LETTERS FROM OUR READERS.

HANGING IN THE BALANCE

I've just read the excellent, factual, non-emotional cover story in your November/December 2000 issue ("Balancing Act: Can America Sustain a Population of 500 Million--or even a Billion--by 2100?"). There are few publications in the entire U.S. that will take such factual information and run with it, rather than mouth away at "political correctness." America's cities and metro areas are already hopeless overstressed with too many people. The immigration apologizers keep pointing at all the open landscape in Utah and Nevada and Nebraska, but how many immigrants--or anybody else-have settled in these wide open spaces? If we don't get a firm grip on today's unlimited immigration and bring the annual rate down to 200,000, we'll all be doomed to an Orwellian future.

Allen Jamieson Sacramento, CA

Thank you for your excellent article about human over-population in the U.S. and the immigration factor. Even organizations that I support, such as the Sierra Club and Zero Population Growth, have wimped out on making the connection loud and clear between over-immigration to the U.S. and destruction of our natural environment (as well as other quality-of-life matters). I sympathize with people who want to come to the U.S. to improve their life, but the huge numbers in recent years and the fact that immigrants often have very large families means that our policy should be reconsidered to reduce the torrent. I would prefer that the U.S. government help people living in their own country, rather than help them by allowing so many to move here. As a minimum, U.S. foreign policy should change so that we do not support dictators and multinational corporations, which destroy other nations' environments and repress people in order to maintain the unjust distribution of wealth and power.

Linda DeStefano Syracuse, NY

I find your editorial comments and the publication of Jim Motavalli's "Balancing Act" in the November/December 2000 issue very encouraging. My hope is that this will send an urgent message to environmental organizations and to the progressive community in general that it is time for public discussion of the causes and consequences of the rapidly growing U.S. population. Thanks very much for initiating a long overdue discussion.

John Simcox Minneapolis, MN

Your November/December 2000 cover story about the doubling of the U.S. population perpetuates a few myths:

1. Everything is all right now. It's only going to get bad tomorrow;

2. Everyone is cruising in the U.S. There are problems only in foreign countries;

3. We aren't to blame for what happens in those countries;

4. The problems in other countries aren't ours, too;

5. If anything goes wrong, the American spirit will prevail.

Bonnie KerrPilon Sylvain Pilon, HI

Editor's Note: Actually, we feel we took special care to present the very important reasons relating to poverty, political repression and environmental degradation that cause so many people to emigrate to the U.S. Our lengthy companion article, "Coming to America," details the many conditions that leave people all over the world with no viable alternative to immigration. The following letter from Zero Population Growth expounds further.

Your cover story "Doubling America" correctly identifies rapid population growth and overconsumption as the iceberg tearing at the hull of the Earth's environmental Titanic.

However, your main point about immigration is a bit like asking: Who should be allowed to sit in the best deck chairs while the ship is going down? Shouldn't we instead be looking for ways to help everyone on the ship?

Let me be clear: I am completely opposed to explicitly or implicitly blaming immigrants and U.S. immigration policies for our population and environmental woes.

Migration occurs for complex social, political, economic and environmental reasons. It shouldn't be treated as a numbers game. That would make us as bad as those "birth dearth" pundits. A concerted effort to reduce the pressure on people to flee their homelands is a much more realistic and humanitarian approach.

This approach should focus on radically increasing U.S. development aid to the world's poorest countries. At the minute our investment is nowhere near enough to meet local demand for education (particularly for young women), economic development and voluntary family planning. Yet these are the ingredients for a better, less crowded, more stable and sustainable planet.

The truth is: We can plan for the impact of immigration and fertility changes. We can recognize the opportunities that population stabilization is creating. We can meet the challenge of reducing overconsumption and promoting sustainability. We can take advantage of exploding advances in technology and productivity. We can embrace the potential for big quality-of-life improvements for all.

Or, we can engage in unnecessary finger-pointing, hand-wringing and unrealistic arguments for a kind of intercontinental migration missile or depopulation bomb.

Peter H. Kostmayer President, Zero Population Growth Washington, D.C.

Your November/December 2000 cover story and the E Word comments regarding immigration are most welcome.

Many sources of information are dominated by other agendas that conflict in some way with the subject of a rational immigration policy. This is why E Magazine is so important: it concentrates on the environment. Undoubtedly there are many "environmentalists" who do not see the impact of too many people as the cause of environmental problems, but at least their concern for a viable habitat is established. E can build on that concern and point out the destructive role of overpopulation, no matter what the source.

Barbara McEwan Forest, VA

Thank you so much for courageously speaking the truth in your November/December 2000 cover story. What a relief!

Population growth exists and it is an environmental issue. You said the unspeakable: that legal and illegal immigration is driving the U.S. population to astronomical levels, maybe in excess of a billion people by the end of this century.

James G McDonald Arlington, VA

I picked up a copy of your November/December 2000 issue and read with interest the comments about immigration. It's interesting how easy it can be to overlook the obvious, such as the blame placed on immigrants for unemployment while they automatically create jobs by being consumers along with the rest of us. Let's not forget that if we protect the environment by putting the brakes on immigration, the people kept out will be living elsewhere--perhaps forced to choose between protecting the environment and feeding their family. That's why the Amazon is being burned so much that the smoke is visible from space.

If the problem is the per capita environmental impact of the American way of life compared with that of other countries, then it's important to focus on changing that lifestyle, not keeping immigrants out to make the current American lifestyle seem more feasible.

Immigration is not a "divisive" issue within the environmental movement. It is a divisive issue between those who understand what is really creating the problems, and those who are either shortsighted or just using "the environment" as a cover for other agendas.

Robert B. Williams, III Scottsdale, AZ

There is not much to add except to say "good job." I appreciate your speaking out on very important issues, but it begins to look as though we may be too late with too little. We can't seem to get politicians and governments involved with these subjects. Yet while more and more speak out, there is still hope.

Ralph E. Clark McAllen, TX

I appreciate the insightful article on immigration and population growth. If only our political leaders would discuss this as well. Keep up the good work.

Tom Sleckman San Francisco, CA

OH, CULLIGAN MAN

I just read the "Ask E" in the November/ December 2000 issue about the gas additive MTBE and water filters.

If MTBE (Methl Tertiary-Butyl Ether) is in your water supply, a clean glass of drinking water is but a minuscule portion of exposure. Compare that six to eight ounces of water you drink to the gallons washing over your body in the shower. Will somebody please write an article about all the avenues of exposure to the chemical MTBE? It worries me that so many people will feel secure because it is being filtered from their drinking water, while their skin is absorbing more than could be contained in a glass.

I live in a region with the longest, continually MTBE-contaminated municipal water supply in the country. We were lied to for years, and the medical evidence has never been properly investigated. I do not intend to panic people, but a false sense of security is very dangerous to one's health.

Diane L. Atkins President, Oxybuster of NY Liberty, NY

STILL CLIMBING

This is in regards to the In Brief "Anchors Away" (November/December 2000) about fixed anchors for climbers in our national parks. Today's climbers should realize that if they had stuck with classical climbing instead of new-fangled, high-tech mechanical aids there wouldn't be an anchors problem. Pitons (not anchors) were used in the old days, strictly for safety and never for direct support. All pitons must be removed when a climb is completed, and could only be pounded into an existing crack or crevice in the rock, never a drilled hole. To leave a piton behind was one of the cardinal sins of rock-climbing. I shudder at the sight of all the contemporary gadgetry.

Yes, anchors should definitely be banned in the wilderness. But then, today's climbers don't really go to experience the wilderness anyway. What they do is mainly part of the macho culture of extreme sports. Leaving a bunch of anchors behind would not be perceived by them as defiling the wilderness.

Raymond L. Chuan, PhD Hanalei, HI