Trump’s Wall Will Be Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Is there anyone who did not see this coming? Anyone who didn’t wonder if the Cult of Climastrology would find a way to link the proposed border wall with Hotcoldwetdry?

Scientists Warn Trump’s Border Wall Will Be Bad for the Planet

President Donald Trump’s plan for a southern border wall will cost billions of dollars and has already sparked a diplomatic rift with Mexico. It’s also going to be bad for the planet.

Concrete is a potent source of greenhouses gas, and Trump’s “great wall” will need a lot of it — more than double the amount in Hoover Dam, according to engineers at New York University and University College London.

A 1,000-mile (1,600-kilometer) wall would require an estimated 275 million cubic feet of concrete. It would release as much as 1.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to Christoph Meinrenken, an associate research scientist at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. That’s more than the annual emissions from every home in Pittsburgh.

More than Pittsburgh! Well, yeah. If we go to a somewhat outdated number, 19.78 metric tons per American (no one has really done a study since 2009), we arrive at a carbon footprint of 5,565,597 metric tons per year for Pittsburgh. It’s like they just threw a dart at a map and said “use that city.” The city doesn’t matter: the Narrative of the planet catching on fire is the important part.

But, hey, scientists warn!

“The carbon footprint of a wall that size would be huge,” Dan Millis, borderlands program coordinator for the Sierra Club’s Arizona chapter, said in an interview.

The U.S. needs to invest in infrastructure and many worthwhile projects will require concrete, said Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and climate policy manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists. But those projects should be in line with the broader goal of fighting global warming.

“Let’s talk about modernizing electric grids — not building walls,’’ Cleetus said in an interview.

There are also environmentally friendly options. Carbicrete, a Montreal-based clean technology company, developed a type of concrete that absorbs carbon dioxide. Using Carbicrete cinder blocks to build the wall would potentially remove 1.2 million metric tons from the atmosphere, at comparable prices, chief executive Chris Stern said in an interview.

The Sierra Club’s Millis said carbon dioxide would hardly be the wall’s only environmental impact. It would also cause flooding and cut off migratory paths for endangered jaguars, ocelots and other creatures, he said. And the barrier would do little to stop immigrants.

OK, so, activists. Two of them. Who would be against the wall because they’re pro-illegal alien. Gotcha.

Anyhow, Doooooom!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Trump’s Wall Will Be Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something”

  1. alanstorm says:

    They have a point – a minefield would be more efficient use of resources.

  2. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    Why not both?

  3. […] On tips from KirklesWorth and Mr. Freemarket. Hat tips: Right Wing News, Pirate’s Cove. […]

  4. AndyG55 says:

    We have ready seen from that HILARIOUS interview of the Sierra Club ceo, that these guys are amongst the most moronic idiots of the planet.

    ps..warning…. put coffee away from computer before watching linked video.

  5. JGlanton says:

    Since Mexicans have a smaller per capita carbon footprint than Americans, keeping Mexicans in Mexico will reduce their carbon footprint. The wall will have a net reduction in Americas carbon footprint.

  6. […] I featured a post (on my site and on Right Wing News) about members of the Cult Of Climastrology complaining that Trump’s […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 5372 access attempts in the last 7 days.