RE: Technological Advances Won't Save Us

Brishen Hoff’s logic is inescapable. More people only negate the gains made by energy-efficient technology. His analysis simply validates studies done in other countries that have made similar correlations between immigrant-driven population growth and increased energy use and pollution. Professor Mark Diesendorff warned that Australia would not be able to reduce its GHG emissions if it continued its mass immigration policies. Professor Kolankiewicz demonstrated that since 1970 88% of America’s increase in energy use was due to an increase in population, mostly driven by immigration, while only 12% was attributable to an increase in per capita energy consumption. In other words, it’s not so much that people are driving SUVs rather than fuel efficient cars, it’s just that there are 3 million more drivers each year out there. In the UK government statisticians reveal that of the 11 million new houses that will need to be built before 2050—much of it on formerly sacrosanct Greenbelt land—59% will be built to accommodate Britain’s growing population, nearly 70% of that from immigration. Only 17% of the new housing will be built because of lower household sizes. More immigrants, more people, more houses, more energy consumption, more emissions in one form or another. Since the publication of Dr. William Rees’ watershed book, the Green mantra has been to reduce our individual ecological footprint. But as these studies show, as Brishen Hoff’s analysis shows, it is the sum total of individual ecological footprints that matter. Ultimately it’s a numbers game. As always, Garrett Hardin said it best. “The population problem has no technical solution: It requires a fundamental extension in morality.”

“If we had the population level we did in the eighteenth century, it wouldn’t matter what energy source we used.” James Lovelock