Chain Reaction, #91, 2004

Population, Immigration and the Sierra Club

Many people will be aware of the internal debate about population within the Sierra Club, a major environmental organisation in the USA. The club has hit the news several times in recent years because of claims that 'anti immigration' activists were seeking to gain influence over the group's Board and hence its policies on population growth and immigration. Most prominent of these was Paul Watson, president of the anti whaling Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and an advocate of zero population growth. He was elected to a board position in 2003, as were two other population activists.

What perhaps made the 2004 elections more controversial were allegations that (according to the Christian Science Monitor and others) 'hardcore opponents of immigration - including groups with allegedly racist philosophies - have (urged) their supporters to ... join the Sierra Club and vote for the anti-immigration slate of board members. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have joined the fray, citing a dangerous, right-wing influence - what civil rights lawyer Morris Dees warns is the "greening of hate." '.

Those identified as being anti immigration have dismissed these claims, saying the conflict 'is an internal struggle between two rival sets of members' and that the 'old guard', including chief executive officer (CEO) Carl Pope were simply seeking to hold onto their current power over the organisation. The website Sierra Democracy says “over the past three years, grassroots supported candidates have won five of the 15-member Board seats and are now poised to win a majority”. In effect, the site, put together by some of the independent candidates for the board, argues that this is a case of the grassroots resisting an incumbent group of directors rather than essentially being about population policy.

Regardless of internal power politics, the election was also clearly a debate about population and immigration. In the 2004 elections, a majority of people were elected who had not campaigned on a reduced immigration intake or population stabilisation. This struggle certainly won't end there. In many ways the current debate within the Sierra Club is indicative of similar arguments happening elsewhere in the environment movement in western democracies. However, in most instances it is less public than has been the case with the Sierra Club. It remains an issue in Northern countries where there are large and powerful environment movements and a growing fortress mentality that fears immigration for various reasons, including concerns about environmental impact. It is interesting that the Sierra Club of Canada felt the need to clarify its position on this issue given the debate raging within the US Sierra Club. The Canadian and US groups are separate organisations, and the Canadian Board took a high profile approach in opposing any arguments that say that immigration levels should be reduced. Their policy is reproduced below as an excellent example of the types of approaches that can be used by socially progressive green organisations. significantly, it addresses broader issues, including the status of women, not addresses in detail in this issue of Chain Reaction.

Sierra Club of Canada Population Policy

This policy will be used by the Sierra Club of Canada to guide our positions and programs as they relate to Canadian governments, institutions, organisations and firms' positions, processes and activities.

1. The Relationship between Population and Environment

The human species is constrained by finite natural resources and a limited biosphere.  The degradation of our air, water, and land is evidence that humans are already pushing the biosphere beyond its limits. We are exhausting finite and renewable resources and running out of the atmospheric and geo-biological capacity to recycle the massive waste created by our consumption and use of these resources.

For decades, human numbers have been cited as a key cause of a worsening environment in some regions of the world. This argument is overly simplistic as the relationship between human population and ecological systems cannot be understood without examining the web of interrelated factors which determine when and how human numbers will be benign or destructive to the environment.  Arguably, the impact of consumption by the one billion affluent humans has far more negative environmental consequences than the three billion poorest.

2. Factors Affecting the Impact of Population on Environment

a) Global Economy and Trade

We are no longer human beings in local societies bent on meeting our own needs.  Now, the "carrying capacity" of the planet is a real limit.  "Carrying capacity" must be re-conceived taking into account the global economy.  The environment and social costs of trade and growth should be internalised in industry, government and global institution policies. Government and global institutional policies should be subservient to the population it serves.

b) Consumption and Production

Resource consumption and pollution is grossly disproportionate to population size in the industrialised world.  Individuals, firms and governments in industrialized countries must take action to reduce their ecological footprint in order to mitigate environmental destruction and liberate resources for the developing world.  Local, small-scale, ecologically sustainable production should be favoured over large, multi-national operations that do not meet the needs of local peoples or promote environmental degradation.

c) Migration and Urbanisation

Migration has always been part of human activity.  Migration frequently brings benefits not only to the individuals and families who move, but also to the societies to which they move, and to the societies from which they came.  Migration from developing countries to Canada should not be opposed on the grounds that the migrants' ecological footprints will swell; rather, the ecological footprints of people in Canada should be reduced.  The human rights of migrants should be respected. 

Migration is occurring from rural to urban areas, and in some cases, this may reduce the pressure of human numbers on sensitive ecological areas.  However, rural people have frequently been stewards of local ecological services.  Urban areas often use enormous amounts of energy and resources and create vast amounts of waste.  Municipalities should be managed to maximise resource conservation, energy efficiency, safe waste disposal, and recycling with incentives and penalties as necessary. 

d) The Status of Women

The empowerment of women is a key element of planetary sustainability.  With greater economic, social, and political power, and access to health care and family planning services, women often choose to control their fertility rates. In fact, in every instance where female literacy and health care are improved, the birth rate falls.  Women's sexual and reproductive rights must be respected and championed; the past injustices of forced sterilisation, medically dangerous methods of birth control, and female infanticide must be condemned.

e) Militarism

Military conflict and war cause the deaths of millions of people worldwide and devastate the capacity of our natural world to sustain life.  A sustainable future is not possible in the absence of peace.

f) Equity

The extreme poverty of much of the human population is not an acceptable condition, but promoting excessive consumerism for all is not the solution.  Rather, access to land and resources should be distributed equitably among current and future generations.  Inequalities based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, class, sexuality, or other bases should be eradicated.  Equality and justice should be pursued on local, national, and international levels. 

3. Rights of World Citizens

All efforts to create a harmonious relationship between human population and the environment must respect fundamental human rights as established in 1948 by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. --

Every human being, present and future, has a right to a world with a healthy environment, clean air and water, uncluttered land, adequate food, sufficient open space, natural beauty, wilderness and wildlife in variety and abundance, and an opportunity to gain an appreciation of the natural world and people's place in it through first-hand experience.

4. International Agreements

In order to ensure a sustainable relationship between population and environment, the Canadian Government must deliver on the promises made at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 and at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/sustainable-economy/international/population-policy.shtml

Sources

Knickerbocker, B (2004); A 'hostile' takeover bid at the Sierra Club. Christian Science Monitor, February 20, 2004.

Sierra Democracy; a website put together by five independent directors of the Sierra Club who oppose the 'old guard'. http://www.sierrademocracy.org/index.html

Sierra Club (USA): http://www.sierraclub.org/population/

Sierra Club (Canada): http://www.sierraclub.ca/

author: Cam Walker, with thanks to Miriam Padolsky