Sagittarius
Inconvenient Truth #1: It is illogical for our federal government to sign an international environmental treaty like the Kyoto Agreement, and implement a mass immigration policy at the same time. Yet Canada did both in the 1990's. By doing so, Canada increased its population from around 27 million in 1990 to nearly 33 million today. The main factor in the increase was immigration. Increasing the country's population is incompatible with trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The logical thing to do is to introduce a wide range of conservation measures and to stabilize the country's population. That means ceasing to promise recent immigrants that high immigration levels and the endless chain migration that follows will continue. It also means admitting that increases in the country's population will negate any real gains that might be made by introducing conservation measures. A very obvious example of this contradiction was the federal programme called "The One Tonne Challenge" in which Canadians were asked to reduce their yearly carbon emissions from an average of five tonnes per Canadian to four tonnes. The arithmetic shows that any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would eventually be negated by new emissions from the added population.
Stabilizing the country's population is truly a revolutionary idea for those who seem to think that Canada is virtually another planet with limitless space for more people. The inconvenient truth is that Canada is a country and is part of one planet which, in the view of many of the same scientists who believe that the Earth is experiencing human-generated climate change, is very overpopulated. Transferring bodies from overpopulated areas of the globe to less populated areas such as Canada, so that they can consume more resources in Canada's cold climate, does not make sense.
COMMENTS (3)
RATE THIS STORY
Nude photos of the MTV reality star surfaced on the...
I'm a semi-retired “stringer”—I shoot video on the fly to sell to news outlets....
Comments
I personally fail to see the
By luyen, March 2, 2007 at 16:43I personally fail to see the "strong" asserted link between immigration in Canada and the environment. Immigration in Canada has not exploded our population, nor has it led to an extravagant use of resources.
The author assumes that the majority of immigrants come from third-world or developing countries where their environmental impact is slight, but aside from having a car in Canada, their emissions might be even be cleaner by living in Canada if they live in provinces that such as Quebec that uses a high ratio of hydro (relatively clean power).
Let's be honest, we all create emissions our bodies give off energy in various forms, animals do, machinery, plants and so forth. It's not that it's some new evil, but it's that it occurs in such industrial excess.
So the argument that more immigration, leads to more Canadians, which leads to more pollution is a bit tenuous considering that overall, our population level without immigration is declining not increasing, and with immigration is climbing very slowly.
On a less factual basis, many immigrants who come to Canada appreciate the clean air, the pristine environments and are just as willing as anybody to make changes that are spearheaded by government.
Environmental degradation occurs whether or not people immigrate to Canada, or to anywhere else - policies therefore should work to manipulate numbers, but attack the root of the problem, which is shifting attitudes and implementing legislation, right now.
Dan Murray Just noticed your
By sane immigration, March 5, 2007 at 12:32Dan Murray
Just noticed your comment.
You seem to think that Canada faces no real population-induced environmental problems, and that population growth or immigration is a trifling matter. Here are a few other "inconvenient truths":
(1) Immigration to Canada and host population growth (contrary to what you say, the host population is still a contributor to population growth) have resulted in an increase of about 6 million people since 1990. This is around a 22% increase. If this had occurred in China or India, it would have attracted considerable "global" attention (as in "Think globally. Act locally.")
But as it is, the increase has attracted only "local" comment. The population increases have been concentrated in three of Canada's urban areas, primarily Greater Vancouver/Fraser Valley; Greater Toronto/Southern Ontario; and Greater Montreal. If you think population explosion has not occurred and that it not continuing, you will be in for a shock if you read the Ontario Environment Commissioner's 2005 Report: Here is a sample:
"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."
(2) You will be in for another shock if you read a major UBC study done in the late 1990's. It said much the same thing about the Greater Vancouver/Fraser Valley area.
Very clearly, it pointed out that the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration was not to exempt itself or be exempted (by multiculturalists and diversity promoters) from the requirement that sustainability had to take priority over all considerations. It pointed out that immigration was responsible for a substantial part of the dramatic population growth in the Greater Vancouver/Fraser Valley area. Consequently, contrary to what you want to think, immigration was responsible for a substantial part of the ecological degradation and 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 both a local and an international world where large open spaces are vital to the health of all Canadians, all people on the planet and all ecosystems.
So, to use your words, "let's be honest". immigration is having a significant environmental impact on certain areas of Canada. Our federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration has actually recognized this impact by saying that it wants to have more immigrants move to the relatively unpopulated areas of Canada, 40% of whose land mass, you should note, is in its northern territories which, you should be aware, has a very inhospitable climate.
All of this takes us to the important question: If certain areas of Canada are experiencing major environmental problems because of the inflow of large numbers of people, why is Canada even bringing in so many people (last year about 260,000 immigrants)? You seem to think you know why Canada is doing this. You also seem to think that these people are having a negligible environmental impact.
Please explain why Canada is bringing in these high numbers of people, largely a result of the introduction of a mass immigration policy around 1990. Also please enlighten the rest of us about their negligible environmental impact.
------------------------------------------------------
P.S. I am saying there are environmental limits to immigration. You might also want to think about whether there are cultural and economic limits to immigration?
Hi Dan, thanks for your
By luyen, March 6, 2007 at 10:29Hi Dan, thanks for your rebuttal. You make some good points about increase in population in urban areas, i have no doubt that it is very stressful on the environment.
But i think if we look at population increase on a global scale, it is happening, population bases in most nations are increasing at dramatic rates, for various reasons it's happening.
The question of *why* is immigration continuing at such a frenzied rate in Canada, i don't know, like you mentioned an out of date policy, an unrevised policy? I honestly don't know.
From my simple point of view, global population is increasing and not decreasing, and therefore there will also be more people knocking at our doors to come live here.
I think this is a reality that will difficult to all of a sudden stop, considering Canada's past political legacy of being very open to immigration.
I 100% agree that it can have a major impact on the environment, but I think it's more realistic to transform our current environmental and energy policies.
You've made some good points about immigrants, or migrants moving primarily to urban areas, particularly Greater-Toronto - i think that's a really good point.
I was obviously thinking on a more national/statistics sort of scale, where for example in Quebec, there is a general population decrease of Quebecers, but certainly the urban area of Greater Montreal is growing at the expense of rural communities.
Thanks!