Proposals to accommodate the worst border crisis America has ever witnessed belong in the realm of science fiction, in a world where limits don't exist. In reality, the lesson of limits is all around us.
Groundwater can take thousands of years to replenish, and Arizona is running out of it.
The New York Times reports that "Arizona has determined that there is not enough groundwater for all of the housing construction that has already been approved in the Phoenix area," but the thirst for development and population growth remains unquenched...at least in the minds of elected officials and developers.
"Despite the increasingly dire warnings from the state and water experts," Christopher Flavelle and Jack Healy report, "some developers note that construction will not stop anytime soon." There are enough approvals in the system to guarantee construction well into the future.
Arizona will, however, stop issuing new permits unless cities and developers can find new sources of water. There are ways to do this, including diverting the precious resource from farmers and Native American tribes, many of whom are facing their own water shortages. These are some of the tradeoffs of mass urbanization.
Yet among all of the options to divert water from other sources, the most popular choice among Arizona voters is to not add the projected 3 million more people (by 2050) in the first place.
"Does the entire Southwest have to turn into Pottersville, where is our George Bailey?" asks Rio Verde Foothills resident Rusty Childress:
What lawmakers are missing is that unsustainable growth DOES have a cost as recent headlines show. This is going to get even more interesting as agreements governing use of Colorado River water expire in 2026. Things are really heating up in the desert."
The more than doubling of both Arizona's population and its developed land were among the highest rates in the nation over the last four decades, despite the fact that - according to The Arizona Daily Star "Lawmakers realized decades ago that the state was in a position where the amount of groundwater available would be outstripped by demand."
But state and local government officials and developers encouraged more growth, and Members of Congress more than doubled the population growth driven by immigration policies. Arizona has grown by more than 4 million people since 1982.
Arizonans never asked for that kind of growth, and few welcome more of it. There is only so much one can do at the local level, however, if the federal government insists on continuing the highest level of immigration (adding an L.A. County every 39 months) in history.
"Does this obsession with growth justify the current catch and release immigration policy for cheap labor?" asks Childress, a nature photographer.
"Why is there such a high tolerance level to play kick the can on some of the most significant issues of our time?"
I=PAT: All the Letters Matter
You can change the technology (T) but if the population (P) that depends on it continues to grow in number and affluence (A), the impact is going to be challenging. This is something proponents of techno fixes miss.
"Obtaining double the amount of copper (Cu) over the next 27 years as in all of human history," advises NumbersUSA's Scientific Director Leon Kolankiewicz, "will entail disturbing far more earth and habitat than was needed to obtain those first 700 million tonnes, because Cu ore grades have dropped. And again, that's just one metal among many, although by volume and mass it's one of the greatest ones because Cu has SO many useful applications."
The supply of lithium alone "needs to increase by 42 times by 2050," reports Ana Swanson, "to meet the rising demand for electric vehicles." U.S. officials are worried about China dominating the market for energy materials. At the same time, they don't see a way to acquire enough critical minerals without engaging with countries that lack labor and environmental standards.
"While innovations in batteries could reduce the need for certain minerals," Swanson reports, "the world is facing dramatic long-term shortages by any estimate."
As the United States grows through Congress' irresponsible immigration policies, we inevitably consume more in a Cisiphean effort to emit less.
The sacrifice of so much American land is unlikely to deliver the promised results as long as America remains a wealthy nation with high immigration levels.
"Decarbonizing will likely lead to huge fragmentation of land, in the U.S. and overseas," reports Christopher Ketcham:
Ketcham quotes Olivia Lazard, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "Our big blind spot here is that we are headed toward a decarbonization trajectory that may end up undermining ecological integrity."
At present, habitat loss, not climate, is the greatest threat to species. All of these are important issues and challenges, and NumbersUSA - a single-issue organization - doesn't presume to know all of the answers. But we do know that immigration-driven population growth at the current level exacerbates the problems.
JEREMY BECK is a V.P., Deputy Director for NumbersUSA
