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