Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Scientific American thinks construction of President Trump’s border wall will dangerously exacerbate climate change.
Trump’s Wall Could Cause Serious Environmental Damage
The effects of building a massive concrete wall range from increased emissions to blocked wildlife migration routes.
…
And climate activists say that President Trump’s border wall with Mexico and other efforts to keep people out represent a backward effort to stem a tide of migration that would be better addressed at its source: in places where climate impacts are already happening.
Trump, though, had one response yesterday, as he announced an executive order that fulfills his campaign promise to build a border wall: “Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders, gets back its borders.”
Environmental activists say there’s already plenty of evidence that a border wall, beyond the existing fencing that runs along large portions of the border, would be an expensive and potentially damaging climate mistake.
“In terms of climate adaptation, building a border wall is an act of self-sabotage,” said Dan Millis, a program manager with the Sierra Club’s Borderlands project. “And the reason I say that is we’re already seeing wildlife migrations blocked with the current walls and fences that have already been built. We have hundreds of these walls that were built without dozens of environmental protections.”
…
Read more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-wall-could-cause-serious-environmental-damage/
Words fail me.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The wall should be built and Mexico should willingly pay. They’re going to want to keep the gringos out in a few years.
You’ve been watching too much fiction on TV and at the movies. Bit like your understanding of this rock we live on, you believe in the fiction spouted by “climate scientists”.
Tony: Not if the “gringos” have American cash and/or use prodigious quantity of free-lance pharmaceuticals.
In hundreds of years, Mexico has not really achieved civility. America and Canada did (at least a bit for a while) but Mexico remains violent and caught in corruption. I don’t understand why, but that’s the way it is.
How blindingly stupid are these people? A wall can be built of many things; brick, concrete, wire, wood, patrols, surveillance, armed forces, mined border, nuclear waste, etc. Think of the DMZ between North and South Korea. There is travel between the countries but the channel is narrow.
A “wall” can be built of matter or force, but it will be secure.
There is not problem with having a secure border unless you intend to go around it (with drugs). One reason Mexico might oppose US control of the border is that the constant wiring of funds to Mexico by Mexicans in the US amounts to 20% of Mexico’s GNP. And, it is sure that drug traffic is a large part of the money generated and wired to Mexico.
Isn’t the entire reason why the average person violates our border in the first place so they can exponentially increase the carbon footprint for themselves and their entire family?
I am not sure how it will happen, but some how, some way, building this wall will also decimate the polar bears as well.
And penguins, who are teleconnected to polar bears.
Penquin enanglement
Hmmmm…we could actually introduce polar bears to that area thereby expanding their range.
Problem with this whole border situation: Mexico and our own government have been playing us for chumps for 30 years on this issue. No most people in the US do not want a wholesale change in our culture. When exactly has that worked out well and been welcomed by anyone anywhere at anytime?
Like climate change this is an article of blind faith on the Left. In the US I am really starting to beleive that we are France of the 1930s. The divide has become to wide to cross. Hard days ahead.
+10
Tim on January 27, 2017 at 8:48 pm
I am not sure how it will happen, but some how, some way, building this wall will also decimate the polar bears as well.
– when for the convenience of counting every polarbear needs his own chunk of drift ice on the Colorado River then the environmental thesis of polarbears is nullified.
Hummm, frankly,,,, the wall needs to be a financial wall. Eliminate the attraction for those coming here illegally to make money and or garner free benefits, and they don’t come. Quite simple really. The amount of cash sent back to Mexico, untaxed, is amazing. Google it.
No reason not to do both. I like the idea of taxing monies being wired across our borders just as a general proposition.
Oh well. Seems the CAGW druids did not read the GPL letter that shows CAGW is a psychological manifestation of queer proportions.
Ha ha
What a joke this magazine is. If they were really worried about climate change they would want to keep people in Mexico where they would remain poor and consume few resources and produce fewer emissions. The carbon footprint of the average Joe in Mexico is about equivalent to a pair of size 11 wingtips. He moves to the U.S. And his carbon footprint becomes the size of Manhattan.
I am modelling my carbon footprint after AlGore’s. This weekend I need to spend a few hours cruising in the SUV.
The point being, to telegraph that they will tie this up in litigation for decades of environmental impact statements, IMHO.
(lurker waving from the cheap seats)
This is as “scientific” as the Scientific American’s endorsement of Nuclear Winter back in the 1980’s.
It was then and is now a phonied up bit of politics hiding under a veneer of sciencey sounding claims.
In the US, the per capita carbon emissions are 17+ metric tons per year. In Mexico it is only 4 metric tons per year.
Now multiply that by 20 million illegal aliens that are here but should be back in their low CO2 emitting home country, and Trump could easily fund his entire border wall and increased immigration enforcement as a climate change mitigation effort.
I am sure the migrants in Germany also cause climate change, or not? Perhaps they counteract against the “Wall” to Mexico. We have a lot experience with “Wall” (I remember Ronald Reagan shouting:” Mr. Gorbachow, tear down this wall!”)
Taking this argument, we should remove all sea walls. They also act as environmental barriers…
Any interruption of the drug trade will harm the climate.
On the one hand normally stoned US citizens will be deprived of pleasure and might even try to get a job.
Any job will increase the individual’s carbon footprint.
These reckless policies will produce sea level rise of several kilometres and Venus like temperatures.
Think of your grandchildren get a fix and chill.
I am at a loss to know whether Hadrian’s wall has made the UK hotter or colder. Does it depend on the side? No idea.
I suppose it raised tempers in our ancestors. The other point is that is not a 1000 miles long, made of concrete and 30 feet tall. Apparently for the same price you could build a high speed rail network in the US itself. I wonder which one would be most economically useful?
Build the wall with a rail link on top, develop the border regions of the southern US , cover the north side with solar panels and use them to power the trains, just to screw with the heads of the greens.
Gareth
I would not be too upset about poor Mexicans trying to get work in the USA if all that was to it.
However the drug trade has got completely out of hand on the Mexican side.
The Mexican police are totally outgunned and now rely on the army to intervene.
The drug trade is worth tens of billions of dollars.
Thats why the drug barons are located near the border.
The numbers of killings make it sound like a War Zone and then there is all the misery and lost futures of the poor drug users.
No responsible Government in the USA could tolerate the drug traffic going on .
So a wall to help stop all that is a price worth paying .
Bryan, wall will not stop tunnels: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36099336
Of course the wall will stop tunnels. Its base will extend far below ground. That’s a major part of its design.
Gloateus Maximus, if the foundation of the wall is say, 300 meters below the surface, all you have to do is dig the tunnel 310 meters deep.
Martin Clark .
It might stop or curtail most of the problem but of course other techniques can also be used.
Sonic sensors to detect unusual ground activity and so on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
The Mexican Government will need to get a grip.
Say what you like about Castro and Cuba but they prove that determined action can crush the drug barons.
Bryan, how are sonic sensors used to detect tunneling going to stop drones flying over with drugs?
David Dirkse
To stop drones radar would help.
Banning all drones within 10 miles of each side of border (with heavy penalties for non compliance) would also help
The Mexican government must also take drastic action against the drug parasites.
Failure to do so will give rise to the suspicion that they are getting paid by the drug barons to look the other way
OK Bryan, now we have a wall, sonic sensors, radar……you don’t get it do you? For every measure you take, there’s a way around it. As long as the demand is there, the supply will follow. Trying to choke off the supply hasn’t worked since the beginning of the “War on Drugs.” A wall isn’t going to solve the problem. Maybe we need to cure people’s addiction instead.
David Dirkse
You would do nothing then?
Or you might plead with the addicts and drug barons to give it up …..
Somehow I think your solution is just cr##.
Bryan, how about we treat the addicts? You know, like methadone and increasing the number of beds in treatment centers? I’d rather my taxes go to that than a stupid concrete wall on the border that will do nothing to cure the disease.
The foundation just needs to extend down to the water table. Any tunnel that tries to go deeper than that will quickly flood out.
The water table is so deep and sparse it would take more fence below ground than above it. It’s a desert along the border for a reason.
Martin Clark
January 28, 2017 at 7:57 am
The deepest and second longest border tunnel ever discovered was 90 feet deep. Most are much shallower than this. The cost soon becomes prohibitive and engineering challenges too great even for the high profit drug business.
Having a 100 foot-deep base will not only discover existing tunnels and deter new ones, but help detect attempts to dig deeper.
The underground portion of the wall of course in most places would be less than 100 feet. But in Nogales, Agua Prieta-Douglas and Tijuana-San Diego, yes.
Speaking of water table, in the ’60s it used to lie close to the surface along stretches of the Border, but pumping for irrigation and a burgeoning population had drawn it down to 30 meters by the late ’90s. Dunno where it is now in the Tijuana area, but obviously lower than the 90 feet where the deep tunnel was dug in or before 2006.
The climate impacts of a massive concrete wall running from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas, along the border of the United States and Mexico begin with the source of the materials, Mills said. The production of cement, the material that holds together concrete, is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.
By that logic all building and construction – all development – should cease with immediate effect.
When will they think anything through?
Except for turbines and solar panels, “they” would love all development to stop. That’s one of their goals.
Just to clarify something, are Mexicans banned from entering the US? Because if not, won’t they just use a short scheduled flight to enter the US stating they are visiting relatives, then stay? I’m told many do that now, but unless visas become much more strict, how can it be stopped? ( I may be missing something obvious, so apologies!)
I also see that the numbers of illegal immigrants entering the US from Mexico has fallen substantially over the last 6 years, why is that?
I guess you haven’t heard about the “surge” of immigrants from Central and South American over the past couple of years. They’ve been coming by the train load. I suspect that the method of counting illegal immigrants has changed. If they request asylum or refugee status when they enter, they probably don’t get counted as “illegal.” Those in the know have learned to ask for refugee status. That way they get assigned a court day years in the future and can stay until then. Only a few show up for their hearings. The rest are forgotten.
You don’t understand the problem. It’s not just “Mexicans”. Mexico is also being inundated with border crashers as well and they provide the conduit to the US. All the failed Socialist states in Central and South America and all the people from other parts of the world that use the Southern US porous border for entry are included. It varies but 12 million seems to be the best guesstimate. California encourages illegal aliens in direct contradiction of the US Constitution and is the primary path they take. It’s an economic problem and has nothing to do with race. The Hispanic populations in California are by and far good citizens, industrious, and assimilate well. The major issue is those that work and live in underground economies and don’t contribute their fair share of taxes and therefore become a burden on those that do.
Not to mention that unfriendly governments have been using our porous border to slip in moles and potential saboteurs. Mid easterners, for instance, look a lot like Mexicans. Chinese individuals have also been among those who have been rounded up. In a very real sense, what is going on is an invasion and not any kind of immigration.
Anyone have any ideas as why illegal immigrants won’t just take a short tourist flight to the US? I can see Trump forbidding entry visas from dozens more countries, but does that not become impractical? People could still fly to Canada and enter from there.
From your post I conclude you don’t do foreign travel. All countries require approval for entrance by air and it’s checked at both ends. “People could still fly to Canada…..” shows you don’t understand the economic status of these people. Why do you think the ME war refugees “just don’t fly to Germany”? You make it sound like there’s no border checks between Canada and the US as well. You clearly are looking for answers as someone who doesn’t have a clue. That’s OK, just don’t criticize those that are in the thick of it and do understand.
Gareth,
If you’re from all but one Latin American country, you still need a valid visa to enter the US, whether from Mexico or Canada. The only Latin American country in the US visa waiver program is Chile, which is considered a First World country, ie a member of OECD, so the assumption is that its citizens won’t overstay their visas, like European countries.
Which is worse for the environment, a wall on the border, or a daily stream of illegal aliens trampling vegetation, killing wild life, and polluting the land and the water with their garbage?
At some national parks, they limit the number of people who can visit each day. Why do they put up barriers to people there if it’s the barriers that do the most harm? Maybe we should treat the border like a national park and only allow entry at designated locations for people with the correct passes. Now that’s a novel idea.
As well as discussing it’s pros and cons, can we revisit this posting in 12 months to review how Donald and his Giant Wall are progressing? Any bets on whether it will actually be built ?
BE built or BEING built?
The former?.Probably not.
The latter?. Based on the fact that The Donald has carried out many many of his election promises already (not even a week yet…) I would have to say, absolutely.
The good thing about private sector experience, when the boss wants change, change happens immediately. No need for the 100 day theatrics. You’re fired!
Here are some facts. The US already has 700 miles of border wall. At present more people are returning to Mexico than are crossing the border into the United States. It has also been shown that immigrants actually help the US economy, not hurt it, and benefit native-born workers. Undocumented immigrants do pay taxes and social security and are far less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. Finally, increased border security has not curbed the influx of undocumented people so far. The way to change things is for Mexico to change and the US can do much to facilitate that.
How much bigger a trade surplus with the United States would you anticipate being enough to “improve” Mexico?
Apologies Gareth, you said “change” not “improve”.
Does that change come with any “hope” by the way?
Gareth: I suppose drug dealers help the economy too. After all, the distributors are very rich and buy lots and lots of goods. Lawbreaking is good for a society, yes? Murderers keep undertakers in business. Drug overdoses benefit undertakers and/or hospitals. Why there’s a whole industry there paying taxes and growing the economy.
People paid cash rarely fill out tax forms. Illegals are not supposed to have social security numbers. (My understanding is they buy the numbers, so that is an economic benefit, of course for one country or the other. And there’s the coyotes that make money smuggling people across the border. Human trafficking. It’s all so lucrative.)
You and Madonna would get along well—unconditional love for those who murder, rape and overrun countries that they do not belong in. A true Utopia, I’m sure.
Jones, while I think that President Trump is quite capable of efficiently and effectively directing a building project of this magnitude, I think he is going to run into the reality of Government contracting. As in every -ism, -ilogy, -ology, and special interest that has attracted a Senator’s attention over the past 120 years is hard wired into Government contracts by Congressionaly enacted laws. He can not EO those laws out of existence. Unfortunately.
Scotland has a colder climate than England does. If only the Romans had not built Hadrian’s Wall things would be different!
The laws of the United States must be enforced one way or another and enforcing our laws is one of the President’s duities. Mine fields and automated machine guns are an alternative to walls. I would rather we had the walls. We should join with Mexico and make illegal immigration a felony just like it is in Mexico.
And just like it is about everywhere else in the world. Try getting into Japan, or the UK, or just about any non-US First World country as an undocumented migrant. You will not have a pleasant experience. (That includes Germany, their recent sudden love affair with indiscriminately welcoming the young and violent from Middle Eastern war zones notwithstanding.)
In two thousand years time there will be thousands of tourist visiting the Trump wall. It will be seen from outer space. And the 2545th president of the USA, Ping Lee Wang, will be inaugurated in the shade of this extraordinary feat of Engineering carried out by the simple folk of the 21st century.
I wonder how the wall builders will cope with the shifting course of Rivers in the path of the wall?
By the way, my nephew is emigrating to the US next week. he had qualifications that were required in that country and tells me he found the emigration process pretty straightforward. Do well qualified Mexicans follow the same path? or is it a bit more challenging for them?
It is not necessary to build walls in excess of the river. There would be a garrison frontier soldiers better. In addition, you can also move a wall back half a mile from a river. This would not reduce the area of the US. Also, controlled border crossings for ranchers and their livestock and Americans and Mexicans living near the border would have to be. It would not be a foreclosure like the iron curtain between Eastern and Western Europe. Only illegal immigrants should be better protected. Not every border traffic is to be made impossible. Even further, even after Trump, controlled entry should be possible. Also of workers, as far as they are needed in the USA. I as a European see e.g. Not that I have to apply for an entry visa for the USA and have to submit a proof of work or a green card for an immigration. Illegal Mexicans, however, sneak this right.
Congress decides immigration quotas of how many and from what countries. It also cost money on both sides. Having a desirable/needed occupation and money helps like immigration to any country. You don’t have rich illegal aliens that are doctors sneaking across the border.
I used to be an avid reader of SA, a go to journal for overviews of breakthrough scientific developments. No longer. What a debauched rag it is now. In the politest terms I can think of, my message to SA is
Shut up. Just shut the hell up.
Laudato Si
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
III. LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY
(brent comments. This section could just as well have been written by E.O. Wilson, and Paul Ehrlich with an able assist from David Foreman of Earth First!( And head of the Wildlands Project. Item 35 is ideology straight from the Wildlands textbook )
35. In assessing the environmental impact of any project, concern is usually shown for its effects on soil, water and air, yet few careful studies are made of its impact on biodiversity, as if the loss of species or animals and plant groups were of little importance. Highways, new plantations, the fencing-off of certain areas, the damming of water sources, and similar developments, crowd out natural habitats and, at times, break them up in such a way that animal populations can no longer migrate or roam freely. As a result, some species face extinction. Alternatives exist which at least lessen the impact of these projects, like the creation of biological corridors, but few countries demonstrate such concern and foresight. Frequently, when certain species are exploited commercially, little attention is paid to studying their reproductive patterns in order to prevent their depletion and the consequent imbalance of the ecosystem
The Idea of biological corridors is straight from the Wildlands Project: Dave Foreman prime architect of this.
Wildlands Project
http://resistagenda21.com/agenda-21/15-2/
The Green Agenda
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species,
returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
http://green-agenda.com/
Here’s WaPo’s hyped-up version of this issue.
Oops: Here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/27/endangered-animals-are-already-cut-off-by-a-border-wall-trump-wants-it-much-bigger/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.8ece13170bdc