4 ms·
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 co
by 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 agoIt 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 agoSo 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.