The Undiscussed Effect of Immigration on U

Home	Join Us - It's Free	Links	Activist Calendar
Contact Us	Online Store	Search	MERP Headquarters
Support Us	Contact Congress	Videos	Editorials

The Undiscussed Effect of Immigration on U.S. Population Growth and Energy Policy

During the first half of 2001 we began to see rolling energy blackouts in California and there were nationwide warnings about projected increases in the price of all forms of energy over the next 12 months. The newly appointed Bush administration responded with a list of “environmentally unfriendly” remedies which included: 1) Drilling for oil in the animal refuges of Alaska and off the coast of Florida; 2) Placing “dirty” coal fired energy plants back on line and 3) building new Nuclear Power Plants. But the most interesting aspect of the media coverage was what was conspicuously not being discussed. And that would be immigration as it relates to U.S. population growth.

According to U.S. Census projections the U.S. population could more than double from 275 million to 571 million in the next 100 years. And most of that increase will be due to an unprecedented rate of immigration that has not been seen since the 1930’s. Consider the following facts gleaned from the article in the magazine “E: The Environmental Magazine” (November 2000) “Can America Sustain a Population of 500 Million by 2100?”:

* The President’s Council on Sustainable Development (1996) recommended stabilizing the U.S. population in order to avoid perilous effect on economic objectives and environmental quality.

* The U.S. is the fastest-growing country in the industrial world, with an annual population increase of 3 million people per year (1.2 percent annual growth).

* The U.S. population has grown as follows:

Year	U.S. Population
1700	1,000,000
1800	5,000,000
1900	76,000,000
2000	280,000,000
2100	571,000,000 [Projected]

* The combination of Legal Immigration (1 million per year) and Illegal Immigration (300,000 to 400,000 per year) account for over 70 percent of U.S. population growth.

* The Census Bureaus projects that, by 2050 more than 80 percent of the explosive growth then underway will be attributed to immigrants and their descendants who have arrived here since the 1990’s.

* If Immigration were completely restricted today we would achieve Zero Population Growth and the Census Bureau projects that this would leave us with a population of 314 million by the year 2050.

* According to the group, “Population-Environmental Balance” 93 percent of U.S. increases in energy use since 1970 can be traced to our population growth.

The preceding list of facts should make it abundantly clear that immigration is going to be a primary factor in the degradation of both economic and environmental sustainability over the next 100 years. And it’s not like the American people are opposed to restrictions on immigration. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll (1998) found that 72 percent of the respondents opposed high immigration and this closely mirrors the opinion of immigrant populations. A Hispanic USA Research Group survey (1993) found 89 percent of the Hispanic Americans strongly support an immediate moratorium on immigration.

So if the American people favor reductions in immigration and immigration is a primary factor in maintaining economic/environmental sustainability, why is immigration not being discussed by the primary national media outlets (e.g. CNN, ABC, NBC etc.) as it relates to the future energy needs of American? While this is beyond the scope of this article I will speculate that it is somehow out of sync with the agenda of the multi-national corporations that have assumed ownership of the national media outlets. For some reason they don’t want immigration to become part of the energy debate.

While we can’t determine the motivation of the primary national media outlets we can take a closer look at Bush’s Energy Secretary, Spence Abraham. In 2000 U.S. Senator Abraham (Republican) lost his seat to Democrat Stabenow despite the fact that contributions from the energy conglomerates allowed him to significantly outspend his opponent. Many believe that his demise was due to his support for a successful piece of legislation that doubled the number of high tech immigrants that would be allowed into this country: from 100,000 to 200,000 workers a year. The bill was signed into law in the last quarter of 2000. But his involvement with immigration policy doesn’t end there.

Before he was defeated for reelection, Abraham was chair of the Immigration Subcommittee. As chair he led the opposition to reduced immigration that was proposed by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. In Senate testimony during the month of March 2001, Abraham stated, "The clear cause of this electricity crisis… is an imbalance between supply and demand."

Ric Oberlink, spokesperson for the Los Angeles-based Californians for Population Stabilization responded to Abraham’s statement. "That’s exactly right. The question is how this imbalance developed. Per capita consumption has been flat in California for 25 years. All the increased demand is due to population growth and nearly all of that is coming from immigration. We may yet learn that manipulation by producers is a factor in price increases, but you can’t manipulate prices in times of surplus. You can only do that when supplies are short."

According to the California Energy Commission, per capita consumption of electricity in California was 7,292 kilowatt-hours in 1979. It dropped to 6,952 kilowatt-hours in 1999–a 5 percent decrease. However, during that same 20 years the state's population grew from 23 million to 33 million — a 43 percent increase. So once again it becomes apparent that immigration is the primary factor responsible for the imbalance between the supply and demand of energy in this country. And once again it raises the question: Why won’t the Bush Administration, and the national media, allow the immigration factor to be considered as we debate options for our energy future?

Professor Hemp
06/04/2001
(925 Words)

Letter to FAIR from Professor Hemp:

Subj: Why no talk of population/immigration re: energy
Date: 7/12/2001 10:44:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Newagecitizen
To: info@fairus.org

FAIR:
Given the impact of population on our energy future why does FAIR think the media is hiding the population/immigration factor? It almost seems like the media is purposely mischaracterizing the facts to make it appear that the primary reason for increased energy use lies with adoption of new technologies (e.g., computer usage etc.). To me the absence of the population/immigration factor in the context of future energy use is troubling and has me wondering if "someone" is masking a hidden agenda. You views are appreciated.

Letter#1:
Does not anyone have a memory? Bill Clintons public missile shield test brought us a scatter spray fire that fell in the tree region..which are now mushroom farms for the Asian markets. The fires were also ordered by Janet Reno to distract from the missing disc scandal that just happened to be found in the top secret lab behind a copier. Now. Also at that time Bill Gates was on trial for the monopoly issue of Microsoft...funny how so many computer run programs happen to disfunction. The fires spread and burned power plants in more than a few regions. THERE is where the energy problem is coming from, nevermind new Americans, those plants need to be rebuilt! (06/05/01)

Professor Hemp:
These are some interesting theories. And while I am aware of most of the events I have yet to read any corroborating articles but would be interested in reading them (if they are available). I also don't want to leave the impression that arresting population growth is the only measure needed to secure a sustainable energy future.

On the other hand it is difficult to discount the potential impact that 541,000,000 million people will have on the ecosystems of the U.S. and the planet. Though groups like the Sierra Club have been compromised many prominant ecologists and environmental advocacy groups are very concerned about the environmental impact of unbridled population growth. Fortunately, unlike bacteria in a petri dish, our collective brains might allow us humans to change course sometime before we suffocate in our own toxic waste. The major point I was trying to make in the editorial was how curious it is that such an important aspect of energy policy, namely population growth, is consistantly absent from the debate on present/future energy policy of the U.S. And while building more power plants may be a short term solution I believe that Zero Population Growth (ZPG) has got to be a consideration for our collective future, both here and abroad. (06/06/01)

Detroit News 06/10/01"Energy Crisis put Abraham on the spot" [15,18A]:
"The cost of energy is soaring, Abraham says, because for too long the country has failed to build new generating plants, transmission grids, refineries and pipelines. There has not been a new nuclear power plant licensed since the 1979 near nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island.

The nation also has failed to produce enough oil to satisfy its driving habits, says Abraham, who warns that Americans must be willing to take the controversial step of tapping into the vast Alaska oil reserves or face ever higher gasoline prices."

Again absolutely no mention of population growth or immigration as being factors in the present energy dilemma!