Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Close the Borders! Immigrants Emit Greenhouse Gases!
Greenhouse gases have apparently become the boogeyman for any and all issues. For example, the folks at the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies have just issued a report that warns that immigrants emit more greenhouse gases than if they had stayed at home mired in poverty.
Among the Center's startling findings is:
...immigrants in the United States produce an estimated four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin.
U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually - equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined.
The estimated 637 tons of CO2 U.S. immigrants produce annually is 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries.
If the 482 million ton increase in global CO2 emissions caused by immigration to the United States were a separate country, it would rank 10th in the world in emissions...
Legal immigrants have a much larger impact because they have higher incomes and resulting emissions, and they are more numerous than illegal immigrants.
These figures are likely to be true. But is keeping people poor by depriving us of their labor and skills really the best way to address man-made global warming?
|8.13.08 @ 2:42PM|#
Yeah, there's a big linguistic difference between immigrants emitting greenhouse gases and living a lifestyle that produces them.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.13.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Wow, Naga, that really was weird. Do you think I've been
censored?
Or do you think not everybody is as happy to see me as you
were?
Elemenope|8.13.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Whoa! My comment disappeared into the ether. I wonder if it got transplanted onto another thread.
Bingo|8.13.08 @ 2:44PM|#
You must adopt an upper-middleclass white urbanite lifestyle or face the consequences! I could probably afford to ride my bike everywhere if I was a yuppy living off a trust fund in a gentrified part of town. Unfortunately, thats not the case.
Tacos mmm...|8.13.08 @ 2:44PM|#
I guess they're not even pretending to just oppose illegal immigration anymore.
B|8.13.08 @ 2:45PM|#
"...anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies..."
I am curious, are they opposed to all immigration, or just the type
that involves the breaking of numerous laws of this country?
Imagine that, a group that opposes law breakers entering this
country.
|8.13.08 @ 2:45PM|#
But is keeping people poor by depriving us of their labor and skills really the best way to address man-made global warming?
I thought keeping people poor was the central tenet to
environmentalism.
Naga Sadow|8.13.08 @ 2:46PM|#
TWC,
Clearly the reason staff is upset about your involvement with the
new X-Files movie.
|8.13.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Clearly the reason staff is upset about your involvement
with the new X-Files movie.
What? Did he actually go see it?
|8.13.08 @ 2:50PM|#
The "weirdness" that some of you experienced earlier on in trying to post comments was the result of difficulties in getting the cartoon to embed. Thus, I had to keep taking the post down and then re-posting it. Sorry.
Elemenope|8.13.08 @ 2:51PM|#
B,
Are all criminals the same?
Or is their criminality delineated by the severity of the crime and
the justness of the law in question?
Just curious.
Regis Carnifex|8.13.08 @ 2:55PM|#
This has to be the best anti-immigrant argument I've ever heard.
If by best you mean funniest.
How much further can we take this? Immigrants are more likely to
make enough money to own a car in the US than in their home
contries, raising the chances that they will be involved in a car
accident. Immigrants are more likely to have better health care in
the US, so they are less likely to die young of preventable
diseases and more likely to die from lung-cancer or complications
from diabetes.
Warty|8.13.08 @ 2:56PM|#
But is keeping people poor by depriving us of their
labor and skills really the best way to address man-made
global warming?
That's more or less the accepted position these days, right?
Regis Carnifex|8.13.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Immigrants have a better chance of being employed in the US than in their home countries, so they have a higher chance of dying on the job.
Nigel Watt|8.13.08 @ 3:01PM|#
This is old news. The Sierra Club had a vote on whether to discourage immigration from poor countries because of this several years ago. It failed.
|8.13.08 @ 3:03PM|#
The anti-immigration types may use greenhouse gases as an excuse to oppose immigration, but the truth is that the misanthropic gorebull warming freaks want us all to enjoy the lifestyle consistent with the immigrant's countries of origin. Everyone of course, with the exception of their elitist selves.
The Extispicator|8.13.08 @ 3:03PM|#
NEW STUDY: The Center for Immigration Studies emits more
greenhouse gases by existing, conducting studies, and issuing press
releases that it would if it didn't exist at all.
Disband now! It's for the (white, middle-class) children!!
|8.13.08 @ 3:08PM|#
B | August 13, 2008, 2:45pm | #
"...anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies..."
I am curious, are they opposed to all immigration, or just the type that involves the breaking of numerous laws of this country?
Reading the fucking article would have answered that for
you.
Legal immigrants have a much larger impact because they have higher incomes and resulting emissions, and they are more numerous than illegal immigrants.
|8.13.08 @ 3:12PM|#
I am curious, are they opposed to all immigration, or just
the type that involves the breaking of numerous laws of this
country? Imagine that, a group that opposes law breakers entering
this country.
That's easy enough to find out. Let's just change the laws to allow
entry to everyone. If fealty to the letter of the law is indeed
their real concern, I presume they (and you) would see no problems
with this as the immigrants would no longer be "law
breakers."
If this is not the case, then they (and you) should stop hiding
behind the question begging "illegal" rhetoric. Just exactly what
should and shouldn't be illegal is the fundamental point in
question in the immigration debate.
|8.13.08 @ 3:16PM|#
A single 1952 Buick in Havana probably throws off more pollution
than fifty 1990's Hondas in San Diego.
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it, Lefty.
shecky|8.13.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Of course, the best way to combat greenhouse gases is to drive American citizens into poverty and adopting the lifestyles the poor illegal immigrants enjoy in their native countries. But who would advocate that? oh, wait...
|8.13.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Sadly predictable that the thread would be full of people who
read a statement from an ANTI-IMMIGRANT GROUP which uses an
environmental argument as a fig leaf for its anti-immigration
agenda, and think it's a statement from environmentalists.
You know, I hear those environmentalists want to eat kittens,
too.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 3:24PM|#
P Brooks,
Are you counting the c02 in your calculation?
Are you calculating the decrease in global warming that results
from the contribution to global dimming that the particulate
pollution causes?
As for the topic at hand, maybe this anti-immigration group is
really just a front for these elusive
environmentalists-that-want-you-all-in-poverty that everyone keeps
talking about (but I never see).
Keeping labor out of the country is one way to put a drag on our
economy, which I am told would reduce our co2 footprint...so this
group gets double-super-duper carbon credits when they effectively
close off the border.
Or something.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Or, what joe said.
Yummy kittens skins are raised with no impact on the
environment.
*You just feed the rats to the cats and the cats to the rats and
keep the cat skins for nuthin'
*pop culture quiz
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Heat a heavy skillet over medium high heat. NEVER GO HIGHER
THAN MEDIUM HIGH! Add kitten skins and season well with the
seasoning salt. Fry, turning as needed to keep from burning. When
brown and crispy, remove, drain on paper towel and serve. Does not
yield many bites, but served to somone special, it conveys your
loving feelings! Believe me, this IS good. Just give it a
try.
From the environmentalist cookbook.
|8.13.08 @ 3:31PM|#
From: J sub D
To: Center for Immigration Studies
Subj: Hysterical propoganda
Re: Your August 2008 Report "Immigration to the United States and
World-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions"
Wow! Anti-immigrantion and global warming hysteria. In the
same report, no less.
I'm impressed.
Now take your pro-poverty aganda and kindly fuck off.
R/
J sub D
|8.13.08 @ 3:31PM|#
I've heard that the well-fed eat more than the starving, too, addding to the food crisis.
Krispy Kitten Kitchen|8.13.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Our 32 branches serve Krispy Kitten Skins with less
environmental impact than any other fast food chain.
Krispy Kitten Kitchens...your environmentally friendly choice for a
Krunchy Lunch.
alan|8.13.08 @ 3:40PM|#
These figures are likely to be true.
N\baily, when I see estimates like that, I have to take it with a
grain of salt. Look at this for a second:
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/olympic-torch-e.html
You guessed it, by plane -- an Air China A330 custom painted
with the Olympic logo and color scheme. The A330 burns 5.4 gallons
of fuel per mile. That translates into 462,400 gallons for the
entire trip. With Earthlab estimating that every gallon of jet fuel
burned produces 23.88 pounds of CO2, the Olympic Torch Relay is
adding about 11 million pounds of carbon to the atmosphere. That's
5,500 tons.
Just ask yourself, how can a gallon of fuel create more pounds of
CO2 emissions than the unconsumed gallon of fuel actually weighs?
I've seen similar bizarre claims for motor vehicle carbon
consumption when comparing emissions per year with the actual fuel
purchased in that time.
|8.13.08 @ 3:43PM|#
You know, I hear those environmentalists want to eat
kittens, too.
Well if it would lower someone's carbon footprint, I could see them
advocating it.
So how is it that they emit more co2? Is it all the greenhouse
gases emitted from all those refried beans? Is it because the
exhale so much co2 from, like, you know, working so hard picking
potatoes and landscaping? Do caucasian immigrants emit less co2
than hispanic immigrants?
Damn I just didn't know those immigrants were so damn gassy.
|8.13.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Just ask yourself, how can a gallon of fuel create more
pounds of CO2 emissions than the unconsumed gallon of fuel actually
weighs? I've seen similar bizarre claims for motor vehicle carbon
consumption when comparing emissions per year with the actual fuel
purchased in that time.
Ask a chemist. A KG of coal, completely burnt, will produce >3
KG of CO2. I'm unsure of the specifics of jet fuel combustion. How
much water is produced etc.
alan|8.13.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Ask a chemist. A KG of coal, completely burnt, will produce
>3 KG of CO2. I'm unsure of the specifics of jet fuel
combustion. How much water is produced etc.
No fundamental laws of physics are rendered meaningless in the
process?
|8.13.08 @ 3:51PM|#
A KG of coal, completely burnt, will produce >3 KG of
CO2.
Is it because burning involves combining the carbon in the coal
with oxygen in the air?
|8.13.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Neu Mejican: these elusive
environmentalists-that-want-you-all-in-poverty that everyone keeps
talking about (but I never see).
Have you tried googling "overconsumption"? There's this old paper
by Maurice King urging the "deliberate quest of poverty" published
in the Lancet few years back:
There needs to be a major change in the structural relations
between North and South, as well as within each of them. Most
difficult for those in the industrial North, with its unsustainable
economy, a sustainable lifestyle means consumption
control-intensive energy conservation, fewer unnecessary journeys,
more public transport,- fewer, smaller, slower cars, warmer
clothes, and colder rooms. It also means much more recycling and a
more environmentally friendly diet with more joules to the hectare.
The deliberate quest of poverty (for the privileged North the
reduction of luxurious resource consumption) has an honoured
history. Sustainability supports this, and means that any further
increase in living standards must be achieved in a way that does
not increase resource consumption, and may require that consumption
be reduced.
The Center for Biological Conservation's Paul Ehrlich hints at it
with his latest
book:
Silence on the overconsumption (Affluence) factor in the I=PAT
equation is more readily explained. Consumption is still viewed as
an unalloyed good by many economists, along with business leaders
and politicians, who tend to see jacking up consumption as a
cure-all for economic ills. Too much unemployment? Encourage people
to buy an SUV or a new refrigerator. Perpetual growth is the creed
of the cancer cell, but third-rate economists can't think of
anything else. Some leading economists are starting to tackle the
issue of overconsumption, but the problem and its cures are tough
to analyze. Scientists have yet to develop consumption condoms or
morning-after-shopping-spree pills.
And I'll have to dig around to find the reference, but I did attend
a conference at which a German environmental foundation
specifically came out for drastically reduced material standards of
living. I'll get back to you sometime on that.
Nigel Watt|8.13.08 @ 3:53PM|#
No fundamental laws of physics are rendered meaningless in the process?
No. Familiarize yourself with stoichiometry.
|8.13.08 @ 3:56PM|#
RCD,
Of course. We all took chemistry in HS. Hydrocarbons also produce
water when the hydrogen combines with oxygen and I'm too friggin'
lazy to look in up.
|8.13.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Greenhouse gases have apparently become the boogeyman for any and all issues.
Any kid who shows up at my house dress as "carbon" for Halloween
gets no candy whatsoever.
|8.13.08 @ 4:05PM|#
I thought keeping people poor was the central tenet to
environmentalism
It is not the central tenet, but it is a central tenet.
It also happens to be a major bonus for the anti-immigration
groups.
Strange Bedfellows.
|8.13.08 @ 4:05PM|#
This is an example of trying to get your way "by hook or by crook." And trying to twist the environmental agenda to serve the anti-immigration agenda seems about as crooked as it gets. Wow.
alan|8.13.08 @ 4:16PM|#
RCD,
Of course. We all took chemistry in HS. Hydrocarbons also produce
water when the hydrogen combines with oxygen and I'm too friggin'
lazy to look in up.
Exactly. The calculation is more than just a one to one plus
combinant in the 23.88 lb. estimate.
Amakudari|8.13.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Ask a chemist. A KG of coal, completely burnt, will produce
>3 KG of CO2. I'm unsure of the specifics of jet fuel
combustion. How much water is produced etc.
Well, assume coal's around 50% carbon, so it's closer to half
that.
Carbon atomic weight: 12 amu
Oxygen atomic weight: 16 amu
CO2 weight: 12 + 16*2 = 44 amu
CO2/carbon ratio: 44/12 = 11/3
CO2 output per kg coal: 11/3 * 50% = 11/6 or ~1.8
kg
What's probably more relevant, though, is carbon dioxide output per
unit of energy.
Naga Sadow|8.13.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Damn stoichemetry. God I hated all the time I wasted in my chemistry classes with ugly females when I should have taken political science courses with their unusually hot female students!
Paul|8.13.08 @ 4:53PM|#
You know, I hear those environmentalists want to eat
kittens, too.
Only domesticated kittens.
|8.13.08 @ 5:04PM|#
From fueleconomy.gov
It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about
6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when
burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from
the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.
When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen
combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with
oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).
A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight
of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44
(12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of
gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by
44/12 or 3.7.
Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the
carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x
.87).
We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7,
which equals 20 pounds of CO2!
|8.13.08 @ 5:07PM|#
To be specific, from the American Coal
Foundation
Anthracite is coal with the highest carbon content, between 86 and 98 percent
...
Bituminous coal has a carbon content ranging from 45 to 86 percent
...
Ranking below bituminous is subbituminous coal with 35-45 percent carbon content
Orange Line Special|8.13.08 @ 5:07PM|#
More economic idiocy from Reason.
1. The great majority of those coming here don't contribute to our
economy much. They do, however, make life easier for certain
people, and thus you see posts like this.
2. If Reason really cares about improving ThirdWorld conditions
(give me a break), allowing the ThirdWorld to move here is not the
way to do it. It's 3rd grade-level, KerryHowley-style thinking at
its worst. (No doubt there are many 3rd graders who can figure out
that Reason's plan won't work, so I'm not referring to all 3rd
graders).
3. Reason is implying that any contributions outweigh environmental
concerns. IOW, they're making a calculation, and saying that
MassiveImmigration is worth it. But, they aren't factoring in
everything involved in this issue, such as PoliticalCorruption,
giving more PoliticalPower to ForeignGovernments, and so on. That's
not intellectually honest.
If Reason wants to be intellectually honest for a change, they can
calculate all the costs and all the benefits. Don't expect them to
do that, since they're just intellectually dishonest hacks.
As for Nigel Watt's comment about the SierraClub, FollowTheMoney.
In fact, I recommend FollowingTheMoney
in regards to most things you read from Reason.
|8.13.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Fossil fuel chemistry 101 is dismissed. Be sure to read the assigned literature before Friday.
|8.13.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Lonewacko,
Read this article
Ill and in Pain, Detainee Dies in U.S. Hands
Then go fuck yourself with a keyhole saw.
|8.13.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Paul are you sure you don't mean free range kittens? Or maybe that's only the animal activist groups.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 5:20PM|#
Ron Bailey,
That Lancet article is like 18 years old, so I will not bother
reading it to see if it advocates poverty for all...
As for Erlich & Erlich, they seem to be advocating sustainable
population growth rather than poverty...heck, they even mention the
problem of underconsumption (poverty) as a motivation to tackle
unsustainable population growth.
I am not saying they are correct in their analysis, but to say that
they advocate poverty is disingenuous at best.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 5:23PM|#
According to the KKK website,
The kittens are free range, fed on free range rats, who are fed on
the kitten parts not eaten.
It is a closed loop with no environmental impact.
Krispy Kitten Kitchen's Krispy Kitten Skins are not only tastee,
but guilt free.
|8.13.08 @ 5:26PM|#
I am not saying they are correct in their analysis, but to
say that they advocate poverty is disingenuous at best.
And drug warriors do not specifically advocate imprisonoing large
numbers of minorities. They merely ignore the effects of the
policies they espouse.
|8.13.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Some racist dipshits are gonna google KKK, find this thread and be sorely disappointed.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 5:30PM|#
Regarding "over/underconsumption" there was a bunch of noise on
the solar energy thread yesterday about environmentalists ignoring
the trade-offs inherent in our decisions.
I don't see that.
If anything, environmentalism as movement is about highlighting the
trade-offs inherent in our economic decisions.
Questioning the relative value of the various outcomes of economic
decisions is not the same as advocating for poverty or an end to
economic activity. Hence all the talk about internalizing the
environmental costs of those decisions. Environmentalism is, at its
roots, an attempt to solve a free-rider problem...placing a spot
light on costs that others have traditionally ignored.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 5:32PM|#
JsubD,
Some racist dipshits are gonna google KKK, find this thread and
be sorely disappointed.
Shhhh...that was my secret goal.
I love disappointing racists.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 5:33PM|#
I guess in the end, though, racists are always
disappointing.
Whether I love them or not.
;^)
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 5:38PM|#
any further increase in living standards must be achieved in
a way that does not increase resource consumption, and may require
that consumption be reduced
Does this advocate for a reduction or an increase in living
standards?
Is it about goals or means?
Nigel Watt|8.13.08 @ 5:41PM|#
Krunchy Kittens Kitchens would appear to have a serious entropy problem with their business model.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Krunchy Kittens Kitchens would appear to have a serious
entropy problem with their business model.
One that has been solved by the fine folks at Krispy Kitten
Kitchens. Don't settle for Krunch Kitten Skins when you can have
Krispy Kitten Skins
They also use the composted feces from the process to run their
friers.
BTW,
Everyone seems to have failed the pop culture quiz...
Am I too old, or too young for this crowd?
Or both.
Or does Minneapolis have no cultural memory?
|8.13.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Neu,
If we were to chart countries per capita GDP, caloric intake, life
expectancy, and energy consumption wouldn't those bar graphs look
remarkably similar?
I haven't done it. But I know they will.
|8.13.08 @ 5:47PM|#
We all took chemistry in HS.
Well, I was interested in chemistry in high school, but not the
kind you're writing about.
If anything, environmentalism as movement is about highlighting
the trade-offs inherent in our economic decisions.
Sure, but as a political movement environmentalism seems
remarkably resistant to such trade-offs as (i) the unintended
consequences of, and (ii) the opportunity costs of, any
top-down/government intervention in the economy.
|8.13.08 @ 5:50PM|#
any further increase in living standards must be achieved in
a way that does not increase resource consumption, and may require
that consumption be reduced
Does this advocate for a reduction or an increase in living
standards?
Neither; it proposes a prohibition on any increases in living
standards unless certain arbitrary requirements are met. Its likely
effect, then, would be to retard (can you still say that?) any
increase in living standards.
|8.13.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Or does Minneapolis have no cultural
memory?
Neu,
You cannot use Minneapolis and culture in the same sentence and
expect to be taken seriously.
After the Mary Tyler Moore show (filmed in California), what?
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 5:52PM|#
JsubD,
I would expect a high correlation.
I would predict some interesting places where this broke down,
however.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 5:55PM|#
RC Dean,
Neither; it proposes a prohibition on any increases in living
standards unless certain arbitrary requirements are met. Its likely
effect, then, would be to retard (can you still say that?) any
increase in living standards.
1) The proposed standards are not arbitrary.
2) It seems as likely to spur innovations in technology to meet the
demands of the new market conditions as it is to retard increases
in living standards.
... glass half empty vs. half full I guess.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 5:58PM|#
JsubD,
After the Mary Tyler Moore show (filmed in California),
what?
Interesting that you chose that example.
It serves as a clue...not the Mary Tyler Moore show, per se, but
the theme song to it.
Who has covered that song
Do you remember?
Hints abound.
|8.13.08 @ 6:12PM|#
Who has covered that song
Wet wet wet. Scottish band.
Do you remember?
No, I googled.
Hints abound.
I fail at today's pop culture pop quiz. I did pretty good in Fossil
Fuel Chemistry 101 though.
Neu Mejican|8.13.08 @ 6:20PM|#
That's okay, it makes no sense at all anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makes_No_Sense_At_All
The line is from a Husker Du song:"How to Skin a Cat"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Day_Rising
Paul|8.13.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Environmentalism is, at its roots, an attempt to solve a
free-rider problem...placing a spot light on costs that others have
traditionally ignored.
I would argue that's the Social Realist depiction of
Environmentalism. I think it can also be said that there's a lot (I
won't postulate how much) of environmentalism that creates
red-herring costs so that development is slowed.
Few would argue that dumping toxins into a river had a cost that
was being ignored-- until it couldn't be ignored anymore: Damage to
the environment, sick people, dead wildlife.
But environmentalism has taken on a kind of voodoo-politics. A
series of byzantine hurdles that have to be jumped through that
don't necessarily make major differences to the health of the
environment, and sometimes may even be detrimental to same.
Kolohe|8.13.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Krunchy Kittens Kitchens would appear to have a serious
entropy problem with their business model.
They also have been restricted from openning up in certain
neighborhoods in south central LA.
JB|8.13.08 @ 9:40PM|#
The best way to help the environment is for Al Gore and all his
minions to kill themselves.
Just think how much they could reduce the carbon footprint if they
weren't so selfish.
GILMORE|8.14.08 @ 1:33AM|#
Lonewacko has the economics degree from Shithead U. We are all capitalizing on teh dishwashers. Whoo hoo. Its the big corporasuns that want the immigrants. Not the farmers! Not the small businesses! not the constructionsers. Its the politicalPOwers! We is the dumbness. They wants them for to make MexicanGovment teh power. Dont u all get its?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245