Last March I wrote an article titled Environmentalist Cowards where I highlighted the fact that the Sierra Club fears being labeled "racists" far more than they care about our environment. As stories about the impact to the environment caused by increasing demands of a growing population continue to be reported (Lake Mead dry by 2021, Population Pressures Western Water, Drought Jeopardizing Endangered Wildlife, and many others) and the Sierra Club et al continue to remain silent I felt it was necessary to once again contact the Sierra Club and ask them to reconsider their cowardly, politically correct position on immigration. Here is the response I received:
"Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue. The Sierra Club's membership voted on April 25, 1998 to remain committed to environmental rights and protection for all within our borders, without discrimination based on immigration status. With this vote, our members have shown they understand that restricting immigration into the U.S. will not solve the planet's environmental problems. There is broad agreement within the Sierra Club to address the global environmental dilemmas exacerbated by population growth by supporting voluntary family planning programs and access to basic rights for women and girls around the world."
Sierra Club Member Services
85 Second St, 2nd Fl
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 977-5653 (M-F, 9-5 PST)
So rather than taking obvious steps to preserve the environment in the US by opposing illegal and even legal immigration, and the concomitant environmental impact an increased population causes, they take a ridiculous and useless global position on "family planning", i.e. abortion and the pill. This smug, high minded position is nothing more than cover for their cowardice in the face of the forces of political correctness.
So as illegals litter our deserts with tons of garbage, drive the need for a physical barrier to keep them out (opposed by the environmentalists), and consume limited, precious resources the environmentalists do nothing.
And far from broad agreement this actually nearly caused a schism within the SC because some more conservative members and animal rights activists DID in fact want immigration control to be part of the SC position. They however lost to the PC wing of the organization who feared losing some of their more progressive members. So, the environment took a backseat to politics.
The environmentalists never miss an opportunity to warn us of the dangers of global warming but they remain silent on what would be one of the easiest ways to stop the increase of, or even reduce our emissions: population stability. If they truly cared about global warming then why don't they address the population connection? What is the point of pushing us to reduce our "carbon footprints" if we increase the number of footprints year after year? Our population now stands around the 300 Million mark and is projected to increase to 1 Billion by the end of this century if current immigration trends continue. To keep the same carbon footprint we'd all have to cut our energy consumption by 2/3. How would that impact your life?
I've written to several other large and powerful environmental organizations and will report on their positions when they respond. I suspect that they will have positions similar to the Sierra Club in their morally ambiguous, cowardly, and utter uselessness.