It seems that Director Hayden has taken a logical but incomplete position about the relationship between population growth and carbon emissions. While it is admirable for him to note the rather obvious connection between the increase in humans and the increase in human consumption, he is (understandably) tentative about noting that the average US infant will grow up to have more than 5 times the impact (in pounds of carbon released) than an average Chinese infant. Obviously the average impact falls in relation to the development of the country and whether or not it has any major urban centers that begin to rival Chinese and US cities.

While I'm not suggesting that the director of the CIA should take an overt position on domestic birth control politics and policies, it seems unreasonable not to mention the necessity of controlling the US population as well as that of third world countries. Moreover- Hayden seems to imply that while a rising population is an issue only for areas with unstable and the environment as a whole, the United States stands to gain:

Now, receiving countries—and America has a wondrous record in this regard—receiving countries, of course, will have much to gain from an influx of young workers, particularly because, in most developed states, populations are aging rapidly.

The implication being that overpopulation of third world countries will automatically result in an influx the best and the brightest from those countries flocking to the US. While this was historically the case, it is not any longer. As US hegemony wanes, the increase in urban centers competing for skilled, imported citizen waxes.

Of course such a problematic position wouldn't be complete without a healthy dose of xenophobia, just in case you were worried Hayden has gone soft:

This social integration of immigrants will pose a significant challenge to many host nations—again, that boosts the potential for unrest and extremism.

Consider Europe. The fastest-growing minority there is comprised of people who have emigrated from predominantly Muslim countries and their descendants. Not it’s hard to get exact figures—estimates vary—but most say there are about five million people of Muslim heritage in France, three million in Germany, and almost two million in the United Kingdom. Today, the total for the European Union is roughly 16 million, or about –about three percent of the population. But with a birth rate at least twice the average of ethnic Europeans, the Muslim population will continue to grow as the non-Muslim population of these states actually shrinks in the next several decades.

Now even before 9/11, European governments recognized that this growing immigrant community posed challenges to their societies. Since then, they have put in place a variety of measures that aim to improve assimilation of immigrants, counter extremism, but I think it’s fair to say success has been mixed, at best.

While certainly the social integration of varying ethnic and religious groups poses challenges to the countries where they make their new homes, it seems that it probably isn't helped by singling out an already maligned religion and drawing not so subtle connections between Muslim populations at large and individual acts of terrorism.

While it's really an issue for another discussion- the idea that Muslim immigrants to Europe have a unique difficulty assimilating because of their religion is a truism that upon even the most summary inspection reflects much more poorly upon the European countries in question than it does upon the immigrant population themselves. The implicit threat of terrorist activity embedded in Hayden's framing of Muslim immigration opens a window through which to view a fundamental misunderstanding about the assimilation of minorities. In his view, it is appropriate to discuss programs which "aim to improve assimilation" in the same sentence and breath as those that "counter extremism." That the two are connected, no doubt, presents recent emigres with a confoundedly mixed message about what is expected of them.

Regardless- the issue is what implications Hayden's remarks should have for first world countries for whom carbon emissions are exponentially greater than those he mentions. Perhaps it is safe to say that the implications are so blindingly obvious that it's not worth mentioning them, or perhaps it speaks to a fundamental unwillingness amongst sections of American society and government to acknowledge the implications even the most "natural" aspects of our culture have in relation to global climate change.