Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

Immigration's environmental impact deserves greater study

The main point to be drawn from Tom Horton's article about immigration's impact on the Chesapeake Bay region is that there's no way to separate population problems from environmental problems, and vice versa ("Immigration's impact," Sept. 3).

Advocates for both issues have failed to acknowledge this fact for far too long, but the hot-button issue of immigration makes it impossible for them to continue to maintain their distance.

As Mr. Horton noted, whatever the merits of immigration reform, immigration will remain the primary factor in U.S. population growth, which, if present rates continue, will swell from our present 315 million to some 445 million by mid-century.

This cannot help but put enormous pressure not only on the Chesapeake Bay area, but on all of the nation's natural habitats, and by extension, our social and economic well-being as well.

It is interesting to note that while the federal government sees fit to promulgate environmental and immigration policies, it shies away from doing so when it comes to population policy.

Given the current situation, this is clearly wrong-headed. At the very least, we should have a national Commission on Population to assess the impact not only of immigration, but every social and economic development that may impact population growth.

Howard Bluth, Baltimore

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • A farmer's perspective on phosphorous management

    A farmer's perspective on phosphorous management

    From the time I graduated from college and returned to the farm, I have been dealing with government regulations, environmental extremists and animal rights activists.

  • Support Clean Water Act

    Support Clean Water Act

    On the 42nd anniversary of the Clean Water Act, a new report from Environment America, "Waterways Restored," highlights the success the law has meant for the Anacostia River, taking it from a state of horrific pollution to giving some hope that it will be safe for swimming and fishing in little...

  • Damming the bay's pollution

    Damming the bay's pollution

    Here's the gist of the recent report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Conowingo Dam: Don't confuse a red herring with a red tide. The notion that all the pollution woes of the Chesapeake Bay could be heaped on one 86-year-old hydroelectric facility on the Lower Susquehanna River was ludicrous...

  • How about aerators to clean up the bay?

    How about aerators to clean up the bay?

    I just read the article about dredging the Susquehanna River, and I couldn't help thinking back to the Seoul Olympics where they used aerators to clean up their filthy water and they got it clean enough that all of the rowing events were held in very safe water ("Study: Dredging little help to...

  • All Maryland's waterways deserve protection

    All Maryland's waterways deserve protection

    The Clean Water Act has brought progress to the Chesapeake Bay, but in order to continue the bay on the path to success we must protect all the waterways in Maryland, including the Anacostia River ("Close Clean Water Act loophole," Nov. 12).

  • Phosphorus rules, finally

    Phosphorus rules, finally

    As we have chided Gov. Martin O'Malley more than once on this page for dragging his feet on regulations intended to reduce the amount of polluting phosphorus pouring into the Chesapeake Bay from farms, it's only fair to herald his decision to move forward with the rules. That he chose to release...