(Not a John Reece post)
Do those who assume that anthropogenic global warming/cooling/climate change/doesn't matter is true take the logical next step to their philosophy?
Until such time as the global warming acolytes publicly treat the impact of immigration from Third World countries with the same level of seriousness and attention to detail that they claim to dedicate to reducing carbon emissions, they can be safely dismissed.
Do those who assume that anthropogenic global warming/cooling/climate change/doesn't matter is true take the logical next step to their philosophy?
Originally posted by Steve Sailer
Of the millions of Greenies who claim to be deadly serious about Saving the World from global warming by limiting carbon emissions, how many are really sincere?
There`s one surefire test of sincerity: Do they demand reductions in immigration to the U.S.?
Answer: almost none of them do.
A Google search for “carbon emissions“ brings up 3,680,000 web pages. (August 8, 2010). Add “immigration reduction“ to the search, however, and the hit count falls to 114.
The causes of global warning are disputed, but let`s assume for the sake of analysis that human output of “greenhouse gases” does indeed cause global warming. It ought to be close to self-evident that immigration to America increases this country`s—and the world`s—output of those gases.
The logic is very simple: If immigrants from poor countries successfully assimilate to American norms of earning and consuming, they, and their descendents, will emit vastly more carbon than if they stayed home.
According to the UN`s International Energy Agency, residents of America in 2007 put out an average of 19.1 tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by fossil fuel combustion—e.g., by driving around, by being warm in winter and cool in summer, and by watching TV.
In contrast, the residents of Mexico each emit 4.1 tons per year. In other words, the typical inhabitant of America churns out 4.6 times as much carbon dioxide as the typical inhabitant of Mexico.
So, if an average Mexican immigrates to the U.S. and fully assimilates to average American patterns of earning and spending, he will emit 4.6 times as much carbon dioxide as if he stayed home in his own country.
Of course, it`s also important to remember that not all immigrants come from Mexico. Many Americans don`t realize it, but by Third World standards, Mexicans on average aren`t particularly poor. According to the CIA World Factbook, there are no less that 5,366,204,659 people living in countries with lower average per capita incomes than Mexico.
To put it another way, 79% of world lives in countries poorer than Mexico.
(Of course, the Mexican average is a little skewed by the World Richest Man, Carlos Slim, major creditor of the New York Times, and his fellow oligarchs.)
It`s commonly implied in the MSM that Mexicans immigrate to the U.S. to avoid seeing their children die of starvation. Yet, life expectancy in Mexico (76.3 years) is now essentially as high (97.5 percent) in the U.S.
No, Mexicans don`t immigrate to America to live longer—they immigrate to live larger: to have a large vehicle, a large house, a large TV, and a large family. All of which equate to large carbon emissions.
… In most other immigrant-exporting countries, the carbon emission immigration multiplier is substantially higher than that of Mexico. For instance, if a normal Dominican immigrates to America and successfully assimilates his carbon emissions would increase 9.7 times. For most Central Americans, the Immigration Multiplier is around 20X. For Haitians, it`s 79.3X.
Moreover, the more you think about the impact of Mexican immigration, the worse it is for carbon emissions. Immigration contributes both directly and indirectly to sprawl. Mexican immigration to cities tends to drive Americans, including blacks and American-born Hispanics, to the exurbs to find decent public school districts—at the cost of long commutes for parents. For example, immigration into Los Angeles, with its mild climate, spawned an enormous housing bubble in the hot Inland Empire, where air conditioning costs are high.
As Joel Kotkin has often pointed out, most immigrants in the 21st Century want to spend as little time in the inner city as possible and instead move directly to a suburb or exurb.
Finally, Mexican immigrants tend to have higher birthrates in America than they would have had if they stayed home. In California in 2005, foreign-born Latinas were having babies at a rate of 3.7 children per lifetime versus about 2.4 for women in Mexico and 1.6 for American-born white women in California.…
There`s one surefire test of sincerity: Do they demand reductions in immigration to the U.S.?
Answer: almost none of them do.
A Google search for “carbon emissions“ brings up 3,680,000 web pages. (August 8, 2010). Add “immigration reduction“ to the search, however, and the hit count falls to 114.
The causes of global warning are disputed, but let`s assume for the sake of analysis that human output of “greenhouse gases” does indeed cause global warming. It ought to be close to self-evident that immigration to America increases this country`s—and the world`s—output of those gases.
The logic is very simple: If immigrants from poor countries successfully assimilate to American norms of earning and consuming, they, and their descendents, will emit vastly more carbon than if they stayed home.
According to the UN`s International Energy Agency, residents of America in 2007 put out an average of 19.1 tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by fossil fuel combustion—e.g., by driving around, by being warm in winter and cool in summer, and by watching TV.
In contrast, the residents of Mexico each emit 4.1 tons per year. In other words, the typical inhabitant of America churns out 4.6 times as much carbon dioxide as the typical inhabitant of Mexico.
So, if an average Mexican immigrates to the U.S. and fully assimilates to average American patterns of earning and spending, he will emit 4.6 times as much carbon dioxide as if he stayed home in his own country.
Of course, it`s also important to remember that not all immigrants come from Mexico. Many Americans don`t realize it, but by Third World standards, Mexicans on average aren`t particularly poor. According to the CIA World Factbook, there are no less that 5,366,204,659 people living in countries with lower average per capita incomes than Mexico.
To put it another way, 79% of world lives in countries poorer than Mexico.
(Of course, the Mexican average is a little skewed by the World Richest Man, Carlos Slim, major creditor of the New York Times, and his fellow oligarchs.)
It`s commonly implied in the MSM that Mexicans immigrate to the U.S. to avoid seeing their children die of starvation. Yet, life expectancy in Mexico (76.3 years) is now essentially as high (97.5 percent) in the U.S.
No, Mexicans don`t immigrate to America to live longer—they immigrate to live larger: to have a large vehicle, a large house, a large TV, and a large family. All of which equate to large carbon emissions.
… In most other immigrant-exporting countries, the carbon emission immigration multiplier is substantially higher than that of Mexico. For instance, if a normal Dominican immigrates to America and successfully assimilates his carbon emissions would increase 9.7 times. For most Central Americans, the Immigration Multiplier is around 20X. For Haitians, it`s 79.3X.
Moreover, the more you think about the impact of Mexican immigration, the worse it is for carbon emissions. Immigration contributes both directly and indirectly to sprawl. Mexican immigration to cities tends to drive Americans, including blacks and American-born Hispanics, to the exurbs to find decent public school districts—at the cost of long commutes for parents. For example, immigration into Los Angeles, with its mild climate, spawned an enormous housing bubble in the hot Inland Empire, where air conditioning costs are high.
As Joel Kotkin has often pointed out, most immigrants in the 21st Century want to spend as little time in the inner city as possible and instead move directly to a suburb or exurb.
Finally, Mexican immigrants tend to have higher birthrates in America than they would have had if they stayed home. In California in 2005, foreign-born Latinas were having babies at a rate of 3.7 children per lifetime versus about 2.4 for women in Mexico and 1.6 for American-born white women in California.…
Comment