8 ms·

Specious argument. 1. It assumes that each immigrant’s carbon footprint will suddenly leap to typical American consumer levels. But desperately poor immigrants

Specious argument. 1. It assumes that each immigrant’s carbon footprint will suddenly leap to typical American consumer levels. But desperately poor immigrants are likely the lowest producers of emissions. Thus, admitting more would actually lower America’s per capita carbon footprint. 2. Addendum: This "1M/year kept from entering" hypothetical is utterly ridiculous to begin with. Even if the wall was 100% effective -- which is absurd given it can be climbed over with a ladder or tunneled under -- only 190K/year cross that border illegally to begin with.[1] [1] https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cross-the-border-with-mexico/ https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cros...

nkurz 8y ago
Responding down here so as not to derail your otherwise strong comment, but I was bothered by the part that read "Obviously advocates of the wall for the most part don't give a crap about the environmental impact." This might be true on average, but not universally, and I don't think "obviously". I'm not personally an advocate for a wall, but I have pro-Trump relatives who would respect the environmental argument, particularly regarding animal habitat. I think it's a matter of weighting different priorities, rather than "not giving a crap". If all else was equal, I think many advocates would be happy using environmental impact to decide between designs.
- abalone 8y ago
  Didn't say it was universal.
lazyjones 8y ago
In other words, according to your data/assumptions the amortization time is just longer by a constant factor (unless you mean to claim that the wall would be completely ineffective, which is absurd and needs more proof than „I believe it can be climbed over using a ladder“). I don’t disagree strongly. The point that a single, large CO2 emission „investment“ may be worth it, still stands.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  It will need maintenance though, as it will be continuously attacked. And what is absurd about an unguarded wall being very ineffectual? As an obstacle it represents a rather modest practical challenge compared to walking the length of Mexico for example. A tall enough ladder isn't a very exotic object, and rudimentary training of its handling will be provided by the same people who teach how to cross the desert. So putting up a wall on some parts of the border makes it not worth the the effort and risk of crossing at those parts, but if you put it up all over the border you only modestly increase the total risk.
- abalone 8y ago
  So if a wall with a “carbon footprint close to Ireland’s annual CO2 emissions” keeps out just one more immigrant/year, your point “still stands” and it’s just a matter of “amortization time.” Your reasoning here is about as sound as your mischaracterization by a factor of five of the number of immigrants crossing illegally.

nkurz 8y ago

Responding down here so as not to derail your otherwise strong comment, but I was bothered by the part that read "Obviously advocates of the wall for the most part don't give a crap about the environmental impact." This might be true on average, but not universally, and I don't think "obviously". I'm not personally an advocate for a wall, but I have pro-Trump relatives who would respect the environmental argument, particularly regarding animal habitat. I think it's a matter of weighting different priorities, rather than "not giving a crap". If all else was equal, I think many advocates would be happy using environmental impact to decide between designs.

abalone 8y ago
Didn't say it was universal.

lazyjones 8y ago

In other words, according to your data/assumptions the amortization time is just longer by a constant factor (unless you mean to claim that the wall would be completely ineffective, which is absurd and needs more proof than „I believe it can be climbed over using a ladder“). I don’t disagree strongly. The point that a single, large CO2 emission „investment“ may be worth it, still stands.

SiempreViernes 8y ago
It will need maintenance though, as it will be continuously attacked. And what is absurd about an unguarded wall being very ineffectual? As an obstacle it represents a rather modest practical challenge compared to walking the length of Mexico for example. A tall enough ladder isn't a very exotic object, and rudimentary training of its handling will be provided by the same people who teach how to cross the desert. So putting up a wall on some parts of the border makes it not worth the the effort and risk of crossing at those parts, but if you put it up all over the border you only modestly increase the total risk.
abalone 8y ago
So if a wall with a “carbon footprint close to Ireland’s annual CO2 emissions” keeps out just one more immigrant/year, your point “still stands” and it’s just a matter of “amortization time.” Your reasoning here is about as sound as your mischaracterization by a factor of five of the number of immigrants crossing illegally.