Colin Rigley’s article, “What’s behind those ads?” (Oct. 30) is as misleading as the CAPS ad is confusing. The four footprints do not represent a quadrupling of the U.S. carbon footprint; they represent the quadrupling of an immigrant’s carbon footprint in the U.S. compared to that in their former home—probably true.
Quoting Reshma Shamusunder as saying, “The ad is utter nonsense,” is nonsense. Shamusunder may be as much in favor of immigration as Dr. Hull and CAPS are against it. Thoughtful reporting needs to go beyond just finding two opposing positions and quoting from them.
Rigley wrote, “Strangely, CAPS is also heavily tied to the environmental move-
ment.” Strangely? The environmental movement and concerns with population growth have been inextricably linked for decades.
Population growth in the U.S. is a serious issue because Americans have Earth’s biggest per-capita carbon footprint. The immigration issue divided the Sierra Club and slipped from current political debate, but it remains very real as a driver of population growth here.