for it for because the immigrants are of a different race or if they are calling for it because they don't speak English or any other reason - just calling for it is the right thing to do. Immigration is ludicrous in a period of declining critical resources and/or finite resources. Immigration is ludicrous into a crowded country with expensive cities with over 300 million people. Immigration is not sustainable. At this point in time, as we face tremendous crisis, anything that is not sustainable should be stopped as soon as possible. It's technically possible to stop immigration tomorrow.
Regarding the increased crime comparison you cite: Many illegal immigrants are the victims of crime. They are known to be 'walking ATMs' because they can't open checking accounts, and so they are targets of 'native' thieves looking for an easy mark so they can go do more meth amphetamines while the immigrants go do underpaid outdoor manual labor all day.
Not too many natives forming gangs and doing drive by shootings. I think you have a tough task ahead of you if you try and make a case for immigrants committing less crime than natives. But that's irrelevant. The primary reason for stopping immigration is not crime anyway. There are negatives that far outweigh more crime committed by immigrants in the areas they inhabit - except of course for the victims of those crimes.
How can you argue immigration and racism are the same, or that illegal and legal immigration are the same? How can you claim that Americans in general don't mind "waspy-looking" immigrants sneaking across the border? Do you invite poor illiterate criminals to live in your house and feed them at your expense? Why not?
If we going to over-generalize, why is that liberals always want to give away my money and resources, and use up other peoples, yet won't part with their own?
It's simple for me -- rule of law. If we have space and choose to allow immigration, come on in legally. If not, stay out. If you are here, legally or illegally, and you break the law, away you go to prison or deportation (or execution -- what's this nonsense about people coming here and not living according to our laws??).
If you don't want to speak English, don't come. If you don't want to take care of your offspring, PLEASE don't come - we have plenty of deadbeat parents here already.
The entire problem with immigration isn't one of hate, but of the extent of finite resources and the cost of liberal hand-outs. It was bad enough when we built a welfare state for citizens, but to extend it to non-citizens is ludicrous. We can't afford it, and we don't owe it to anybody.
And FYI, the media is way left, not right. Most politicians of both parties as well. Us true conservatives don't mind being called conservative, and certainly no big-gov't advocate is one!
FiniteQuantity,I agree with you 100%.In Australia we have a similar problem with the "Growth at any Cost" crowd in control in Government and business.
Consequently we have abominations like a 150,000/annum immigration intake,a previous Federal treasurer telling the nation's women to have a third child for the country and an insane "baby bonus" of about $5000 for each child.
There is a small organization here (Sustainable Population Australia)which has been battling away for years to try to raise consciousness of this issue but it is like trying to penetrate a wall of total shit.
As you may know,Australia is the most arid continent apart from Antarctica.It has a lot of mineral wealth but this is being sold off overseas at an increasing rate.Because there is prosperity at present there seems to be a belief that this can continue regardless of the real carrying capacity of the land.
We already have a >20million population which is beyond the sustainable limit.Factor in the present problems of land degradation due to mad farming practices,a very unrelia