On Friday, Usain Bolt made his professional soccer debut, as a trialist with the Central Coast Mariners of the Hyundai A-League, the top level in Australia.
Linda: More than 325 million people live in the United States. By 2065, that figure is expected to grow to 441 million says Pew Research with 88% of the growth being new immigrants. We'll have to bulldoze millions of acres of open spaces to build housing for new arrivals. To feed a larger population, we'll have to convert more forests and grasslands to farms. Further ecosystem destruction will occur, more species will be threatened, and U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will rise. Environmentalists can prevent this ecological catastrophe by supporting humane reductions in future immigration levels. Sensible limits on immigration were once the mainstream environmentalist position. The Sierra Club's first executive director, David Brower, remarked, "Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us, and immigration is part of the problem." The founder of Earth Day, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, commented that "it's phony to say 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration.'" A growing population would also overtax fresh water sources. Consider California, which has suffered horrific droughts. Due to immigration, California's population is set to grow from roughly 40 million today to 44 million by 2030. That means more pressure on limited water resources, more sprawl, and less space for nonhuman inhabitants. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife states unequivocally, "Habitat loss due to human population growth presents the single biggest problem facing native plants and animals in California." A growing population also means that the nation's total emissions could increase. Population growth was responsible for nearly 30 percent of the increase in U.S. emissions between 1997 and 2007. President Trump's proposed limits on "chain migration" would prevent such emissions and sprawl. Reducing chain migration would curb population growth. And the changes would only affect future immigration levels. So no immigrants currently living in the United States would have to leave. Environmentalists rarely agree with President Trump. But they should give his immigration proposals a second look. Curtailing immigration-fueled population growth is an essential element of any pursuit of a sustainable future.