[POLL] Population explosion and mass immigration cause decrease in air quality?

[WhipperSnapper]

Yesterday I heard an NPR clip about how China is trying to reduce the amount of traffic congestion in smoggy Beijing in time for the Olympics:

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...y.php?storyId=12866136

It reminded me about the issue of population explosion, mass immigration, and the environment. Of course, perhaps much of Beijing's problems are older vehicles and vehicles with poor exhaust systems and bad catalysts. However, at the same time, the story suggests that as more people drive--as population increases--environmental degradation also increases.

Does mass immigration -- legal and illegal -- and its corresponding population increase (or explosion in the case of the U.S.) contribute to environmental degradation? Is mass immigration bad for the U.S. environment?

Note that it could also be argued that since global labor arbitrage, of which mass immigration is a part, makes Americans poorer that Americans, like people in third world countries, will end up having not merely a higher population but also fewer financial resources to invest in pollution control and environmental care.

Have at it.

 

[Genx87]

China's smog is from their massive industrial boom and move towards a free market economy of the last 30 years. With it came higher standards of living and more consumption by the population. This is something we experience 40-60 years ago as well and enacted regulation to curb the smog and air pollution from our industrial base.

The result is we as a nation have much cleaner air than we did 30 years ago. China will have to go through the same evolution as a nation we have already gone through.

We pay for it with higher costs, they will need to make a determination if they are willing to invest in the same technology.

I dont see how immigration connects to industrial waste and massive expansions of economies.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think that what you've said is correct. However, it would also be correct to say that the number of people living in an industrial society in China has increased -- an increase in the population of people using cars, factories, and resources. Also, presumably, a great many Chinese migrated from rural areas to Beijing (based on what I've heard and read elsewhere).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I think that what you've said is correct. However, it would also be correct to say that the number of people living in an industrial society in China has increased -- an increase in the population of people using cars, factories, and resources. Also, presumably, a great many Chinese migrated from rural areas to Beijing (based on what I've heard and read elsewhere).

I am sure they did, much like at the turn of the century in 1900 people were flocking to our industrial base from the farms. It is the natural progression of a growing economy from what I can tell. The situation of massive immigration from Mexico imo has little to do with China's massive industrial and economic growth and subsequent pollution issues.

The massive immigration is fine if it is legal imo. My problem comes from illegals who create a sub culture that dont integrate within our society. It hurts us and them.

 

[theeedude]

US is far far from being overpopulated. Hell, we have enough land resources that farmers are paid to not grow crops.
Pollution in China is usually the result of their growth at all cost low regulation approach. So if you are concerned about pollution, I'd be more worried about politicians who follow the same low environmental regulation approach.

 

[rpanic]

I am not to worried about an increase of smog in the US because of immigrations. However I do see the local forest and parks getting trashed from overuse and people from Mexico that don?t pick up their garbage (just like they do back home). As far as China goes I think the people there are starting to see the damage that they are causing, hopefully they will do something about it.

 

[piasabird]

I say legal immigration is not inherrently bad for the US. The US benefits from legal immigration in many ways. Many intelligent people immigrate to the USA and they bring with them new ideas, inventions, innovation, and sometimes even a better work ethic. The melting pot has some good advantages.

Illegal immigration is just basically an invasion force coming to take us over. With the good comes the bad, the lawless, the criminals fleeing prosecution in Mexico and other countries, Gangs, murder, etc. While legal immigration, with background checks, and other legal hurdles help to protect the citizens of the United States.

So I say first control the border, then maybe we can increase the number of legal immigrants we allow from Mexico and other places. Even though illegal immigrants may be doing a good job at work, they also strain the public resources. These resources were suppose to be helping Americans, not Mexico.

Another issue is that Mexico does not really believe in the rule of law. The police are all corrupt and work off a system of bribes and extortion. I get this knowledge from people I know that have traveled in Mexico. There is also the lack of enforces law in the southern part of mexico. I have seen some articles about how competing drug lords rule areas in mexico. It is sad that Mexico is in such a sad state. In a way average mexican is a pawn to this incorruption.

I think the Gust Worker program is a joke. There is no way I agree with it. Who is going to keep track of all these guest workers? It is obvioius that we do not have the resources to do this.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

How do you define "overpopulated"? In some parts of the U.S., water-use restrictions are in place. Also, the price of real estate has soared to insane heights in many part of the country. It's hard to assess whether the U.S. is currently overpopulated without knowing more about people's environmental footprints (which is much, much larger than the amount of land their homes occupy). Heck, some of the open land could also be seen as being a CO2 sink and O2 production source, resulting in fresh air for the populace.

Regardless, given limited resources such as a fixed amount of land, as population increases, the amount of resources per capita will decrease, essentially impoverishing everyone else to some extent. It could take the form of dirtier air, fewer natural sources of clean water per capita, higher real estate costs, fewer open spaces for recreation, higher costs for meat as the amount of grazing land decreases and as corn prices increase, etc.

Also, please bear in mind that that the U.S. population is projected to explode by 50% to at least 450 million by 2050.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: senseamp
US is far far from being overpopulated. Hell, we have enough land resources that farmers are paid to not grow crops.
Pollution in China is usually the result of their growth at all cost low regulation approach. So if you are concerned about pollution, I'd be more worried about politicians who follow the same low environmental regulation approach.

Farming subsidies FTW! (and FTL)

 

[StageLeft]

OF COURSE it's bad. People pollute. The more of them, the more pollution.

 

[piasabird]

I have often thought that there are some areas like california and even St Louis and Chicago. that pollution can be quite a problem. Where I live often the jet stream will come down and curve around the Mississippi riever delta encompassing Chicago and as far south as St Louis, MO, then there will form a High Pressure zone and the pollution will just collect in this area in the middle of the Summer and make for some bad air quality. Maybe the government needs to limit popluation in some of these areas or at least limit certain kinds of pollution creating industries.

I have not understood why we dont develop more things like hydro electricity. I know it is a little more expensive, but it also produces a kind of carbon offset or hedge agains pollution. It can not completely replace Coal Burning plants, but it can supplement them quite a bit.

In Chang-Hai they drink a lot of tea because of water pollution. They started drinking the tea because the water needed to be boiled a long time. The Tea also helps to clean the body of contaminants. China is overtaking the USA as a producer of Co2 emissions. This is mainly because they have relaxed emission controls. They are becoming better off and now they want to buy cars.

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have often thought that there are some areas like california and even St Louis and Chicago. that pollution can be quite a problem. Where I live often the jet stream will come down and curve around the Mississippi riever delta encompassing Chicago and as far south as St Louis, MO, then there will form a High Pressure zone and the pollution will just collect in this area in the middle of the Summer and make for some bad air quality. Maybe the government needs to limit popluation in some of these areas or at least limit certain kinds of pollution creating industries.

I have not understood why we dont develop more things like hydro electricity. I know it is a little more expensive, but it also produces a kind of carbon offset or hedge agains pollution. It can not completely replace Coal Burning plants, but it can supplement them quite a bit.

In Chang-Hai they drink a lot of tea because of water pollution. They started drinking the tea because the water needed to be boiled a long time. The Tea also helps to clean the body of contaminants. China is overtaking the USA as a producer of Co2 emissions. This is mainly because they have relaxed emission controls. They are becoming better off and now they want to buy cars.

In California I believe in the 70s it was determined that they could build geothermal plants here. The government took the state and divided it up into sections for companies to purchase to start geothermal projects. Guess who bought them all up, the oil companies. The only one that got snuck through was the one in Mammoth because they said it would just be used for the town. This was told to me by my geology professor in college.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: senseamp
US is far far from being overpopulated. Hell, we have enough land resources that farmers are paid to not grow crops.

Food is the only factor? Must be nice not to need water.

Unless we act quickly, there will be no water for hundreds of thousands of Las Vegas Valley residents in just three years.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp
US is far far from being overpopulated. Hell, we have enough land resources that farmers are paid to not grow crops.

Food is the only factor? Must be nice not to need water.

Unless we act quickly, there will be no water for hundreds of thousands of Las Vegas Valley residents in just three years.

I SWEAR I read that chicken little no-water-in-vegas like two years ago.

Anyway, serves them right for building a city IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT. Running out of water is going to be the next one, perhaps, after global warming calms down--the next big fear.

Nonetheless, that article hints that $45M will solve the issue, and it's not running out of water so much as just growth is exceeding capacity of existing pumps.

 

[Vic]

Big glaring error here, people. China's pollution problem is the legacy of its communist government. Russia (and every other post-communist country) has had to deal with similar issues.

As for Malthus, I think the OP (like most people) does not understand his theories. That population is limited to food supply (resources) does not mean that food supply is (resources are) limited. It is true however that Malthus himself made the mistake of using static analysis in his projections, which is why he predicted that humanity would overtake its food supply by the 1850s (which obviously it did not), and IMO why so many people misunderstand him.

So anyway, the OP's basic premise is completely wrong, that population increase must necessarily led to environmental degradation, or that immigration must result in a loss of wealth to native citizens.
The OP is also wrong is his assumptions that immigration can be both outlawed and controlled. That's either/or, not both, as a look at our own current border situation can attest to.

Why do we always have these discussions? For starters, technology and efficiency is GOOD for the environment. If you think that 200 million cars are bad for the environment, just imagine what it would be like with 200 million horses. If you think toilets flushing into sewers is bad for the environment, try to imagine what it was like before them.
Next, immigration INCREASES wealth. Labor creates capital, not the other way around. Granted, individual wealth is relative, but overall wealth is increased.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: senseamp
US is far far from being overpopulated. Hell, we have enough land resources that farmers are paid to not grow crops.

You got a link to prove that? I won't hold my breath while you look for one.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp
US is far far from being overpopulated. Hell, we have enough land resources that farmers are paid to not grow crops.

Food is the only factor? Must be nice not to need water.

Unless we act quickly, there will be no water for hundreds of thousands of Las Vegas Valley residents in just three years.

Water is next on the list of shortages but is still farily abundant, just not in mnay areas that are already over populated.

 

[Jaskalas]

The Southern Nevada Water Authority does not report chicken little. Water is not an infinite resource and when you use more than there is replenished it takes many years for the rate of consumption to deplete the reservoirs. Their reservoirs ARE nearly depleted and they need to tap new ones to delay the inevitable result of consuming more than there is.

You heard about it two years ago? Well congratulations, now wise up. The previous reports never stated that they would have run out by now, if I recall they usually claim it?ll happen in 2015-2020. They are doing a wonderful job delaying the inevitable, but the fact remains that new water sources aren?t pulled out of a magic hat. They run out in ~3 years without the new pipeline to suck dry Northern Nevada. Then after that reservoir is depleted they had better pray that the drought ends.

This is what happens when you allow an infinite population increase. Growth can never be sustained indefinitely yet our entire society is built upon such folly. This century will bring us back to reality with a bang.

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Water is next on the list of shortages but is still farily abundant, just not in mnay areas that are already over populated.

This is true, most of the country has headroom in this resource. It's mostly the south/west thanks to many major _desert_ cities relying on a single water source - the Colorado river.

 

[Genx87]

Realistically how many gallons can desalinization plants produce in a given year? The water issue will be a big one over the next century, probably bigger than oil imo due to it's a vital requirement for life.

 

[Vic]

I think that Vegas' limited water resources merely demonstrate an upper limit on its growth potential rather than any cause for alarm.
In much the same way, I don't think that anyone believes in the potential for "infinite" population increase, nor do I see any evidence that our entire society is built upon such a belief. Quite the opposite, conservationism and environmentalism has become a very important aspect of our society and rightfully so.