Canadian Environmental Myths

MYTH #1: Canada's population is declining.
Between July 1, 2005 and July 1, 2006, Canada's population increased by 324,000 to an estimated 32,623,500.
During this period, the nation took in 254,400 immigrants, 9,800 more than in the previous year. It was the highest level since 2001/2002 when 256,300 international migrants arrived in Canada.(4)

MYTH #2: Without immigration, Canada's population would be decreasing.
Without immigration, the number of deaths would exceed the number of births by around 2030 and Canada's population could finally begin to decline. (4)
With such heavily overpopulated southern reaches of Canada, and the end of easy oil, a rapid population decline is our only chance at preserving quality of life in the long term.

MYTH #3: Canada needs population growth because we have an aging population, leaving no one to pay for or take care of the elderly.
1) Actually, children are more expensive than elderly.
2) Europe has a more aged population than Canada. Do you see any crisis there in looking after their seniors?
It is countries like Brazil with a young population that really cause social problems such as drugs, theft, rape and other crime.
3) Population growth can't go on forever, so therefore it is not a long-term solution to an aging population.
Could it be that big business wants us to fear an aging population only so they can gain public acceptance of bringing in a quarter million immigrants each year to Canada so they can grow their short-term profits at the expense of Canadians and their environment?

MYTH #4: If you oppose Canada's immigration policy you are a misanthrope
A misanthrope is someone who doesn't care about humans or the fact that the value of human life cheapens as the population grows. Overpopulation does not do the human species any favours. A misanthrope would support Canada's status-quo immigration policy because it promotes overpopulation and human suffering in the name of profits for big business.

MYTH #5: If you oppose Canada's immigration policy you are a racist
The environment doesn't care whether more people are coming from the maternity ward or the airport. The more people there are, the worse the environment will get. It so happens that 70% of Canada's population growth presently comes from the airport (4).
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has partnered with big business and tried to convince the public that anyone who opposes rapid population growth in Canada must be a racist. The CBC never airs people who oppose mass immigration for the reason that it is ruining our environment.

MYTH #6: If you oppose Canada's immigration policy you are a xenophobe
An xenophobe is someone who is afraid of foreigners. Most people who oppose mass immigration are not afraid of foreigners but are against growing overpopulation because of the way it degrades our environment and cancels out our basic human rights.

MYTH #7: Overpopulation is a global problem not a local problem in Canada
If Canada won't reverse its population growth, how can we expect other countries to do so?
Overpopulation is a local, national, and global problem. If a small island has so many people that species unique to that island are going extinct then that island is locally overpopulated!

MYTH #8: Controlling population is against human rights
1) The government is already controlling population, just in the wrong direction
2) Government-mandated population control to reduce our population is the only thing that can save our most cherished human rights including: safe drinking water, fishing, open-space, ability to grow our own food, clean air, enough fuel per person to keep us warm in the winter, etc.

MYTH #9: We Canadians have a moral obligation to share our vast land with whoever wants to move here
I would insist that our first moral obligation is to Canadians who already live here.
Canada is a lifeboat that will sink if too many passengers are added. The government is betraying Canadians by flooding us with more people, ultimately sinking our lifeboat and drowning us all.
Our second moral obligation is not to the billions who would like to immigrate here, but to the native plants and animals that already call Canada home. In Southern Ontario's Haldimand-Norfolk county near Long Point on Lake Erie, the following are just some of the mammals now extinct who were formerly common: snowshoe hare,
lynx, black bear, timber wolves, elk, bobcats, badger, gray fox, river otter, southern bog lemming, least shrew. (1)
Between 1600 and 1970 the following changes occured to biodiversity (2):
For mammals:
-36 of 4226 species of mammals went extinct
-120 species near-extinction
-64 sub-species extinctions and 223 near-extinction
For birds:
-94 of 8684 species of birds went extinct
-187 species near-extinction
-164 subspecies extinctions and 287 near extinction
About 1% of higher animals alive in 1600 were extinct by 1970. The remaining species were drastically reduced in number and genetic quality and diversity. You can only imagine how many additional species we've lost since 1970. Expert scientists agree that we are experiencing a terrible "6th mass extinction" patently caused by human overpopulation. (9)
Due to urban growth fueled by immigration, 7 of the 10 mammal species unique to BC's lower mainland are at risk. There are currently 543 plant and animal species at risk in Canada. The Whooping Crane, North Atlantic Right Whale, Newfoundland Marten, Peregrine Falcon, Swift Fox, Piping Plover, and Blue Ash are just a few examples. Another 13 species are already extinct. (17)

MYTH #10: Canada is such a vast country with virtually unlimitted space and freshwater
Canada has less than 5% arable land. Most of our landbase is rocky, tundra with extremely cold winters.
Any area of Canada that has a mild climate is already heavily overpopulated and polluted and the local wildlife is in peril.
Canada has 9,984,670 sq km and 90% of the population is concentrated within 160 km of the US border where the climate is relatively hospitable and biodiversity was formerly high.(6)
With a present population of 33,091,228 and exponentially growing, there are more than 3.3 people per square kilometer. That is only 60 acres per Canadian and that includes Ellesmere Island, Baffin Island and millions of hectares of frigid arctic.
Australia has the same problem. Instead of being too cold, Australia is too dry. Australia, like Canada, given its geography, is overpopulated.
People often say Canada has 1/5 of the world's freshwater but only 1/3 is renewable. We have only 7% of the world's renewable freshwater. The rest is "fossil water" left over from the ice ages trapped in ice, snow, and glaciers. (7)
The Atlantic cod was once thought to be inexhaustible as was the Carolinian forest of Southern Ontairo. We now know different.
If earth's present population of 6.7 billion human beings lined up around the equator they would wrap around 357 times. (10)

MYTH #11: Curbing Canada's population growth does not help address global overpopulation
This is false because every little bit helps. We must think globally and act locally to set a good example for the world.
If there are no limits on human expansion in a border free world, humans will move from areas of high to low concentration, converting any available wild ecosystems to monocultures of human beings.
If Canada were to reduce its population, not only would it give a better life for Canadians, it would provide desperately needed leadership for the rest of the world's countries to follow.

MYTH #12: Canada needs economic growth to support people's pensions
-Canadians have already paid for their pensions with their mandatory CPP contributions deducted from their pay-cheques.
-economic growth is dependent on population growth which raises assessment values, forcing seniors to either move or pay higher property taxes if they can even afford it
-economic growth exhausts natural resources, which does not benefit seniors
-there is no problem big or small that is made better in the long term by economic growth

MYTH #13: The government shouldn't interfere with Canada's fertility rate
The government already is, but in the wrong way. They are already paying out baby bonuses. Instead, our government could pay people to not have children. This would protect the rights, space and resources of the humans and wildlife that are already struggling to survive here.

MYTH #14: Economic growth is great for Canadians because it means more jobs
-It also means more people chasing those jobs. It does not mean more jobs per person.

MYTH #15: Steady population growth from immigration enhances multiculturalism which creates diverse, vibrant communities
-Multiculturalism, as defined by rampant immigration-driven population growth, creates polluted, conjested urban nightmares such as Toronto.
-Children raised in cities such as Toronto are forced to buy toys, because there is nothing left of nature for them to play with.
There are no frogs in the puddles, there are no fish in the streams, no butterflies other than those in a museum. In addition there is smog and most homes are shadowed from solar gain and have extremely limited space for gardening.
-Biodiversity is more important to quality of life than cultural diversity (AKA multiculturalism).
Immigration to North America from 1600 to 1970 has resulted in the extinction of (2):
-17 races of Grizzly Bear
-The Sea mink on the now overcrowded NE coast of USA
Immigration is the enabler of global overpopulation, which has also extincted the following carnivores (2):
-Japanese wolf
-Antarctic wolf (of the Falkland Islands)
-Newfoundland wolf (of Canada)
-Florida wolf
-Eastern cougar
-European lion (of Greece)
-Cape lion (of South Africa)
-Barbary lion (of North Africa)
And large herbivores such the following have gone extinct:
-Arizona wapiti
-Eastern wapiti
-Eastern bison
-Oregon bison
And birds such the following have gone extinct:
-Cooper's sandpiper
-Passenger pigeon
-Townsend's finch
-Ivory-billed woodpecker

MYTH #16: Immigration to developed countries is good for the environment, because it causes women to have fewer children
-As immigrants arrive to Canada, they increase their footprint. Each immigrant from France doubles their footprint; each one from Bangladesh multiplies his or her footprint by a factor of 20.
-Immigrants to Canada consistently have more children than Canadian born. The fertility rate among immigrant women who arrived from 1996 to 2001 was 3.1 children per woman compared with the national average of 1.5. (3)
The world average fertility rate is only 2.83 children per woman. Therefore, not only do Canadian immigrants grow their footprint when they get here; they also create more new footprints than the world average.(5)

MYTH #17: Immigration to Canada occurs in the big cities, so it doesn't compromise Canada's wilderness
-City dwellers in Toronto still consume paper, diamonds, copper, gold, fish, lumber, energy, etc. These resources are often taken from the wilderness.
The fact that most immigrants pile up into the city does not lessen the burden placed on Canada's unspoiled areas to provide resources for the growing urban populations.

MYTH #18: Immigration driven population growth is no longer an environmental threat because "Smart Growth" will prevent urban sprawl
-Smart growth is like going first class instead of steerage on the ecological Titanic. Either way, steady growth will lead us to complete ecological shipwreck.
-As long as each person needs to consume resources and produce waste in order to survive, there will be growing environmental damage wherever there are growing human populations
-Even if "smart growth" sees immigrants being filed away into the 100th floor of highrise apartment towers:
1) It takes a lot of energy to run the elevators
2) Food to feed growing dense populations will have to travel from further and further away as the population grows
3) In an overpopulated world, the only smart growth is none at all

MYTH #19: Canada's environment is getting better because there are now more acres of land designated as protected than ever before
Although Provincial Parks, National Parks, and Nature Conservancy of Canada land holdings may occupy more acres than ever before, this fact is deceiving because year after year, more acres of resources are being harvested than ever before. If two equal quality habitats exist of equal size and A is designated as protected and B is not; B will get exploited for its resources first and A will get exploited only after B is exhausted, what is really accomplished?
In fact, many resources are being harvested right out of the protected areas (Algonquin Park for example has over 3000 km of logging roads and ongoing operations continue to clearcut that forest) Aboriginals often get away with harvesting resources right out of protected areas because of their elevated status in our culture.(12, 10)
In other cases, roads, camping facilities, fishing, tourism, oil and gas pipelines, air pollution, etc are expanding within the boundaries of these protected areas.
The strategy of bettering the environment by designating more land as protected has been a complete failure. We had more biodiversity and unspoiled wilderness 50 years ago than today even though we had less land designated as protected back then. As long as the population is growing, the term "protected" will become more loosely defined and overall environmental integrity will worsen. (11)

MYTH #20: Economic growth can continue forever without worsening the environment as long as "throughput" is reduced
"Throughput" they define as resource consumption. These people argue that if we change our industries from things that people need (high throughput): fishing, forestry (paper, lumber, firewood), beef cattle, mining, etc to things that people don't need (low throughput): exporting poetry over the phone, back massages, tech support, music concerts, etc then we can grow our economy forever in an environmentally sustainable way..
Any economic activity causes environmental damage and cannot grow forever. Even if one area reduces high-throughput activity, another area would have to increase its high-throughput activity because people need real resources to survive.
The size of the economy is determined by population and consumption per capita. No matter what the economy is based on, the economy can't grow in the long term without worsening the environment.

MYTH #21: Canada's greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced despite adding 300,000+ more people to Canada's population annually
Greenhouse gases grow directly in proportion to the number of people. You can't have long term population growth and long term greenhouse gas reductions.
From 1990 to 2006 Australia’s population grew by 31% (from 16 to 21 million people) and its greenhouse gas emissions grew by 30%. (16)
From 1970 to 2004, USA's population grew by 43% while its greenhouse gas emissions also grew by 43%. (15)
Therefore, as the population grows, so does greenhouse gas emissions.

MYTH #22: Canada should encourage economic development as long as it is sustainable
We have reached a point where human beings already are consuming earth's resources 30% faster than they can be replenished. (8) Therefore, there is no such thing as sustainable development, or sustainable growth.
We should be aiming for a reduced population and reduced human activity. New building permits should not be issued. New construction projects should be disallowed.

MYTH #23: Canada can be environmentally sustainable if we elect the greenest political party
At present, the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, and Green Party all support economic growth, population growth, and mass immigration. Therefore none of these parties knows what environmental sustainability means. Until more of the Canadian public educates themselves and demands an end to "growth", we will not have any sustainable political parties to choose from.

MYTH #24: It is not overpopulation that is the problem, it is overconsumption by each person that really hurts the environment
What we care about is the total amount of consumption of resources, which is the total amount of impact on the environment. There are two factors at play: consumption per capita and population. The media ignores the latter when discussing environmental issues.
Environmental degradation = population X consumption per capita
Size of the economy = population X consumption per capita
Both factors matter. You can see why growing the economy is a bad thing.
Interestingly, if the earth's population was less than 10,000 it would be virtually impossible to ruin the environment even if each person consumed wastefully.
However, if the earth's population was over 100 billion, it would positively be impossible to avoid massive environmental ruin even if each person consumed the minimum in order to stay alive.

MYTH #25: Canadians will have a better future if we just keep reducing our footprint so that we can accomodate more population growth
From my experience, people who tell you that it is still wise to grow our population will never answer the following question:
When is Canada's population too much for our own good: 40 million, 50 million, 60 million, etc?
From my experience, these people also don't understand exponential growth. When I ask them:
If Canada's population is growing by 1% per year, how long will it take to double?
They usually look confused, try to dodge the question and then only if forced to answer, reply by saying "100 years".
This is wrong. It would only take 70 years.
Anyone who understands basic logic will realize that it is not in our best interest to reduce our footprint just so we can grow the population. Will we be asked to not heat our homes? Will we be asked to eat less food than what our body needs to sustain our existence?

MYTH #26: Technological advancements including new "green technologies" should be invested in so that we can have more economic growth without compromising our environment
You can't have your cake and eat it to. We live in a finite world. Green technologies designed to reduce environmental misery only serve to facilitate more economic growth. More economic growth only serves to create more environmental misery. We are trapping ourselves in a vicious cycle.
As the population grows, we'll be ever more dependent on complicated, unsustainable technologies until there reaches a point where no technology will enable us to grow our population any further. At this point our planet will be so ugly that we will wish we would have stopped using technology to grow our population a long time ago.

MYTH #27: Overpopulation must not be a problem because I never hear scientists talking about it in the media
If you don't hear scientists talking about the need to reduce human numbers for the sake of all life on earth it is because it is not where their money comes from.
Scientists get their money from business and government and universities who all worship the religion of economic growth. The media ignores the elephant in the room and any scientist who points to it, because it is contrary to what their business journalists prescribe.
Here are a number of individuals including scientists who go against the grain for the greater good. These people demonstrate that interest in reducing human populations locally, nationally and globally is shared by many credible and dedicated individuals. All of whom recognize that humans have overpopulated the earth and that a sustainable society requires a population reduction including an end to our present model of economic growth.

CANADIAN CONTACTS:
BC
Dawe, Neil: wildlife biologist, Qualicum Institute
Murray, Tim: blog author, http://sinkinglifeboat.blogspot.com
Murray, Dan: president of Immigration Watch Canada
Shea, Rick: college math instructor, http://sustainablesalmonarm.ning.com
MB
Welch, Harold: scientist, arctic explorer
NB
Salonius, Peter: soil microbiologist
ON
Bateman, Ross: environmental activist, brother of wildlife artist
Beriault, Robert: author, presenter www.peakoilandhumanity.com
Chisholm, Don: founder of the "Gaia Preservation Coalition"
Hoff, Brishen: blog author, http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com
Legg, Jon: Population Institute of Canada
Meyer, John: President of the now defunct ZPG of Canada,
Nickerson, Mike: author "Life Money & Illusion"
Wakefield, Richard: author
SK
Hobson, Keith: research scientist, Environment Canada
Smith, Alan: wildlife biologist

USA CONTACTS:
Bartlett, Albert: physics professor, author
Czech, Brian: founder of CASSE (Centre for Advancement of a Steady State Economy)
Ehrlich, Paul: author "The Population Bomb"
Feeney, John: blog author, http://www.growthmadness.org
Gardner, Dave: filmmaker "GrowthBusters: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity"
Heinberg, Richard: author of "The Oil Depletion Protocol"
Pianka, Eric: biologist
Watson, Paul: SeaShepherd Society founder

AUSTRALIAN CONTACTS:
Sheila Newman, author, scientist
James Sinnamon, population stability activist, http://candobetter.org

MYTH #28: Foreign aid from Canadian tax payers has been a success
40 years and billions sent to Africa has made the situation worse; by allowing overpopulation it resulted in more hungry people than before.
A government report states “food production in Africa has failed to keep pace with population growth” and in places like Senegal, the population grew by 2.7% annually from 1980 and 2003, a doubling time of only 26 years. (14)
Foreign aid such as deep water wells, grain handouts, etc are no good to the recipient village if they grow their population, resulting in even less natural resources per capita than before. Foreign aid must be conditional upon population reduction.

MYTH #29: Climate change is the worst environmental problem
Climate change is merely a symptom of overpopulation. A far worse symptom of overpopulation is loss of wild habitat. If you want to compare symptoms of overpopulation, habitat loss beats climate change for severity because more species have gone extinct due to habitat loss than due to climate change. Overharvesting of fish and game is another symptom of overpopulation worse than climate change for the same reason. Overpopulation is the root of all environmental problems. How many environmental problems would we have and how severe would they be if the earth’s human population was only 10,000? There is really only one environmental problem and that's overpopulation; the rest are just symptoms of it.

MYTH #30: There are lots of excellent environmental organizations that are doing a great job at saving Canada's environment
This is demonstrably false. The only thing environmental organizations like the Sierra Club of Canada, The Nature Conservancy of Canada, Canadian Wildlife Federation, World Wildlife Fund, The David Suzuki Foundation, Friends of The Earth Canada, Pembina Institute, Nature Canada, etc are succeeding at is ensuring their 6-figure salaries by growing their corporate and private donations.
None of these organizations aim to stop population growth, so at best, their work can only slow down the loss of Canadian wilderness instead of preventing that loss. These sleazy environmental organizations determined that they get the most funding by ignoring thorny issues such as the need to reduce the human population to a sustainable level. When is the last time you heard one of these organizations admit that without stopping human population growth, it is impossible to prevent the loss of wilderness?
Have you ever heard a single one of these phony environmentalists jeopardize their cushy NGO salaries by pointing to the sacred-cow of big business (mass immigration) as a culprit in Canadian environmental degradation? The Nature Conservancy of Canada has even formed a corporate partnership with The Royal Bank of Canada, whose goal is to boost immigration to Canada so they can grow their profits at the expense of Canadians and our environment. (18)
Pick any of Canada's mainstream environmental organizations and ask yourself: Is there more intact wild habitat now or before they existed? Invariably, quantity and quality of habitat is always higher the further back in time you go. Why? There has been an ever-growing human population. Oops, that's the one thing these organizations prefer not to address and the sole reason why no amount of their efforts can preserve the Canadian environment in the long term.

MYTH #31: There is no specific plan that would save Canada's environment without violating human rights
What kind of human rights do you expect to preserve if Canada continues its exponential population growth (70 year doubling time at 1% annual growth)?
Now here's the plan:
1. Immediately stop all immigration.
2. Pay each Canadian household $10,000 per year for not having children. If a child is born, that household has to pay back all the money they ever received, plus an additional $20,000 penalty.
3. Stop exporting our natural resources to other countries. At the rate we are liquidating our forests, fish, oil, gas, etc Canadians are destined to freeze in the dark in the near future.
This plan would ensure Canadian wildlife does not continue to be squeezed out of its habitat. It would also protect Canadian people from suffering the present trend of an ever declining share of space and resources per person.

MYTH #32: The overpopulation problem is too difficult to solve and there is nothing an individual can do to address it
There are things you can do. Once you are aware of the problem and the fact that it will affect you in your lifetime, you can talk about overpopulation with your friends and family.
Advocate an immigration policy where there would either be no immigration or fewer immigrants than emigrants. Have fewer children, preferably none. If you really love changing diapers, get a job as a nanny or try adopting a child.
Overpopulation is not something that can be solved on a voluntary person-by-person basis without some government programs to steer people in the right direction. We must advocate a government program to pay people for not breeding and for an immediate moratorium on immigration-driven population growth. We must advocate a new steady-state economic model that is not based on growth. (13) The ultimate goal should be to stop human population growth and reduce human numbers towards sustainable levels BEFORE OUR ENVIRONMENT GETS ANY WORSE!
Overpopulation is not something that needs space-age technology to address. In the words of the late Martin Luther King Jr:
"There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims."

1 www.kwic.com/~longpointbio/Reserve/Publications/FOLIO/chap10/chpt10.htm
2 The Complete Ecology Fact Book ©1972 Nobile, Philip and Deedy, John
3 http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/031222/d031222c.htm
4 http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060927/d060927a.htm
5 http://peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=206
6 http://www.travelblog.org/World/ca-geog.html
7 http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/removal/e_FAQ.htm
8 http://www.footprintnetwork.com
9 http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
10 http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2008/01/population-growth-cancels-out-human.html
11 http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2007/12/fraud-with-nature-conservancy-of-canada.html
12 http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2008/01/aboriginals-as-wise-stewards.html
13 http://www.steadystate.org
14 http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/fore-e/rep-e/repafrifeb07-e.pdf
15 http://peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3159 Frederick A. B. Meyerson,
16 Dr David Hughes, Goulburn Post, March 9, 2007
17 http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/default_e.cfm
18 http://sinkinglifeboat.blogspot.com/2008/01/triad-of-ecological-ruin-royal-bank-of.html

Brishen Hoff, February 07, 2008