|
| Immigration and the Environment |
Immigration and the Environment
What is the connection between immigration and the environment? Much has been written on this topic. The following is a very brief look at views and sources on this topic, two of which are Canadian and the third, American.
I. The first is a 1997 University of British Columbia study called "Prospects For Sustainability".
II. The second is a list of publications taken from the Center For Immigration Studies web site. The second also refers to an American publication called "Forsaking Fundamentals" which examines the environmental movement's abandonment of the effect of immigration on the environment.
III. The third is the 2005 annual Report of Ontario's Environment Commissioner. That report is called "Planning Our Landscape". We provide the introductory letter to that report.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(I.) PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY (University of British Columbia):
http://web.archive.org/web/19971009094216/http://www.ire.ubc.ca/ecoresearch/
Here is the Executive Summary:
The Problem of Sustainability in the Lower Fraser Ecosystem
This research project explored the prospects for sustainability in the settled portions of the lower Fraser River basin, an area of roughly 3090 km2, extending from the town of Hope in the east to Vancouver in the west. This is a rapidly changing ecosystem.
Population growth is nearly 2% per year. Ethnic character is in transition from predominantly European to predominantly Asian. Lifestyles are changing from rural to urban and the economy from resource based to service based.
The region is rich in resources. The Fraser Valley contains productive farm lands while the River and its tributaries are important spawning and nursery grounds for salmon. Yet, the expanding metropolitan area threatens to overwhelm the natural resource base.
The growing dominance of the urban environment means that the balance between local self-sufficiency and global inter-dependence is shifting rapidly towards grater dependence. At the same time, aboriginal peoples of the basin are demanding protection for their traditional ways.
The lower Fraser basin, thus, exemplifies all the social, environmental and economic problems of modern industrial nations. Defining sustainable options for such a dynamic and complex ecosystem presents formidable challenges but such ecosystems are also at the core of the problem of sustainability.
The Eco-Research Project
Twenty-three faculty from 20 different departments, schools, institutions and centres at UBC and more than 40 graduate students participated in our 4 year study of prospects for sustainability in the lower Fraser. The research also involved collaboration with the federal, provincial, regional and municipal government agencies.
The project was designed to build our institutional capacity to address complex, interdisciplinary problems relating to sustainable development, to resolve a range of technical problems of sustainable development in a rapidly changing ecosystem and to design policy options for sustainable development. We put together a multi-disciplinary research team and encouraged graduate students to undertake research that cut across traditional disciplines.
Our research was structured to address four fundamental questions related to sustainability: 1) What kind of an ecosystem do we have and how did it come to its present state; 2) What kind of an ecosystem do we want to have a generation from now; 3) What is feasible for us to accomplish; and 4) How (in terms of new policies and instruments) can we accomplish what we want?
The results of our research highlighted the extent to which the lower Fraser basin has already been transformed by human activities and showed that present trends in population, economic development and land use are carrying us ever further from sustainable configurations.
Research Results
A little more than a century ago the lower Fraser basin was a forest of giant trees with extensive swamps and wetlands along the river courses. Now the valley is primarily farm and urban land and the farm land is being progressively absorbed by the growing metropolis of Greater Vancouver.
These changes have resulted in considerable loss of ecological capability. The natural community was much more productive biologically than the farm and urban lands that have replaced it. The extent of the ecological transformation is illustrated by the regional plant community which, in the lowland areas of the valley, is now made up primarily of introduced species.
Rapid human population growth and its changing ethnic composition are creating social tensions and straining the physical and social infrastructure of the community. As an ecosystem, the lower Fraser basin is sustained at present only through massive inputs of energy and materials. The ecological footprint of the basin is at least 25 times the land area of the valley.
The ecological transformations that we observe in the lower Fraser basin are driven primarily by market forces but are also encouraged by governments that see natural resources as a source of revenue and development as a source of power.
Although the region is a desirable place for human habitation the stress of intensive human activity on the land, water and biota are becoming ever more evident. Urban streams are threatened by toxic substances in storm run-off from streets. Technology for controlling toxic storm run-off is generally not being implemented even in new construction.
Intensive agriculture and improperly functioning septic systems are overloading valley soils with nutrients and other chemicals leading to contamination of aquifers and rural streams. The consequences are loss of desirable species, poor water quality and public health risks.
Analysis of community and regional plans reveals that residents of the lower Fraser are anxious to preserve rural landscapes and quality of life although there is a dichotomy between rural and urban communities in willingness to accept high rates of population growth.
Polling of lower Fraser residents shows a high concern for maintaining environmental quality but also a belief that not much can be done to contain population growth and environmental change. Plans to manage growth aim at preserving an extensive and interconnected network of green spaces, creating compact and complete urban centres with a better balance between employment and population, and minimizing the need for extensive commuting.
Unfortunately, powerful interests often work to undermine these plans. The choices that individuals make are important to achieving sustainable development. Paradoxically, individual choices often conflict with strongly stated beliefs and values, as in the stated concern of a majority of residents over air quality and automobile use at a time when individual automobile use is increasing dramatically.
The Need for Policy Reform
Changes in policies related to population, land and resources, consumption and waste management are needed if we are to move toward sustainability. What is feasible for us to achieve is constrained by a variety of factors such as the geography of the basin, the history of development and institutions to manage development, international trade and market forces, and the values and value systems of basin residents.
An important unknown is the extent to which the emerging political power of aboriginal societies will affect patterns of development. Local decisions cannot bring our community to sustainability because much depends on decisions made elsewhere. Nevertheless, local decisions are critical to our future sustainability.
Tools for Policy Reform
To ensure that our research would be accessible to decision makers, we collaborated with government agencies in the study of a number of important local and regional problems such as non-point source pollution, urban stream rehabilitation, and the ecological impact of municipal by-laws. This allowed our results to have direct influence on decision making.
The approach was particularly successful with municipal authorities for whom we were often able to provide timely information on immediate problems. We also developed and elaborated three broadly based policy analysis tools: the ecological footprint; the social caring capacity; and a computer based scenario analysis tool, QUEST.
The ecological footprint is a tool for determining the land area needed to sustain the socio-economics of any defined community. Ecological footprint analysis shows clearly how dependent urbanizing regions like the lower Fraser are on extensive and unsecured land and resources distributed around the globe.
The heuristic of the ecological footprint is being widely applied in a number of international analyses of sustainable development. Social caring capacity is a tool for examining the social impact of policies that reduce material consumption. This tool is still in its formative stages but shows promise as a means to identify policy prescriptions that reduce the ecological footprint of a community while increasing the quality of life.
The computer model, QUEST, is a tool for defining and exploring future scenarios for the lower Fraser basin. Designed to allow decision makers to explore the interactions among policy choices and to highlight the trade-offs inherent in any attempt to change local socio-economic conditions, QUEST has generated a lot of interest locally and internationally.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented here all derive from our broadly based research on the lower Fraser basin ecosystem. We did not, however, attempt to come to consensus on all recommendations. It seems doubtful that we could have reached consensus on some recommendations given their controversial nature and the diversity of views within our team. Nor was full consensus necessarily desirable, as there are many workable configurations of sustainable development.
The recommendations illustrate, therefore, the kinds of changes in policy and governance that will be needed if the lower Fraser basin, British Columbia, Canada and the world are to make progress toward sustainable development but they are not the only ways to achieve that end.
Many of the more general recommendations will look familiar as similar proposals have been made in the past but not acted upon. This does not reduce their relevance. Rather, our research has emphasized the fact that the problem has not gone away and it is high time that we faced up to it. Some of the policies that we recommend already exist but have not been implemented. Again, we emphasize that sustainable development cannot be achieved with policy placebos. Real problems require real actions. Deciding to postpone action on sustainable development is the moral equivalent to deciding that we don't care about the health and prosperity of our grandchildren.
A Definition of Sustainability
We define sustainable development as development that is environmentally sustainable, economically viable and socially acceptable.
By environmentally sustainable we mean that changes to the ecosystem do not degrade its biological productivity, biodiversity or regenerative capacity.
By economically viable we mean that the human economy is capable of satisfying the reasonable material desires of the vast majority of its citizens.
And by socially acceptable we mean that the vast majority of the population is willing to live in accordance with the rules of governance.
Our analysis of the present state of the lower Fraser basin ecosystem shows that its present structure and the way it is changing are not environmentally sustainable. The ecosystem is being transformed into a configuration completely dominated by an urban metropolis, biological productivity is being diminished, biodiversity is lost and regenerative capacity degraded.
The economy is doing well in terms of providing high material standards to the majority of residents but an increasing number of citizens are marginalized in the economy. This suggests that the viability of the economy, in terms of our definition of sustainable development, may be short lived.
Social acceptability of the rules of governance may also be in jeopardy. Public apathy and cynicism toward the present systems of governance is widely reported and many communities and citizens are calling for more locally based decision making and more accountability of elected representatives. Rapid population growth and changing ethnicity are straining the bounds of social tolerance and contributing to dissatisfaction with present governance. Although these problems can be addressed without reference to sustainability, the growing need for policy changes raises the possibility of incorporating solutions that are more sustainable. Since all aspects of governance impinge on sustainability, all sectors of government must take responsibility for promoting and fostering sustainable development.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Immigration Watch Canada's Commentary:
The study particularly examined the waterways of the area. It used ecological footprint theory and research when it concluded that the population of this area required an area 25 times the size of this area in order to sustain itself. It pointed out that the population in the area was appropriating larger and larger parts of the Lower Fraser Basin for itself, and, as a result, displacing the natural ecosystem.
It made 44 recommendations in which it repeatedly made the point that in order for this area to sustain the environmental quality it possessed, all levels of government had to adopt one primary objective: make a transition to more sustainable forms of development. It stated that no level of government should be permitted to argue that sustainability is not its responsibility.
Very clearly, it pointed out that the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration was not to exempt itself or be exempted from this requirement. (It pointed out in the report that immigration was responsible for a substantial part of the population growth in the Lower Fraser Basin. Consequently, immigration was responsible for a substantial part of the ecological displacement in the area.)
It implied in the report that the federal Departments of Immigration and the Environment are working at cross purposes. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration works in a narrow world where Canada is seen as an almost infinitely empty space just waiting to be filled with people. In contrast, the Department of the Environment works in an international world where large open spaces are vital to the health of all Canadians, all people on the planet and all ecosystems.
"Prospects For Sustainability" was one environmental study which had the courage to draw a connection between immigration (that is, population growth) and the environment. Others have not been so brave. In fact, many studies refuse to make any connection between immigration and environmental degradation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(II.)"FORSAKING FUNDAMENTALS": One American group, the U.S. Sierra Club, is notorious for not making the connection between population levels and environmental health. The paper entitled "Forsaking Fundamentals" explains why the Sierra Club refused to join the movement to reduce unprecedentedly high American immigration levels (well over 1 million legals and substantially more illegals annually) when they know that such levels will result in a U.S. population of over 400 million by 2050. By 2099, the U.S. population could be an astounding 700 to 800 million.
The increases will largely be due to the inflow of immigrants and the offspring of immigrants. Immigration is, by far, the major contributor to U.S. population growth. Immigration to Canada also accounts for a significant part (now around 66%) of Canadian population growth. The big question that the Immigration-Environment issue raises is this: "Is it possible to deal with an effect without dealing with the cause?" It is clear that the two have to be looked at together.
Population & Environment (Taken from www.cis.org )
The Census Bureau projects an America of 400 million residents by the middle of this century. Now more than ever policymakers need to ask, "How many Americans?" The question is less one of space and survival and than of quality of life and consent of the governed.
Immigration and children born to recent immigrants account for the overwhelming majority of our population growth, negating the American people's voluntary embrace of smaller families. The National Research Council estimates that by 2050, current immigration policies will cause the population of the United States to be fully 80 million larger than without immigration, triple the population growth that would take place naturally without immigration. In effect, the federal immigration program is a social engineering project which rivals the population policies of Ceaucescu's Romania.
Since 1970, America has suffered notable increases in traffic congestion, school overcrowding, loss of natural habitat, destruction of prime farm land, and increasing urban sprawl. Why? Since 1970, more than 68 million people have been added to the U.S. population. This surge is especially notable in light of the fact that Americans have been below replacement level fertility since 1972. A majority of this growth is thus derived from immigrants and their children.
For links to publications on the population-environment issue, go to www.cis.org Here is their list of publications:
(a) No Child Left Behind: A Review of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It, by Phillip Longman, and Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future, by Ben J. Wattenberg, (The review is done by Mark Krikorian in The Claremont Review of Books, April 25, 2005,)
(b) Outsmarting Smart Growth: Population Growth, Immigration, and the Problem of Sprawl, by Roy Beck, Leon Kolankiewicz, and Steven A. Camarota, August 2003
(c) Congressional testimony on immigration's impact on U.S. population growth by Steven A. Camarota, August 2001
(d) Forsaking Fundamentals: The Environmental Establishment Abandons U.S. Population Stabilization by Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck
Center Paper 18, March 2001
(e) Immigration, Population, and the New Census Bureau Projections by Leon Kolankiewicz Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, June 2000
(f) The Impact of New Americans: A Review and Analysis of the National Research Council's The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration by Steven A. Camarota and Leon Bouvier
Center for Immigration Studies Report, December 1999
(g) "Immigration and the Sierra Club: Did the Fuss Matter?" by Ben Zuckerman, pp. 11-13 in Immigration Review no. 33, Fall 1998
(h) "California's Labor Force: Immigration, Fertility and the Post-Industrial Economy" by B. Meredith Burke p. 1 in Immigration Review no. 32, Summer 1998
(i) Reducing Greenhouse Gases: The Vital Immigration Angle by Steven A. Camarota, The San Diego Union Tribune, November 28, 1997
(j) Quality of Life in the 21st Century: What the Latest Census Bureau Projections Mean for America by Leon Bouvier Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, May 1996
(k) Zero Net Migration: What Does It Really Mean? by Leon F. Bouvier and Dudley L. Poston Jr. Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, July 1995
(l) How Many Americans? Population, Immigration and the Environment
by Leon F. Bouvier and Lindsey Grant, Center for Immigration Studies Book, Fall 1994 (Paperback + Hardcover)
(m) Four Hundred Million Americans! The Latest Census Bureau Projections by Leon Bouvier and John L. Martin, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, January 1993
(n) Immigration and Rising U.S. Fertility: A Prospect of Unending Population Growth by Leon Bouvier, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, January 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(III.) PLANNING OUR LANDSCAPE (2004-2005 Report Of The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario):
(The following message from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is especially significant because it asks whether continued population growth in southern Ontario is necessary and sustainable. The answer is "No". The largest factor in population growth is immigration, so the question is: Is continued high immigration necessary and sustainable. The answer is "No." This message appears as an introduction to the Environmental Commissioner's 2004-2005 report.)
Much of this year's report deals with the major changes to the land use planning system in Ontario that have taken place in the past fiscal year. Our use of the land in Ontario is a major issue that spawns a myriad of environmental concerns related to sprawl, highway construction, aggregate extraction, endangered species protection, forest fragmentation and water quality.
The essential point is that despite its apparent vast size, there is a fixed amount of land in Ontario, and each year there are more of us placing more demands on that land---resulting in changes and stresses to the landscape. How we manage those changes will determine what the landscape will look like in the future, how it will function ecologically, and how it contributes to our economy and our well-being.
The concept of planning and the creation of land use plans are inherently oriented toward the future. Plans are a statement of intent. They cultivate an image in people's minds of what the future might look like. In doing so, they create expectations. In the past months, there have been many broad statements of planning intent and thus many new expectations created, especially with respect to the land bordering Lake Ontario, now falling under the new Greenbelt Plan. The Greenbelt Plan rolls up the previously created Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan with a large new area called the Protected Countryside to create a system of planning processes that are intended to control sprawl and protect our natural heritage. Such improvements to the planning system are certainly welcome and to a great extent overdue. But will these new planning processes create a landscape, say 25 years from now,that meets our expectations?
One of the troubling aspects of the improved planning system is that it is still based on the assumption of continuous, rapid population growth. Government forecasts project that over the next 25 years, Ontario's population will increase from just over 12 million to 16.4 million or perhaps as high as 18 million. Three-quarters of these people are expected to settle in the urban area around Toronto and in the Greenbelt Lands. Even with higher development densities, this is a
vast number of people settling in an already-stressed landscape. Will the resulting demands for water, sewer systems, roads, utility corridors, aggregates and urban expansion leave our protected countryside and natural heritage systems intact? Will there be enough natural lands to support biodiversity?
Why must the population grow at this rate in parts of southern Ontario? There are those that argue that such expansion is essential to support our consumptive economy. It is necessary to create jobs and a future for our young people. Growth is needed to protect our tax base and the infrastructure it supports. But is this true? There are prosperous European economies that thrive without a burgeoning population base.
And if it is true that population expansion is necessary, where does that leave northern Ontario? Those same government population projections that figure so largely in the planning of the Greenbelt predict that northern Ontario will decline in population by 8.5% over the next 25 years. By the same logic, does that mean we are abandoning
the north to a collapsing economy, a crumbling infrastrusture and no future for our youth? Does that prognosis call for urgent action?
The reality is that a planning regime based on the continuous expansion of population and the growth in consumption of resources in the south-central part of the province is ultimately not sustainable. And a planning system dependent on growth also means that the communities of the north cannot be sustained through a period of depopulation and de-industrialization.
All of this is further complicated by geopolitical, biophysical and economic developments that are changing the rules of how the world works. How will climate change, peak oil, the price of electricity, and the technological revolution in communications change the way we live, work and interact with our landscape? Are we planning for the real future---or are we simply building toward the past? The planning models we use may just be too simple to cope with the complexities of the times.
At some point, and it should be soon, we will have to turn our minds collectively to what we want Ontario's landscape to look like 25 years from now and beyond. We will have to cast that vision---and then begin to create a planning model that will cultivate and support ecologically, socially and economically sustainable lifestyles and communities for the north, the urban south and the rural countryside.
Gord Miller
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
(See the web site by the American group "Population-Environment Balance" for a detailed look at the immigration-environment connection in the U./S. See two January, 2004 articles by American environmentalists on the American Sierra Club issue.)
(1) Zuckerman. Ben. Like It Or Not, Over-Immigration Is Destroying Our Environment (The Globe and Mail - Week of Jan 26-30, 2004)
(2) (Author Not Known) Immigration Issue Roiling Even Enviro Groups Underlined Text
|
|
