The connection between expanding human population and stress on the natural environment should be obvious. More people require more resources to sustain them. Not so obvious, but equally true, immigration overwhelmingly is the main force driving up U.S. population. Thus it would seem that serious environmentalists would be inclined to support immigration restriction.
Quite often, however, they don’t. In today’s political and social climate what otherwise would be obvious is often hidden behind a fog of sentimentality about immigration and politically correct politics. The best way to counter this obfuscation is simply to state facts so that the obvious comes into plain view again. An excellent source of such facts is a report entitled U.S. Immigration and the Environment, recently published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
It begins by noting that U.S. population has the largest environmental impact, or “footprint,” in the world, and that immigration is “the jet engine that drives U.S. population growth.” Specifically, it has accounted for half of our growth during the past 50 years, and if the present level continues it will account for 75 percent of the increase.
People concerned about climate change should pay heed. When immigrants settle in the U.S. they significantly increase carbon emissions, due to our high use of fossil fuel energy. Certainly we have made strides in making our per capita use of energy more efficient and less polluting, but our rising population makes it much harder to reduce overall emissions.
Another consequence is sprawl, the continuing outward expansion of development that covers the natural environment with asphalt and concrete. The FAIR booklet notes:
“From 70 to 90 percent of sprawl nationally during 2000-2010 was caused by immigration-driven population growth. Keep in mind that even internal migration is also increased in part by secondary migration away from high-immigration areas.”
Some environmentalists maintain that growing population need not always cause sprawl. They believe that planning can bring about “smart growth,” which would restrain sprawl by promoting a high density of residents. Certainly this kind of planning could put a rein on sprawl, but it would come at a cost of freedom for citizens who might want more elbow room than the plans would allow. In any case, no amount of smart growth can stave off the impact of massive and unrelenting waves of immigration. The resulting growth, no matter how it’s managed, will make growing demands on natural resources, including soil, water and clean air.
It would be wise for our country to have a discussion about population growth. In the past, two eminent panels have urged steps leading to population stability. One was the Rockefeller Commission which declared in 1972:
“After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the nation’s ability to solve its problems.”
Then in 1996, President Bill Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) reached a similar conclusion.
With immigration now at the highest sustained level in our history, and contributing to 75 percent of our population growth, it would be reasonable to reduce that level significantly. By doing so, we Americans could stabilize our numbers without too many painful adjustments. A very good idea the FAIR report proposes is an environmental impact study for immigration.
The government already requires these studies for “activities significantly affecting the human environment,” and certainly immigration would fall in this category. Being able to quantify the cost would greatly assist wise policymaking. When we can see what is obvious, we can make the obvious choices.