The research in this bulletin was done by The Stockholm Environment Institute office in the UK and the Optimum Population Trust in the UK. The results will shock all those who think that recycling programmes will take care of any environmental problems created by immigration-driven population increases.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One New Arrival Negates 80 Lifetimes Of Responsible Recycling
The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) office (at the University of York) has calculated the net benefit of recycling household waste for the average UK citizen, and expressed it in Global Hectares (gha).
The saving works out at 0.07gha (Global Hectares) per capita – a significant achievement – and is calculated as follows:
The environmental burden for landfilling waste is compared with the environmental burden associated with the recycling of waste. (Included in the calculations are the embodied energy of different waste fractions, the land use of waste at the landfill site, energy from transportation and for the processing of waste, energy used for recycling and for transport of waste to the recycling site).
For the UK, the results show that per tonne of waste, recycling has a lower ecological footprint than if landfilled. Hence, if no one would recycle waste in the UK, the waste Footprint for the average UK person would be around 0.79 gha (Global Hectares) per person, but if recycling takes place (using a 14% recycling rate for 2001) the waste Footprint is reduced to 0.72 gha per person a saving of 0.07 gha or around 10%.
The Optimum Population Trust (OPT) has compared that figure to the current average UK Footprint per capita, of 5.6 gha (Global hectares) to calculate that:
(1) The benefit of a lifetime of recycling is equivalent to less than one and a quarter per-cent of the negative impact of one new UK citizen (due to birth or immigration).
(2) Therefore, one new citizen is equivalent to 80 lifetimes of responsible recycling!
(3) Even if all (100%) of domestic waste could be recycled, the saving would be 0.5 gha (100/14 X 0.07) which is still less than 10% of an additional citizen.
We think that, while this illustrates the value of recycling, it also demonstrates the much greater national benefit that can be achieved by having one child less or bringing down the rate of immigration.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
B.C. Writer Tim Murray's Additional Insights:
And it also must be remembered that it is consumption that generates waste. While reducing our profligate per capita consumption is laudable and necessary, we must be aware that it is the number of per capitas, that is, total consumption, which is relevant.
Those who choose to deny or ignore population growth (particularly its main driver, immigration) in favour of focusing on recycling and conservation should understand that the society that is being asked to take on so many more people is not at present a conserver society and would not become one for some time. Would it allow cars to pour onto a newly built highway system before traffic controls are in place? Injecting more people into this society as it is arranged is an act of reckless environmental irresponsibility.
According to the Mineral Information Institute www.mii.org , each American born will need an incredible 3.7 million pounds of minerals, metals and fuels in his/her lifetime:
1,398 lbs copper, 31,909 lbs salt, 20,452 lbs.clay; 773 lbs. zinc, 1.72 million lbs. Stone, Sand and Gravel, 82,169 gallons Petroleum, 911 Lead, 1,546 Tray oz.Gold, 18,447 lbs Phosphate Rock, 578,956 lbs.Coal; 5,417 lbs. Bauxite Aluminum, 32,654 lbs. Iron Ore; 75,047 lbs. Cement; 68,0341 lbs other minerals and metals and 5.71 million cu. Ft. natural gas. (The Canadian consumption rate is similar.)
According to University of Colorado Physicist Albert Bartlett, each new American will contribute 23.8 metric tonnes of CO2 annually. In Canada, the figure would be similar. Reducing per capita emissions will be of little effect if population growth is permitted to erase green gains.
In summary, it must be said that much of the work of the so-called Green movement is an exercise in ineffectual do-goodism and feel-goodism. Their efforts to reduce, recycle, and conserve in blissful and willful ignorance of runaway population growth can be likened to a self-righteous janitor mopping a flooded floor but forgetting to turn off the tap which caused the flood.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Immigration Watch Canada.org provides the following links:
A. Optimum Population Trust in the UK : http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html
B. Stockholm Environment Institute : http://www.google.ca/search?q=stockholm+environment+institute&ie=
utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.google:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
