It’s environmental and energy policy day, but today we’re going to think a little broader about the impact of non-environmental policies on the environment. I’m participating in a seminar this semester on human population growth and consumption and we spent this week discussing the implications of immigration on population growth and rising consumption. Few people, including environmentalists, think about the implications of immigration on the environment and on energy usage.
First, it is important to draw the distinction between immigrants and immigration. I, and other environmental writers on this topic, do not want to point a finger at individual immigrants and blame them for rising consumption and environmental damage due to population growth in the US. We are speaking instead about the general trend of increasing immigration rates. The US population continues to increase, despite reproduction being at a replacement rate, due to high levels of immigration (around 1 million people annually). Although there are moral arguments to allow people from less fortunate, developing countries the chance at a “better” life in the US, we must consider the moral implications of such opportunities. Is it moral to allow over-consumption of resources? Or increased energy demand, leading to increased emissions of harmful gases and dependency on foreign sources of fuel?
The “better” life promised by migration to America is highly dependent on consumption. Although it is not true for all immigrants, many move to the US with the goal of getting a better job. A better job means more disposable income to be spent on consumption, unless the money is sent back to their home country. The American way of life involves significantly greater energy use than other countries of the world. Per capita, the US used 312 million BTUs (British thermal units) in 2010, compared to the world average of 74 million BTU the same year (1). The same is true for many other resources, including freshwater and meat consumption. The UN reports that Americans use 215 cubic meters (7593 cubic feet) per capita per year, compared to 4 cubic meters (141 cubic feet) per capita per year in Mali (2). In 2002, Americans consumed an average of 124.8 kilograms (275.1 pounds) of meat per capita, compared to 79.6 kilograms (125.5 pounds) in the United Kingdom and 3 kilograms (6.6 pounds) in Bhutan (3). It is likely that new immigrants take some time to assimilate into this culture of high consumption and have lower consumption levels than Americans born and raised in this culture. However, as they live here longer and raise the next generation, they and their children are likely to have comparable rates of energy and resource consumption.
Additionally, higher population levels create environmental degradation. More people need more homes, leading to urbanization, urban sprawl, sub-urbanization, and subdivision of rural properties. More people and more consumption lead to higher levels of waste, requiring larger landfills and greater waste-water treatment capacity. More people means more food production leading to greater soil erosion, as well as higher levels of fertilizer leaching and pesticide spread. Tom Horton, a blogger in the ecologically fragile Chesapeake Bay area, argues that while granting amnesty to immigrants currently living in the US is laudable, the current immigration bill will end up encouraging greater immigration into the US, ultimately increasing the US population by 40% by 2050 (4). He makes the important point that concentrating our efforts on decreasing per capita consumption will not make a difference if the number of people is continually increasing. And, my favorite point he makes, “we’ve also learned that like the essential plant nutrients such as nitrogen which are degrading the Bay, too much of a good thing – including humans with aspirations for a better life – can overwhelm the rest of nature.”
It’s difficult for me to take a stand against immigration, as I strongly believe that immigrants contribute greatly to the cultural melting pot of this country. In a nation of immigrants, it is difficult to draw the line and prevent others from coming here and benefiting as we have. I don’t think Americans have a greater right to consume than non-Americans or immigrants. It is extremely important, for both environmental and moral reasons, to decrease American per capita consumption. However, I do think it is important in debating immigration policy to at least consider the environmental implications of allowing more people to come to the US and live like Americans when the world can barely sustain Americans living like Americans.
(1) http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=85&t=1
(2) http://www.unwater.org/downloads/Water_facts_and_trends.pdf
(3) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/meat-consumption-per-capita-climate-change
(4)http://www.bayjournal.com/article/immigration_reform_needs_to_be_handled_very_carefully
Month: October 2013
Frustrations Erupt Over Common Core and NYS Assessments
This week, several sources (see here and here) have reported and blogged about the NYSED Commissioner John King and his scheduled PTA meetings scheduled around the state. While I understand citizens’ frustrations over these changes, publicly decrying and degrading Dr. King on the web is not a productive plan of action. I hope our communities rise above the fray and share their concerns in a collaborative way. We have all fallen victim to poor planning and lack of proper time management- the variable of time has compressed every aspect of these changes, increasing stress, anxiety, and resistance to these changes at home and in our schools. The rapid and premature implementation timeline has placed unnecessary pressure on the stakeholders in the system, and we are now seeing the results.
Unfortunately, these purposeful, open public meetings probably should have come before the new curricula, assessments, and teacher evaluations were unveiled as part of the state’s Race to the Top (RttT) implementation. The state leadership skipped a valuable opportunity to discuss in a positive, yet objective manner the benefits to children, teachers, taxpayers, and the nation for increasing the rigor of curriculum and accountability. They could have explained the underlying research; they could have allotted time to explain how teachers would be trained for the new curriculum and the new assessments. If you ask any school administrator in NYS, they will likely tell you they have been building the plane while it is flying, as I am sure many have shared this video at professional development sessions and faculty meetings around the state.
The NYSED leadership’s three- to five-year vision could have been clearly articulated and transparent, where the plans to manage anticipated test score reductions and resultant teacher evaluations clearly explained. Parents, school professionals, and taxpayers would have been given time to digest and understand the changes, and most importantly, be given an opportunity to weigh and consider the benefits or negative consequences. If our state leadership is now seeking to have open discourse about the state of our schools, the opportunity may be lost- key stakeholders are now angry and taking a resistant stance. Maybe we all should have been given a real opportunity to discuss these issues before NYS accepted the Race to the Top grant award.
It will be very interesting to see what this year’s results bring, especially if we use other RttT states like Kentucky as models for improvement. What will our state leaders say next year if our results mimic theirs?
Iran Meets with the P5+1 Regarding Iranian Nuclear Development
This article broke news concerning international talks held in Geneva between the United States, Great Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran. The talks centered around Iran’s desire to develop nuclear capacity as a nation, despite historical resistance from the international community.
Iran has received sanctions by the international community because of the fear that Iran is using nuclear development as a guise under which the nation could develop a nuclear bomb. This fear is perhaps supported by the fact that Iran develops and pursues possession of enriched uranium, a vital component of for nuclear weapons.
Iran is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and has forcefully argued that as a state, it has the right to develop nuclear capacity to pursue peaceful, civilian applications.
As press on these talks in Geneva has spread, Israel has issued statements arguing against the lifting of sanctions currently in force on Iran. As a critical ally of the United States, Israel’s perspective on these developments will likely have respectable influence.
The proliferation of nuclear capacity, for peaceful or military applications, consistently causes a stir in the international community. When a company has civilian nuclear capacity, there is a continued risk that the nuclear-capable state will pursue weaponization to increase its military capabilities.
As a disclaimer, it is probably obvious that support for Iran’s actions will disappear if it comes to pass that Iran pursues nuclear weapons. If Iran is acting in good faith and does not develop nuclear weapons, their approach might set a good precedent. There is a tension around the world between the nuclear states and the non-nuclear states. Those states who do not possess nuclear weapons might feel like second-rate global citizens, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons commands non-nuclear states to cease or avoid developing nuclear capacities, putting them at a strategic disadvantage in global conflicts.
Nuclear capability is something of a Pandora’s Box, the knowledge and capability is not going to disappear. The P5+1 should adopt an approach to deal with and/or assist nations who wish to develop nuclear capability, without increasing the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation.
Should the P5, or perhaps U.N. Security Council, be the gatekeeper of nuclear capability? Does every state have an inherent right to nuclear development? What are the risks of a worldwide community with nuclear capabilities, even if developed for peaceful goals?
Fareed’s Take: Gridlock and Polarization in Washington
Fareed’s Take: Gridlock and Polarization in Washington
On the most recent episode of Fareed Zakaria GPS, Fareed devoted much of his show to the current state of political polarization and gridlock in the Nation’s capital. He began with his “take” on the problem. He then discussed the topic with a panel comprised of Vanessa Williamson (Harvard PhD student and author of The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism) , Norm Ornstein (of the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute) and Jeffrey Toobin (legal columnist for the New Yorker).
Here is a link to Williamson’s commentary on the Tea Party.
Toobin’s take on Republican radicalism and the effects of the primary system can be found here.
One Federal Judge’s Actions Against Mandatory Minimum Sentences
One of my fellow SLACE members brought this article to my attention, and it serves as a perfect follow-up to my post from last week.
This article addresses a Federal District Judge from the Eastern District of New York, Judge Gleeson’s take on mandatory minimum sentences. Judge Gleeson has taken to asserting his strong feelings against the use of mandatory minimum sentences in the federal plea-bargaining process. The excerpt from his recent opinion (found under the above hyperlink) is worth a read. Additionally, the firestorm of comments left on this article raise several interesting points.
First, one comment asserts that Judge Gleeson is acting outside of his Constitutionally given powers and is acting in direct opposition to the separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary. The commenter is correct in that one of the core principles behind our government is that we have three separate and “co-equal” branches. Each branch has specific duties as well as checks on the other two branches. Federal Prosecutors, as part of the Executive branch, have sole discretion regarding whether to charge a defendant and with what crime(s). However, as Judge Gleeson and some of the commenters on this article suggest, there is an ever-growing concern that Federal Prosecutors are utilizing mandatory minimums to force defendants to take a plea and forego a trial. Should we even be concerned with this potential conduct?
Second, the issue of mandatory minimums for non-violent drug crimes arises again. As one comment suggests, “The charge is drug dealing. It likely stands in for hundreds of crimes a year, including the beatings and murders of competitors. The defendant did not learn from prior punishments, perhaps cannot change. After several convictions, only incapacitation serves the purpose of the owner of the law, the public.” Is this how we should view these crimes and subsequently support mandatory minimums for this subset of crimes? Do defendants convicted of non-violent drug crimes deserve a mandatory minimum sentence now because they were simply caught this time? Does incapacitation, through incarceration, of a defendant truly create a law-abiding citizen following his/her release from prison?
Third, the undertone of several comments touch upon the role of the public. Many commentators suggest that it is the public that wants these steep mandatory minimum punishments. Is this true? Furthermore, does the public even really understand what a 10 year sentence for a drug crime really means for a person? One comment suggests that juries should serve as the guide for what “the public” believes. But, another comment suggests that Congress, due to its greater size, is a better sample to determine the interests of the public. Is Congress really a better gauge of public opinion than the actual people they supposedly represent?
I’m interested to know what other people think about Judge Gleeson’s comments, his approach to mandatory minimum sentences, and the ways in which prosecutors potentially use these as threats or leverage to force defendants to plead guilty and forego their right to trial. Many opponents of this view will argue that a defendant is knowingly and voluntarily deciding to plead and not go to trial. This view is also supported by decisions of the Supreme Court. But, precedent aside, is it true that when faced with a mandatory minimum punishment of 10 years in prison or a plea deal to 5 years in prison a defendant is truly making a voluntary decision to plead and not proceed to trial?