POSITION AND POLICY STATEMENTS


Introduction

VSP believes that npo’s should be very clear about what their mission is and then what their positions and policies are that will lead to the achievement of that mission.  It is quite a challenge to get a board of directors to agree on the final wording for such documents and sometimes the statements are adopted with a majority but not one hundred percent agreement.  So, if even a board can’t always agree  on a position it would not be surprising that other members and supporters in general wouldn’t agree on the final wording.  However, position and policy statements do make it clear where a majority of the board does stand on an issue.  We hope that even though you may not agree with every sentence that you will still support the work of VSP in general.  Of course, position and policy statements are works in progress and do change over time.  VSP is always open to suggestions for changes.

Read - VSP Public Policy Position: Vermont Happiness Index
Read - General Position Statement - July 3, 2007
Read - VSP Public Policy Position: The Environment
Read - VSP Public Policy Position: Steady State Economy
Read - VSP Public Policy Position: US Fertility
Read - VSP Public Policy Position: US Migration Law



Vermonters for Sustainable Population Public Policy Position:
Vermont Happiness Index

By: George Plumb
June 17th, 2010

Vision

Vermont will have an index that will measure the overall happiness of its citizens on a statewide basis. Eventually the indicator should also be measureable at the municipal level as well as well as different economic levels.

Background

The U.S. currently uses the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as its indicator of economic health. GDP measures the total market value of all goods and services produced within a geographical region for a given time period. This indicator was created as the Gross National Product in 1934 and changed by the Commerce Department in 1992 to the GDP.  It was never intended as a measure of well being but that is what is has been used as since that time. It has been assumed that if the GDP goes up then the well being of the people living in the region measured goes up as well.

There are many problems with this measurement. First, it measures activity that is harmful as well as beneficial. As an example if a person has cancer and tens of thousands of dollars are spend trying to treat that cancer then that contributes to GDP. Or if there is a disastrous oil spill and that takes billions of dollars to clean up that also contributes to GDP. The second problem is that it doesn’t measure the harmful results of economic activity. If a huge dam is installed on a river and the river is essentially destroyed and fish are no longer able to migrate in that river that impact is not measured. The third problem is that it does not measure the important non-paid work that people may do such as cooking their own food instead of buying a meal out or volunteering as a hospice care volunteer. The fourth problem is that GDP only measures the total economic activity, it does not measure how that activity is distributed. So as is happening now, the rich can get richer while middle and low income people get poorer and have to work harder and longer just to meet their basic needs. The sixth problem is that GDP assumes that we can grow in consumption of natural resources forever and on a finite planet that is not possible. Finally and most importantly it doesn’t measure whether we are any happier or better off, it just measures how much we are consuming.

We need to develop a new measure that measures the true quality of live for all people and not just the economic activity.

Public Policy Position

The VSP endorses the concept of a Vermont Happiness Index, or some similarly titled indicator, to replace the GDP.

The Vermont Happiness Index would measure the following:

  1. The psychological well being of individuals.
  2. A work week that provides a reasonable amount of leisure time for all.
  3. Community vitality.
  4. Preservation of the culture.
  5. The health of individuals.
  6. The education of individuals.
  7. Conservation of the environment on which all life depends.
  8. Living standards that meet the basic human needs for all.
  9. Good government that is accessible to and responsive to its citizens.

Within these nine broad categories actual measureable indicators will be developed. As an example in category number 5 related to the health of individuals the data on the average age of death and the number of people who die of cancer each year is already available.

A very important indicator that is essential for inclusion is a measure of the population size and whether it is stable or growing.

A growing population has many results that decrease the quality of life. These include traffic congestion, time and energy wasted in long commutes, destruction of bio-capacity, pollution, rising costs of homes and land, costs of additional infrastructure such as roads and schools, sprawl, loss of scenic views, noise and light pollution, loss of biodiversity, increased posting of private land, parceling of land into ever smaller pieces, increased crowdedness of public recreation areas, increased rates of crime, and degradation of democracy.

Another indicator that must be measured is the degree to which we have a steady state economy rather than a constantly growing economy.

A steady state economic policy is explained in the policy position by that name in this section.

The Vermont legislature should appoint a special commission to study and make recommendations on how to develop and implement a Vermont Happiness Index.

Special Notes

Other countries are already studying or implementing a more progressive indicator. Brazil has a GNH pilot project. Maryland is using a Genuine Progress Indicator. With its relatively small scale and strong sense of environmental and social values Vermont is in an ideal situation to change from GDP to another indicator.
 
Resources

www.gnhusa.org/
www.grossnationalhappiness.com/

Return to the Top of the Page



General Position Statement
July 3, 2007


 1.  Vermonters for a Sustainable Population (VSP) advocates the stabilization of the Vermont, U.S., and global populations at a level that is in balance with all of our natural resources and meets the needs of the those populations without endangering the needs of future generations and ecological integrity.

 2.  Although the size and growth of the human population is a global issue, VSP recognizes that each country must decide for itself what population level is sustainable. The U.S should be a leader and a role model in achieving a sustainable population. Therefore, the most effective role for VSP is to advocate for the adoption of U.S. policies that will achieve a sustainable population in this country and that encourage other countries to do the same. Current U.S. policies result in continued population growth both domestically and internationally. Policies should be adopted to achieve stabile and sustainable population levels through:

A. Supporting family planning information and services so the national average of children per couple is no greater than two (2.1 is replacement level). Thoughtful, planned childbearing should be a responsibility of both men and women.

B. Setting the immigration level so it equals permanent emigration on an annual basis.

C. Providing more foreign aid to developing countries so that they may develop their economies and improve education, especially for girls and women. Our foreign aid should include substantial support for family planning information and services.
D. Revising international trade agreements and redirecting our foreign aid so that foreign workers will not want to come to the U.S to find work.

E. Eliminate tax and welfare policies that encourage large families.

F. The U.S. should transition from a continuous economic expansion model, which depends on an ever growing population and ever greater consumption of natural resources and is unsustainable, to an ecological model that is called a steady-state economy.

3.  Because tax, foreign trade and aid, and immigration policies are decided at the federal level Vermont has little influence over its population size. However, there are still things that Vermont can do to help keep Vermont a rural, un-crowded and beautiful state. These include:

A. Vermont environmental organizations should publicly acknowledge the impact of population growth on their mission.

B. Schools and colleges should include education about population growth and its impact on the environment as an element of their curriculums.

C. Strong environmental regulations must be maintained.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ 1 ] VSP welcome input on these positions and they will be updated periodically to reflect changing needs and the input of our members and the public.

[ 2 ] VSP believes a sustainable population as one that produces no lasting environmental degradation. Because the impacts of human activities are a product of both the number of people and the lifestyles of those people, the size of a sustainable population depends on the choices made by its members. VSP supports efforts to reduce the impact of our society by encouraging more sustainable lifestyles. However, VSP believes that such changes promise at best only a partial remedy, and that our current level of population growth will fully negate any advantages that a more conscientious lifestyle could provide. Furthermore, while some argue that population growth poses no threat because lifestyle changes will reduce our society’s ecological footprint, such changes are not yet in practice, and the assumption that they will be achieved does not justify avoiding the difficult issue of U.S. population growth. The important immediate goal is to stabilize our population size so that it is not growing. Then we can begin to figure out what population level is sustainable.

[ 3 ] An economic theory, put forth by Herman Daly in response to geophysicist M. K. Hubbert’s predictions of the limits of the fossil fuel supply, which regards the notion of economic growth in a finite world as inherently unsustainable. A steady-state economy, which exists within our ecosystems and is similarly finite, non-growing and materially closed (no matter enters or leaves). A steady-state economy assumes that natural resources are finite, and that our goal must be to use them as efficiently as possible.

Return to the Top of the Page


VSP Public Policy Position: The Environment
January 9, 2010

Vision

VSP envisions a future when the size of our population and our consumption of natural resources are in balance and sustainable so that all people have a high quality of life and all ecosystems on earth support all forms of life in numbers that maintain the ecosystems.

Background

Human population growth and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put humans and the plant and animal kingdoms at serious risk and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the disasters our present course will bring about.

The environment is suffering critical stress:

The Atmosphere
Global climate change with melting ice, rising sea levels, more violent storms, and draughts will bring suffering to millions of environmental refuges and create loss of many species of wildlife. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.

Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further limits the useable supply.

Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste -- some of it toxic.

Soil
Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded, an area larger than India and China combined, and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.

Forests
Tropical rain forests, and tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species. Carbon sequestration will be greatly diminished.

Living Species
The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself.

Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life, coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change, could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand

In summary:

The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth.

We 6.8 billion people are in population and resource overshoot. Since the mid 1980s we have been consuming resources faster than the sustainable rate of replacement. We are consuming our resource base. By 2005 the global overshoot was 31% and rising. The world’s 33.6 billion acres of biologically productive land and water (biocapacity) divided by the world’s 6.47 billion people (in 2005) equals 5.1 acres of resources available per person, on average. But average consumption in 2005 was 6.7 acres, 31% overshoot. Using related data for the U.S. we are at 88% overshoot.

Public Policy Position

Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on. 

  • We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water.

  • We must halt deforestation, degrading and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.

  • To stop the greatest mass extinction in modern history and provide enough habitats for wildlife, one third to half of earth’s bio-capacity must be set aside for other living things – a stunning increase from less than 15% now.

We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.

  • We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.

We must stabilize population.

  • To halt resource depletion-overshoot and mass extinction, human numbers need to return to 3 billion or less. U.S. resources can sustainably support about 200 million, less than two thirds of our current population. And that’s only if we slashed our average consumption in half!

  • Therefore, it is absolutely crucial to our future viability on the planet that we humanely and compassionately reduce births to allow the size of the human population to drift back to a truly sustainable level, long-term.

  • This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

  • To bring about a sustainable population we must implement the policies on fertility, steady state economy and immigration that are also on this web site.

We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

  • To eliminate poverty we must move from a fossil fuel dependent, growth for ever economy to a steady state economy where there is fair access to resources for all people. Our present economic system enriches a few at the expense of billions.

We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

  • Cultures, laws and policies must be changed so that women have equal status with men, are provided equal education, and are able to make their own reproductive choices.

  • Information on family planning and access to birth control must be easily available.
     

Special Notes

In 1992, 1700 of the world’s leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel Laureates in the sciences, signed a Warning to Humanity written by the late Henry Kendall, chair of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Some of this statement is taken from that document.

Resources

Ecological footprint data is provided by WORLD POPULATION BALANCE – www.worldpopulationbalance.org


Return to the Top of the Page



V
SP Public Policy Position: Steady State Economy
May 6, 2009 

Vision 

The U.S. economy, and eventually the global economy will make a transition from growth to a steady state economy.  This steady state economy will: (1) be sustainably scaled to fit within the capacity provided by ecosystems; (2) provide equal opportunities for all people to accrue the benefits of economic activities; and (3) provide for the efficient allocation of resources such that the prosperity of the human economy promotes the health of the ecosystem on which it depends.  A steady state economy can be compared to a mature and healthy forest ecosystem.  It does not grow in size, but it is a living, evolving system with a startling array of interconnected parts.  Vibrant and remarkably diverse assemblages of species cooperate and compete within the forest, and there are opportunities for new species and ecosystem functions to develop over time. 

Background 

Most of our environmental problems are, to a greater or lesser extent, the result of population growth.  Population growth is driven in great part by the dominant cultural belief that the economy must be constantly growing.  A growing economy depends on a growing population and growing consumption. 

While a growing economy has resulted in a higher quality of living for some in wealthier countries, it has now reached the point where it is causing more problems than it is solving.   These problems include global warming, loss of natural habitat and biodiversity, collapse of ocean fisheries, loss of access to clean water sources, and many other examples of unsustainable resource use.   

A constantly growing economy with finite resources conflicts with the principles of physics and ecology.  We need to replace “economic growth” with “sustainable economic development” which is a shift in focus from ever growing resource use to improvement in the quality of life.  Simply stated it is “better not bigger.” 

We must move towards a steady state economy as first proposed by Herman Daly and now advanced through the Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy (steadystate.org). A steady state economy brings together what have been two separate disciplines into one discipline: ecological economics.  It recognizes that our economic system is really a subset of our environmental system and the two must work in harmony. A steady state economy promotes “economic development” (improvement in quality of life and efficiency) and discourages “economic growth” (expansion of population and consumption). 

There are three basic criteria for the maintenance of ecological sustainability:  (1) renewable resources should be extracted at a rate no faster than they can be regenerated (sustainable yield); (2) waste generation from economic activity such a resource consumption and land uses should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment (sustainable waste disposal); and (3) nonrenewable resources should be used at a rate no faster than we can find renewable substitutes (as an example coal for energy should be used no faster than it can be replaced by solar and wind). 

The transition to a steady state economy begins with a moral discussion about our goals for life on the planet and our responsibility to future generations, as well as a recognition that economic growth conflicts with environmental protection. 

Public Policy Position 

The VSP endorses the concept of a steady state economy.  To implement this type of economy the following will need to be accomplished. 

Population levels will need to be stabilized with total fertility rates to be at or even below 2.1 until we figure out what is a sustainable population level. 

Governments, businesses, and households must, based on the science of ecology, identify limits for resource throughput (e.g., ecological footprint), and apply appropriate measures to stay at or below those limits (e.g., through the use of cap and trade or similar quota systems). 

There needs to be a broad natural capital depletion tax to assure that resource inputs from the environment to the economy are sustainable, while giving strong incentives to develop new technologies and processes to minimize impacts. 

The application of the precautionary “polluter pays principle” should be applied to assure that the full costs of outputs from the economy to the environment are charged to the polluter. 

U.S. tax policies should be modified to support a steady state economy rather than a constantly growing economy.  Child tax deductions should apply for no more than two children. Taxes should be shifted from the “goods” to the “bads (e.g. not taxing solar panels to taxing coal production). 

U.S. spending policies should favor a steady state economy over a growth economy (e.g. subsidizing solar research and not clean coal production). 

Governments need to compile and report indicators of true economic health and progress (e.g., the Ecological Footprint, the Genuine Progress Indicator, and the Happy Planet Index), rather than relying on GDP, which is a poor indicator of well-being. 

Individuals should be encouraged to exhibit and support behavior that favors sustainability.  Examples include limiting family size to two or fewer children, buying local when possible, eliminating conspicuous consumption, limiting energy consumption, and using renewable energy. 

The President should appoint a special commission to study and make recommendations on how to keep the economy healthy as we make the transition to a steady state economy. 

Special Notes 

Countries in which citizens are not currently consuming enough to meet basic needs may need economic growth to help improve quality of life.  Their primary goal initially should be to stabilize population at a sustainable level. Industrialized countries that have experienced economic growth and have fairly stable populations with high per capita consumption, should focus on reducing their consumption of natural resources.

Resources 

The Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy-www.steadystate.org

The International Society of Ecological Economics-www.ecoeco.org

An Introduction to Ecological Economics by Robert Constanza, et. al., 1997, CRC Press

Steady-State Economics by Herman Daly, 1977, W. H. Freeman and Company

The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability by James Gustave SpethA


Return to the Top of the Page



VSP Public Policy Position: US Fertility

May 15, 2009  

Vision
VSP’s vision in regards to domestic fertility is of a nation where liberty has truly blossomed – we believe that all persons need the necessary tools, education and information to control their own fertility in ways they see fit and that barriers to such liberty must be removed.  

We envision a land where every child is a planned and wanted child, with provisions made for the necessary parental upbringing, formal education, nutrition and health services he or she needs for the opportunity to grow into a fully functioning adult.  

Our vision is of a U.S. population which:

  1. Is aware of its fundamental relationship to – and dependence on – the natural ecological endowment of our nation.
  2. Takes steps, through our individual fertility choices and the collective effect of those choices, to beneficially nourish that ecology such that our numbers are able to be sustained by it without degrading or impoverishing it now or in the future.
 

Background 

Total fertility rates (TFRs), defined as “the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates of the measured geographical area through her lifetime; and she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life, are a central measure of whether a population in a given geographical area can be expected to expand, decline or stabilize.  

The general measure is that TFR of 2.1 or below will lead to stable or declining populations, while 2.2 or greater will lead to expanding populations.[1]  

As of 2008, the United States (U.S.) total fertility rate had risen to 2.1 -- after reaching a low in 1978 of 1.76. Factors in this increase are many. They include the federal government’s damaging policy emphasis on funding abstinence-only human sexuality education beginning in 2000. There is also anecdotal evidence of children becoming status symbols among youthful women and a vast unmet need for family planning and contraceptive services exists.   

The rise in domestic TFR is contributing to an increase in nominal births, which reached a record of over 4.3 million in 2007. This in turn is partially fueling the continuing population expansion of the U.S. The U.S. is already the third most populous nation on the planet and expected to contribute more to global population expansion by mid-century than any other nations except Nigeria and India. The U.S. is projected to add 133 million people by 2050[2].  

The magnitude of this continuing growth in population is alarming and challenging in terms of both domestic and planetary sustainability issues. 

U.S. bio-capacity – its domestic surface area available to produce resources and assimilate waste – currently provides only 48% of the annual subsistence for our population. Fifty two percent is provided by importing bio-capacity, drawing down resource reserves, and degrading habitat[3]. In other words, the U.S. is already over-populated in terms of our long term domestic ecological carrying capacity by as many as 150 million people. Despite such data, the U.S. government is not taking appropriate action to address our domestic TFR and the role it plays in our unsustainable population expansion.  

Furthermore, while constituting only 5% of the global population the U.S. annually accounts for 22% of global carbon emissions and uses 24% of global energy production -- as our population expands these global inequities are likely to only worsen.  

It has been proven in the real world that determined governments can dramatically influence the TFRs of a nation. For instance, Iran and Kerela, India both experienced dramatic declines in TFRs using combinations of education and access to family planning methods. Such methods included: 

  • Media campaigns encouraging couples to delay their first pregnancy, space births and limit family size.
  • Pre-marital counseling, which includes information about contraception for both men and women, being made a requirement for registering for marriage.
  • Integrating population education into all levels of the education system.
  • Removing economic incentives for large families such as tax deductions.
  • Using well-developed health infrastructure to provide married couples with easy access to modern contraceptive methods -- free of charge at public clinics. 
 

Public Policy Position  

As one means for the stabilization and eventual reduction of the U.S. domestic population, VSP supports the reduction of US TFR to well below 2.1, with our historical 1978 low of 1.76 as the most ideal first goal.  

Specifically, we advocate for:  

  • Taking birth control pills off prescription, instead keeping them “behind the counter” where they can be sold after quick and basic health-screening has been done by a trained pharmacist; and providing easy access to other modern contraceptive methods with subsidies and sliding scale charges to all who want them.
  • Removing per child tax deductions beyond the second child.
  • Requiring states to implement pre-marital counseling regarding family planning, the economic benefits of small family size and the environmental consequences of population expansion before issuing marriage licenses.
  • Robust, consistent human sexuality education throughout age-appropriate compulsory public education.
  • Funding of public service announcements regarding family planning, the economic benefits of small family size and the environmental consequences of overpopulation.
 

Special Notes 

VSP celebrates that the U.S. is a nation whose traditions value liberty and free-will, and therefore we respect the rights of individuals to decide on the spacing and total number of children. That said, VSP advocates for replacement-level fertility for all nations in the world.   

Although this is an average number of 2.1 children per woman, VSP believes that couples and women should consider their responsibility to help effect population stabilization when debating whether to have a third (or more) child. Otherwise society, and nature's dwindling resources, will be further taxed to support the couple's contribution to U.S. and international overpopulation.

Return to the Top of the Page



VSP Public Policy Position: US Migration Law
May 15, 2009

Background

The United States is already the third most populous nation on the planet and will contribute more to global population growth by mid-century than any other nations except Nigeria and India (the US is projected to add 133 million people by 20501).

The magnitude of this population’s ongoing growth is troubling in terms of both domestic and planetary sustainability issues -- due to its extremely wasteful and polluting habits of consumption. As an example, the US population constitutes only 5% of the global population but annually accounts for 22% of global carbon emissions, throws away over 200 million tons of municipal waste and uses 24% of global energy production while destroying 1.2 million acres of its farmland per year2.

Furthermore, the US bio-capacity – its domestic surface area available to produce resources and assimilate waste – provides only 48% of the population’s annual subsistence. 52% is provided by importing bio-capacity, drawing down resource reserves, and degrading habitat3.

Like all sovereign nations, US population fluctuations in any given year are the results from the net of gain from natural increase and net migration. It’s generally accepted that the US has officially added over 3 million people per year during the current decade. For example, the net increase in 2005 was broken down as:

  • Natural increase: 1.9 million people per year
  • Net legal immigration: an estimated 1.2-1.5 million per year

There is also an estimated net illegal immigration of 1 million or more per year.

However, special note should be made regarding the relatively high fertility of recent immigrants compared to native citizens, and the complex additive effects that ongoing net legal immigration of over 1 million plus persons and their future fertility have on the rate of natural increase. 82% of the US population increase by 2050 will result from immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants4.

Specific legal mechanisms to manage natural increase do not exist. Instead the variations of this rate result from a complex of societal tendencies and countless individual and organizational decisions. This is not to say the rate of natural increase cannot be manipulated by determined entities, but only that it does not enjoy a single point of policy control like migration: it is the sole province of the US Congress, as elected representative of this sovereign nation, to set migration policy as it sees fit. 

Public Policy Position

Celebrating and admiring the positive contributions that representatives of planet’s diverse cultures and ethnicities make to the Unites States upon joining our citizenry, VSP welcomes legal immigration into the US at a rate that promotes stabilized domestic population.

As current US migration policy precludes a stabilized national population, VSP petitions the US Congress to alter it so that in any given year the number of people invited into our nation is roughly equal to those who freely chose to leave the previous year. (Population Reference Bureau gauges that inviting 300,000 immigrants into the US per year would serve to balance those emigrants that choose to leave).

Special Notes

VSP notes that our public policy position on this matter should be viewed in the context of filling the unmet need for a comprehensive US national population policy, this position being one component of such a policy.

VSP notes that there are countless individual American citizens and organizations who, based on environmental & sustainability concerns, are advocating for migration policies similar to our own. We consider such advocates “sustainable population advocates” and welcome them as colleagues and constituents.

VSP notes that population growth in the US does not occur in a vacuum, and that advocating merely for stabilizing population in the US is an unbalanced approach to striving for planetary sustainable development. We strongly urge and support efforts to reduce global fertility to 2.1 or below as soon as possible, so long as all such reduction are achieved voluntarily by promoting the idea of, and/or objectively removing the barriers to unconstrained access to family planning services and contraception to all those who want them -- the education of women being a paramount objective in these goals.

VSP is also well aware that most people who try to come here illegally do so because of economic conditions in their own countries.  Because of this VSP urges that trade agreements with other countries and subsidies to U.S. businesses be economically fair to  other countries and that foreign aid economic development and funds for family planning be significantly increased.


Return to the Top of the Page