A Disgusted Democrat Says Her Party Must Be Pressed On Population


In his

State of-the-Union address,
President Bush proposed

various environmental-energy initiatives
that
received enthusiastic applause from Democrats and
Republicans alike. But, regardless of how one feels
about the

taxation issue
or

renewable energy sources
, without a reduction in
consumption, this legislation is quite pointless.

Helping twelve million (or

twenty
) illegal aliens to

go home
—now that would

reduce consumption.
Blaming oil companies and U.S.
auto manufacturers for producing gas-guzzling
vehicles—mere political rhetoric.

This Democratic writer would never suggest that
Americans consume resources without regard to the

environmental consequences.
Nevertheless, American
per capita consumption cannot be

reduced without reducing the capitae
.
Immigrants are people. The more people there are, then
the more consumption. Immigrants do not move to America
to

reduce their consumption.

When polled about their immigration preferences, most
Americans voice discontent about the current situation.
But among the least-cited reasons for concern:

immigration-induced growth in America`s population,

according to a poll sponsored by the Center for
Immigration Studies. However, when told that the U.S.
population will increase by 100 million in the next 50
years if immigration is not checked, 64 percent of
respondents expressed shock. [The
Public`s View of Immigration
, November 2006.]

According to the poll, self-identified Democrats,
professionals, high-income households ($70K+), and

Western dwellers
were the respondents who voiced the
least concern about congestion and overcrowding. For
those old enough to receive senior-citizen discounts,
this might come as a surprise. In the 60`s and 70`s
liberal Democrats worried about "overpopulation".
But over-immigration has changed all that.

To speak of
too many immigrants
is

to be called "racist
" and that still
plays an important role in the

inability of some Democrats
to take their

bleeding hearts
out of overdrive. Many Democrats
recycle, drive hybrid cars and

avoid eating meat.
But they fail to engage their
brains and consider that their reduction in consumption
is eclipsed by millions of additional people who,
figuratively speaking, consume all the food they leave
on their plates.

An example of the lack of thinking: the recent
oil-company taxation vote in the House. Congress passed
the measure on a

264-163
vote. The bill would repeal tax breaks
designed to spur extraction of fossil fuels and use the
savings of $14 billion to develop

renewable fuels
and energy efficiencies. In general,
Democrats voted for the bill and Republicans against it.

According to the Census Bureau, the U.S. population
reached

300 million last
October. (Many
believe
the U.S. actually achieved that number some
time ago.) Either way, things are getting very crowded
and a future with our current, immigration-driven
population growth will only make things worse.

How fast is our population growing? According to

Carrying Capacity Network
, the U.S. population is
growing at 1.1 percent per year which means that our
current population will double in 65 years. In 2072, the
U.S. population will reach 600 million and will be close
to one billion in 2100.

What will that feel like? A Sunday walk down Nanjing
Road in Shanghai, China, feels like a

crowded elevator
, only on a grander scale. People
with

claustrophobia
should avoid it. At least, Shanghai
is relatively clean but a similar stroll down the
streets of Calcutta, while dodging

people
,

cows
, and

streetcars
, defies description. Many parts of
California

feel the same way,
especially during special events
that draw

crowds
. But in places such as

Bangkok
and

Tokyo
, the crowds never diminish.

Our population increase is being driven by
over-immigration. It is not just new immigrants arriving
but also births to immigrants that are causing the rise
in population. Just under a fourth of all births in the
U.S. are to immigrant women. Why do we need this? Can we
think of anything in our lives that will be improved by
more people?

Democrats have control of Congress. What are they
saying? Every

elected Democrat
and

Republican
with a pulse seems to be

running for president in 2008
but Democrats are
supposedly environmentalists. What do the Democrats say
about

immigration
and over population? Nothing. What do
the Democrats say about more Americans causing an
increase in consumption? Nothing.

What do we hear from the majority Democrats? We hear
about energy independence and decreased dependence on

foreign oil.
We hear about renewable energy
resources. But how will the U.S. decrease energy use
with more and more people taking showers, heating homes,
flushing toilets and

driving cars?
Democrats can freeze in their homes
and drive

battery-powered cars
until the cows come home but if
they continue to support millions of additional
immigrants coming to the U.S., conservation, alone, will
not work.

On our present immigration course, the new people
arriving . . . and driving and eating and washing and
heating will consume all the conserved resources. And
oil is not the only problem—water,
farmland . . . and on and on.

The late ecologist,

Garrett Hardin
(see

www.GarrettHardinSociety.org
)

said
: "The financial world habitually speaks of
yearly `production` of oil. But the unvarnished truth is
this: we human beings have never produced so much as a
single barrel of petroleum. Only nature produces oil—and
at a very slow rate."

And lately, nature hasn`t been keeping up with demand
in case anyone hasn`t noticed. To use other Hardin
wording: "Do we have an

energy shortage or a people longage
?"

Most folks have a hard time understanding the
severity of our current energy problem. No wonder we
find it so difficult; barrels and joules and BTU`s. All
most Americans understand is the

price at the pump.

But the

January 2007 issue of Spectrum,
the journal
for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers, printed

a citizen-friendly chart
which is quite sobering.
Presently, the world consumes about one cubic mile of
oil per year. According to scientists, for 50 years, it
would take 104 coal-fired plants, 32,850

wind turbines,
91,250,000

solar panels
, 52 nuclear power plants, or 4

Three-Gorges Dams
to produce a like amount of oil.
All of these energy sources present significant
environmental problems.

Considering these facts, the President`s and the
Democrats` proposals to decrease dependence on foreign
oil is laughable.

Americans have the highest rate of energy consumption
per person in the world. If environmental-minded elected
officials really want to reduce consumption, why are
they importing more people who

aspire
to increase their consumption to the

American level?
That is the question we should all
be asking the

Democratic majority.

"The

quality of life
and the quantity of life are
inversely related"
, said Garrett Hardin. The
Democratic majority must be pressed on this issue. We
need an

immigration moratorium
to preserve our environment
and our quality of life. An environmentally-concerned
immigration enthusiast is an oxymoron.


Linda Thom [email
her
]
is a retiree and refugee from California. She formerly
worked as an officer for a major bank and as a budget
analyst for the County Administrator of Santa Barbara.