Does immigration hurt the environment?

[stewpy]

I heard a commentator on the radio yesterday claim that when someone emigrates to Canada, their footprint increases 10 fold. This is due to the higher standard of living, the fact they come from a warmer climate to one needing central heating, higher use of transportation, etc.

Also, Kyoto is an absolute reduction of carbon emissions, not a per capita (as Harper endorses). To begin to meet Kyoto,don't we need to move to cap our growth rate as much as possible?

Thus, is immigration anti-green?

[UrbanPoet]

we have a lot more things to worry about......
How about all the incadescent light bulbs that are still being used?
all the non-LED xmas lights?
SUV's? do we really need SUV's? Couldnt a AWD station wagon or good winter tires do it?

How about recycling? how efficient is our recycling...

[stealth]

Many immigrants come from countries where there is LESS of a "disposable/built-in obsolescence" mentality than many north americans. That is, they are used to making things last longer and having fewer frills.
As UP says, there are bigger things to worry about (altho I dont consider xmas lights to be one of them).
I think we're really nitpicking with these sorts of topics and agendas and suspect they're really masking other political agendas.
Kyoto's a joke.

[chrome_dout]

Many immigrants come from countries where there is LESS of a "disposable/built-in obsolescence" mentality than many north americans. That is, they are used to making things last longer and having fewer frills.
As UP says, there are bigger things to worry about (altho I dont consider xmas lights to be one of them).
I think we're really nitpicking with these sorts of topics and agendas and suspect they're really masking other political agendas.
Kyoto's a joke.

Is it ever! China + India modernizing w/o any emission restrictions = the death of our planet.

[stewpy]

we have a lot more things to worry about......
How about all the incadescent light bulbs that are still being used?
all the non-LED xmas lights?
SUV's? do we really need SUV's? Couldnt a AWD station wagon or good winter tires do it?

How about recycling? how efficient is our recycling...

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

Is it fair that immigration, pushed by big business to fuel economic growth, is allowed to cancel out my choices and action?

[stealth]

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

Is it fair that immigration, pushed by big business to fuel economic growth, is allowed to cancel out my choices and action?

Yes.

Choices such as these are voluntary, not imposed...Thats the whole point of much of the eco-gimmickry going on...the concept is you (business or people) can buy their way out of doing whats right through carbon credits, offsets, etc.

Your heart is in the right place, but you're worrying too much about it. I say, if you want more than 1 kid and can afford it, do it. Who knows...He/she may invent some new alternative fuel or device to purify lakes or something someday. :) You cant perceive all humans as parasites on the planet and live self-loathing like that. Thats not healthy.

Besides, many of the immigrants I see will jam 7-10 people into a house, maximizing every sq. ft. of living space, vs the north americans I know who either already to plan to live as a couple in a 2700 sq ft house, maybe with a small dog as well.

[fakishan]

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

I support this, and I'll even take it one step further, I think we should ship you and your family off to Africa. That will help the rest of us out quite nicely in my opinion.

Your fat wasteful footprint will be reduced by a significant factor.

We CANNOT afford not to do this, please pack your bags friend.

[stewpy]

I support this, and I'll even take it one step further, I think we should ship you and your family off to Africa. That will help the rest of us out quite nicely in my opinion.

Your fat wasteful footprint will be reduced by a significant factor.

We CANNOT afford not to do this, please pack your bags friend.

I can not fault your logic and will consider your proposal seriously! It might be nice to live in a warmer climate, after all.

[stealth]

I support this, and I'll even take it one step further, I think we should ship you and your family off to Africa. That will help the rest of us out quite nicely in my opinion.

Your fat wasteful footprint will be reduced by a significant factor.

We CANNOT afford not to do this, please pack your bags friend.

lol...

But that brings another point...Its not the amount of people in this country that is bad for the planet, its the worlds population that really counts. Keeping them in another country, or wherever, doesnt really solve the situation. Managing the birth rate in some of these countries to a sustainable amount, does.

[chilts]

we have a lot more things to worry about......

+1

seriously....have another kid if you want. I'm sure that excuse goes a long way with someones wife. "Hunny, I'd love to have another kid but I don't think I can live with his/her carbon footprint"

[dark169]

you have just discovered what most environmentalist either dont want to tell or are blissfully ignorant of, we have to many people living too good of lives right now. Keeping people in the stone ages helps the environment.

[brunes]

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

Is it fair that immigration, pushed by big business to fuel economic growth, is allowed to cancel out my choices and action?

We're inefficient compared to the rest of the G8 but not compared to the 3rd world.

And this whole line of thinking IMO is stupid. Of course someone coming from a poor country where they hardly use electricity to Canada is not "as green". But for that person whose standard of living has improved a hundred fold, his life is now so much better.

It is just as arrogant as saying "Oh look we're using too much power, so lets cull 25% of the population, the ones who waste power the most. That way we'll be more green".

[brunes]

lol...

But that brings another point...Its not the amount of people in this country that is bad for the planet, its the worlds population that really counts. Keeping them in another country, or wherever, doesnt really solve the situation. Managing the birth rate in some of these countries to a sustainable amount, does.

There is no danger of the world becoming overpopulated.

Experts believe global population is going to peak in a few years, then start to shrink, then level off.

Numbers are still growing; but recently—it is impossible to know exactly when—an inflection point seems to have been reached. The rate of population increase began to slow. In more and more countries, women started having fewer children than the number required to keep populations stable. Four out of nine people already live in countries in which the fertility rate has dipped below the replacement rate. Last year the United Nations said it thought the world's average fertility would fall below replacement by 2025. Demographers expect the global population to peak at around 10 billion (it is now 6.5 billion) by mid-century.

...

Some regard this as a cause for celebration, on the ground that there are obviously too many people on the planet. But too many for what? There doesn't seem to be much danger of a Malthusian catastrophe. Mankind appropriates about a quarter of what is known as the net primary production of the Earth (this is the plant tissue created by photosynthesis)—a lot, but hardly near the point of exhaustion. The price of raw materials reflects their scarcity and, despite recent rises, commodity prices have fallen sharply in real terms during the past century. By that measure, raw materials have become more abundant, not scarcer. Certainly, the impact that people have on the climate is a problem; but the solution lies in consuming less fossil fuel, not in manipulating population levels.

Nor does the opposite problem—that the population will fall so fast or so far that civilisation is threatened—seem a real danger. The projections suggest a flattening off and then a slight decline in the foreseeable future.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9545933

[AudiDude]

we have a lot more things to worry about......
How about all the incadescent light bulbs that are still being used?
all the non-LED xmas lights?
SUV's? do we really need SUV's? Couldnt a AWD station wagon or good winter tires do it?

How about recycling? how efficient is our recycling...

Check this site out, it has some really interesting stats about countries and their consumption of most consumables that affect the enviroment. Maybe you have seen it before, maybe not, but here it is...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_con-energy-electricity-consumption

Check the drop-downs to change parameters.

[gman]

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

Is it fair that immigration, pushed by big business to fuel economic growth, is allowed to cancel out my choices and action?

I am not sure if I read you correctly. Are you saying you born one less child because of the environment?

Do you know why the government keeps on immigrating people here? It is because we don't born enough young one ourselves to support our will be seniors and generate enough tax dollar to support this country. Canada is a big country in size and each person needs to spend more to support it than US.

If I remember correctly, without immigration, our population would be decreasing and number of senior will soon be higher than number of non-senior.

[hamant]

I heard a commentator on the radio yesterday claim that when someone emigrates to Canada, their footprint increases 10 fold. This is due to the higher standard of living, the fact they come from a warmer climate to one needing central heating, higher use of transportation, etc.

Also, Kyoto is an absolute reduction of carbon emissions, not a per capita (as Harper endorses). To begin to meet Kyoto,don't we need to move to cap our growth rate as much as possible?

Thus, is immigration anti-green?

i understand what you are saying and it makes sense. it is true. BUT i don't think the answer is immigration is anti-green.

Its like saying "we like a privilaged life that is killed the world we all share, but you are not allowed to share that privilage because it will kill the world faster"

perhaps what we should do is try to reduce the amount of energy we each use

[wong8egg]

I am not sure if I read you correctly. Are you saying you born one less child because of the environment?

Do you know why the government keeps on immigrating people here? It is because we don't born enough young one ourselves to support our will be seniors and generate enough tax dollar to support this country. Canada is a big country in size and each person needs to spend more to support it than US.

If I remember correctly, without immigration, our population would be decreasing and number of senior will soon be higher than number of non-senior.

right on!

[branat]

What about all these emissions to get them here, and the ethnic food and culture to sustain the multi cultural lifestyles? The last time I check, there's no rice paddies in Canada.

[ariell]

Great. Just what we need. Xenophobia masquerading as environmental concern. :mad:

[greenbean]

I heard a commentator on the radio yesterday claim that when someone emigrates to Canada, their footprint increases 10 fold. This is due to the higher standard of living, the fact they come from a warmer climate to one needing central heating, higher use of transportation, etc.

Also, Kyoto is an absolute reduction of carbon emissions, not a per capita (as Harper endorses). To begin to meet Kyoto,don't we need to move to cap our growth rate as much as possible?

Thus, is immigration anti-green?


Such messages just reveals the little understanding of the reality of the country we live in and "3rd world" just for the record, they are also called "developing countries"

some people forgets or maybe don't know who is really polluting, I know for a fact of tons of american companies having factories just across the south border taking advantage of cheaper labor and also because they dont complying with enviromental regulations in their own country.

What about when North americans go south on vacation? what about the "emmisions? to bring them there?what about the power to sustain the central air because its too hot? and so on and on...

In many developing countries people prefer to walk than drive, use less tv time, recicle and reuse items or pass them on, use less chemicals for house cleaning and airdry laundry, use car pool, public transport, and as someone else mention, there are more people living in a house

We all could make many things count in our effort to be green, start for getting uot of the car instead of using the drive thru and idling , separate garbage, use energy efficient light and the list goes on, we all know the drill.

and about immigration been anti-green, I read very smart answers about why Canada needs immigrants, so I wont go there.

peace

[ariell]

Such messages just reveals the little understanding of the reality of the country we live in and "3rd world" just for the record, they are also called "developing countries"

some people forgets or maybe don't know who is really polluting, I know for a fact of tons of american companies having factories just across the south border taking advantage of cheaper labor and also because they dont complying with enviromental regulations in their own country.

What about when North americans go south on vacation? what about the "emmisions? to bring them there?what about the power to sustain the central air because its too hot? and so on and on...

In many developing countries people prefer to walk than drive, use less tv time, recicle and reuse items or pass them on, use less chemicals for house cleaning and airdry laundry, use car pool, public transport, and as someone else mention, there are more people living in a house

We all could make many things count in our effort to be green, start for getting uot of the car instead of using the drive thru and idling , separate garbage, use energy efficient light and the list goes on, we all know the drill.

and about immigration been anti-green, I read very smart answers about why Canada needs immigrants, so I wont go there.

peace

+1 I couldn't agree with you more. I'll bet anyone that foolishly thinks that immigration is bad for the environment has never even been to a developing country. Try it sometime and you'll be astonished to see how wasteful we are in the west.

[patrob]

How about all the incadescent light bulbs that are still being used?
all the non-LED xmas lights?
SUV's? do we really need SUV's? Couldnt a AWD station wagon or good winter tires do it?

How about recycling? how efficient is our recycling...

I love my non-LED Christmas lights, they look so much better ;)

I can't imagine putting those "ugly" CFL bulbs in any open light fixture like chandeliers, until they come out with something better...

I do recycle quite a bit, I barely have 2 to 3 small shopping bags of garbage every week (with 3 kids) but 2 filled up recycling boxes:)

And I do love my X5 SUV, in reality it is a raised wagon with AWD;)

[gordholio]

Canada needs some immigration, just as other Western countries do.
I won't comment on how that affects the environment (although there is going to be some impact of course and we just have to do the best we can and not get too excited about it).
As an aside, it's all well and good to recycle plastics, but manufacturers should be packaging their products to reduce plastic. Many times I'll buy an item packaged in plastic and it's a very small product, yet the packaging is incredible wasteful.
If less plastic is used, then there's less plastic to recycle, which uses more energy and resources.
It's not all up to "consumers" to do everything, the manufacturers bear some responsibility as well.

[ImJJ]

I'd worry about flying empty jets more.
I'd worry about the amount of plastic bags wasted more.
I'd worry about poor quality plastic bags more.
I'd worry about our poor transit system that discourages their use more.
I'd worry about the water pool we fill up in our backyards during summer more.
....the list goes on.

[glaswegian]

I heard a commentator on the radio yesterday claim that when someone emigrates to Canada, their footprint increases 10 fold. This is due to the higher standard of living, the fact they come from a warmer climate to one needing central heating, higher use of transportation, etc.

Also, Kyoto is an absolute reduction of carbon emissions, not a per capita (as Harper endorses). To begin to meet Kyoto,don't we need to move to cap our growth rate as much as possible?

Thus, is immigration anti-green?

This has got to be a wind up? What you have done here, is fixate on certain races, which could only mean the commentator is damn right rascist, and anyone else that supports his views.

It's beliefs like this that stir things up, I'll love to have called into this moron's show, and say to him that am a visible minority from the UK ( born and bred ), how does this apply to me then?

Also unless this buffoon is a NATIVE, his folks must have come from somewhere, which makes them immigrants too. I don't give a toss how long his grandparents have been here, they are still immigrants, and not different from someone that just became a citizen yesterday.

So it seems whenever immigration is mentioned, a lot of fools see it as synonymous with visible minorities. I always get a kick out of going into stores, and the shop folks stick their head before I even open my mouth to speak, like they aren't going to understand me, and then when I open my mouth and they hear my accent, their attitude changes all of a sudden *rolleyes*

The only thing I could be accused of being guilty of, is perhaps bringing the rain with me, and English pounds sterling. I have been paying my taxes the moment I landed in this country, and some of that is going towards feeding "visble majority" Canadians that can be bothered to get off their a*se to work.

So before some moron starts blaming immigrants for stupid things, they better think again.

[Jag]

I got the best idea. Lets stop immigration altogether and kick out all existing immigrants from Canada!! Oh wait everyone is an immigrant to this country except for Natives. Oh well, 2 million Natives will have a far less impact on the country than 30 million Canadians, problem solved.

[glaswegian]

That should get rid of a lot of cars, especially the 4x4s and delivery trucks, the biggest polluters.

[branat]

Great. Just what we need. Xenophobia masquerading as environmental concern. :mad:

I thought the question was immigration increases/contribute carbon emissions, not is it good for the country.

[gordholio]

I got the best idea. Lets stop immigration altogether and kick out all existing immigrants from Canada!! Oh wait everyone is an immigrant to this country except for Natives. Oh well, 2 million Natives will have a far less impact on the country than 30 million Canadians, problem solved.

I don't know how you define "immigrant". My ancestors came to Canada in the early 1800's.

[st7860]

if you don't have immigrants then where do you get people of a working age to support the Canada Pension Plan?

[canabiz]

How does that answer my question? If we are inefficient, how does increasing the amount of people being inefficient not matter?

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.

Is it fair that immigration, pushed by big business to fuel economic growth, is allowed to cancel out my choices and action?

Have another kid or 2 or 3 man, who cares

[branat]

Actually, your carbon footprint will go down if you have more kids. Keeping everything the same, the carbon calculation will yield a smaller footprint for a man living with his wife and 8 kids than a wife alone. So, go forth and multiply.

[teknoluv]

I, myself, have made many sacrifices, including limiting my family size despite wanting more than one kid.
Are_you_serious?? You should be canonized!

[st7860]

immigrants also tend to be more efficient. western people tend to think a 2000 foot home is necessary to have a spouse and 2 kids. immigrants on the other hand would think thats enough for a spouse and 4 kids.

[stewpy]

What an interesting read after revisiting this topic.

For the record, I am pro-immigration, and our family is first generation Canadian.

In my estimation, our family consumed less overall in past life in Malaysia.

The man on the radio struck a cord with me as I realized my family's 'foot print' would be smaller if not in Canada, that is all.

I thought it was interesting.....

Seems the impetus is on bringing the world up to NA standards, but might that not be hazardous to the world?

Just saying, important to think of all these things in policy planning. Immigration helps us all live a good life, the result of less would be rising costa and a lower standard of living... but isn't that what Kyoto is supposed to do?

Also, when studying at UBC, we discussed the local Haida, and according to anthropology prof, they were third wave of migration, displacing two previous Asian migrations. Does that not make them immigrants too, albeit ~ 5000 years prior to me?

[majesus]

Also, when studying at UBC, we discussed the local Haida, and according to anthropology prof, they were third wave of migration, displacing two previous Asian migrations. Does that not make them immigrants too, albeit ~ 5000 years prior to me?
Agreed, there is no difference in immigrants now and then. The whole idea of immigration hurting the environment is nonsense. If someone lives here, or there, or anywheres, that is irrelvant. It's the way of life and how someone utilizes their environment that causes the impact.

I personally see some goods here in Canada in what we do, at least we have it in our mind sets that we know we are impacting our environment and we are starting (slowly) to do something about it. Recycling, implement laws and standards to protect our environment, etc... We are on moving a long, however, we still have a lot of things to do!

[gman]

immigrants also tend to be more efficient. western people tend to think a 2000 foot home is necessary to have a spouse and 2 kids. immigrants on the other hand would think thats enough for a spouse and 4 kids.

It all depends on where the immigrants came from and their wealth. Many immigrants I know consider 2000 sqft is a small house to have a spouse and 2 kids. In addition, the Canadian I know who were here for generations consider 2000 sqft is a big house for a spouse and 2 kids.