Why We Need a Comprehensive U.S. Population Policy
Shall the Sierra Club reverse its 1996 decision to "take no position on immigration
levels or on policies governing immigration into the United States," and adopt a
comprehensive population policy for the United States that continues to advocate an end to
U.S. population growth at the earliest possible time through reduction in natural increase
(births minus deaths), but now also through reduction in net immigration (immigration
minus
emigration)?
The Argument:
Environmental degradation results from too many people using too many resources. For 30
years the Sierra Club demonstrated leadership in addressing the continuing growth of the
human population--locally, nationally and globally. In 1970 Club policy stated: "We
must find, encourage, and implement at the earliest possible time the necessary policies .
. . that will . . . bring about the stabilization of the population, first of the United
States and then of the world."
But the 1996 Board of Directors effectively abandoned this policy and now continues to
abandon it. The grassroots-sponsored petition gives members the opportunity to vote to
return the Club to a responsible environmental position.
Already the United States has lost 90 percent of its northwestern old-growth forests,
50 percent of its wetlands (93 percent in California), and 99 percent of its tallgrass
prairie. Never-ending population growth overwhelms every environmental victory. This is
especially true for land and habitat issues such as protecting forests and wilderness,
halting urban sprawl and farmland conversion and saving endangered species. As the 1996
policy of The Wilderness Society states: "Population policy should protect and
sustain ecological systems for future generations. . . . To bring population levels to
ecologically sustainable levels, both birthrates and immigration rates need to be
reduced."
The United States is the world's third most populous country. Its 270 million
high-consuming Americans affect the global environment as much as several billion people
in developing countries do. Then why not curb excessive American consumption? We should;
it's a Club priority. But were we to cut per capita resource use in half (itself an
enormous task), our environmental impact would not diminish if our population doubled in
the meantime. In 1996 the President's Council on Sustainable Development emphasized:
"Stabilizing population without changing consumption and waste-production patterns
would not be enough; neither would action on consumption and waste without efforts to
stabilize population. Each is necessary; neither is sufficient."
Unlike other industrialized countries, the United States is growing rapidly--by 3 million
people per year. According to the Census Bureau, immigrants and their descendants will
account for two-thirds of U.S. growth between now and the midÐ21st century. At present
growth rates our population will approach half a billion by 2050--the population of India
in the 1970s. No wonder the President's Council Task Force on Population and Consumption
stated that "reducing immigration levels is a necessary part of population
stabilization and the drive toward sustainability."
We urge the Sierra Club to develop, advocate and enlist public support for solutions to
the problem of excess immigration, mindful that the United States itself is creating an
unsustainable demand on global resources, which in turn causes an unsustainable level of
immigration. The solutions will require substantial financial, scientific and humane aid
from the industrial nations, especially the United States, to enable people to enjoy life,
health and the pursuit of happiness in their native lands. But the solution to the problem
of immigration is not, as the Board's position suggests, to pretend that the problem does
not exist. The solution is to recognize that world population growth and U.S. population
growth must be addressed simultaneously.
In 1994 the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Congresswoman
Barbara Jordan, declared: "We disagree with those who would label efforts to control
immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant. Rather, it is both a right and a
responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the
national interest." Recent polls show most Americans, including most minorities,
agree. Clear majorities of African-Americans and Latinos favor substantial reductions in
legal and illegal immigration, according to surveys by the Roper Poll, The Wall Street
Journal, and the Latino National Political Survey. These Americans, especially those of
low income, understand that they and their environment are adversely impacted by excessive
immigration.
The 1996 Board decision to take "no position on immigration levels or
policies" reverses long-standing Club policy to curb U.S. population growth at the
earliest possible time. We believe the Club must adopt a comprehensive population policy
that necessarily addresses immigration. We agree with mainstream national commissions,
with the majority of Americans of all major ethnic groups, The Wilderness Society, and
environmental leaders including our supporters Dave Foreman and Earth Day founder Gaylord
Nelson.
Stabilizing population is essential to protecting the environment. A vote for this ballot
question will enable the Sierra Club to work realistically toward reducing U.S. population
growth . . . for the environment . . . and for present and future generations of life
everywhere.
The article above was written by Dick Schneider, Population Committee
chair of the Sierra Club's San Francisco Bay Chapter, and Alan Kuper,
Population-Environment Committee chair of the Ohio Chapter.
Alternative B
Let's Focus on Underlying Causes, Not Symptoms
The Sierra Club reaffirms its commitment to addressing the root
causes of global population problems and offers the following comprehensive approach: The
Sierra Club will build upon its effective efforts to champion the right of all families to
maternal and reproductive health care, and the empowerment and equity of women. The Sierra
Club will continue to address the root causes of migration by encouraging sustainability,
economic security, human rights, and environmentally responsible consumption. The Sierra
Club supports the decision of the Board of Directors to take no position on U.S.
immigration quotas and policies.
The Argument:
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched
to everything else in the universe." --John Muir
The Sierra Club stands at a historic crossroads. Two competing
positions on the spring ballot will test our understanding of the words of our founder,
Scottish immigrant John Muir.
One position says the Club must call for a "reduction in net
immigration."
The Sierra Club position, which we ask you to support, asks
members to reaffirm and maintain the Club's strong commitment to addressing the root
causes of global environmental problems. It recognizes that concern for the population and
environment of the United States must be global in scope if we are to live peacefully,
side-by-side, in a healthy environment. The Sierra Club's Board of Directors, Council of
Club Leaders (representing local chapters), National Population Committee, and hundreds of
Club leaders in each region support this position.
The 1997 United Nations Population Report reveals enormous
progress toward reducing population growth worldwide through voluntary approaches
consistent with universal human rights. The Sierra Club has successfully worked to reduce
birthrates throughout the world by supporting improved educational and economic
opportunities for women and by supporting the right of all peoples to reproductive and
maternal health care.
But this important work is not over. Extremists in Congress are
still striving to deny millions of people the critical right of access to family and
reproductive health services. And here in the United States, there are more unwanted
births than immigrants every year.
Working with activists worldwide, the Club has come to better
understand the full range of factors that contribute to global population growth. Numerous
studies have found that global birthrates and global migration across borders decrease
when (1) people have full access to reproductive and family health services, including
maternal and infant care; (2) women have full and equal access to education and equal
social, economic and political status; (3) governments protect comprehensive human and
environmental rights; and (4) sustainable development preserves local communities and
livelihoods.
With these important factors in place women have healthier and
smaller families. This holds true regardless of race, nationality and economic or
citizenship status.
But population growth is only one of the many interconnected
factors that influence the health of the environment. Much of our environmental
degradation is a symptom of an unsustainable global economy, partly driven by government
policies that exacerbate poverty and undermine laws protecting public health and human
rights.
Deeply entrenched government subsidies promote overconsumption, thus
wasting natural resources. To protect the natural resources and global environment upon
which we all depend, we must find positive alternatives to overconsumption both here in
the United States and around the globe. Overconsumption anywhere is a threat to the
environment everywhere.
To address the environmental consequences of migration, we should
address the causes, not the symptoms. Restrictive immigration quotas will not end the
human-rights abuses and economic inequities that drive millions around the world from
their homes. They cannot help provide millions of families with access to the basic means
of livelihood. They cannot end the destruction of soil, air and water that drives so many
from their place of birth.
Any position that grounds us in divisive debate over severe
immigration reduction will dramatically cripple the ability of the Sierra Club to
effectively address population issues and the multiple factors that drive global
migration. Such an effort will also cause serious political damage to the Sierra Club and
the environmental movement.
To protect the environment we rely on our ability to build trust
and to forge an inclusive movement. African-American and Latino communities and their
elected officials are our most consistent allies when it comes to the Sierra Club's
conservation priorities. A focus on further restricting immigration quotas would undermine
our ability to work with these essential allies. We must not become involved in this
issue.
Whatever our motivations, focusing on restricting immigration
further could associate us with racist groups and the growth of hate crimes such as
occurred against Asians and Latinos following passage of California's Proposition 187
(another "color blind" initiative to reduce immigration).
We gain strength politically when our actions demonstrate
commitment to the broad underlying causes of environmental degradation globally. We need
your help in working together to forge strong alliances based upon mutual respect to solve
our environmental problems.
Please cast your vote in support of the Sierra Club position.
The article above was written by Peter H. Kostmayer, a former
congressman and the executive director of Zero Population Growth, and Karen Kalla,
co-chair of the Sierra Club National Population Committee.
