Active Now

Malizz
Discussion » Statements » Trump's non-existent BORDER WALL will wipe out endangered species if it is ever built. No one cares in Trump's base. That is unconscionable
WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH

Trump's non-existent BORDER WALL will wipe out endangered species if it is ever built. No one cares in Trump's base. That is unconscionable

  Ocelot Center for     Biological     Diversity   

Study: Trump's Border Wall Threatens 93 Endangered Species

If Trump's border wall is built, it's going to put 93 endangered species in harm's way, from jaguars to ocelots to Mexican gray wolves. That's the key finding of a new study released this week by the Center for Biological Diversity.

Our study also found that 25 of those species have protected "critical habitat" on the border, including more than 2 million acres within just 50 miles of it. Construction of the proposed 1,200-mile-long wall -- plus its infrastructure and related law enforcement -- would cut off wildlife's migration corridors; reduce their genetic diversity; destroy habitat; and add vehicles, noise and lights to vast stretches of formerly wild and beautiful borderlands.

"Trump's border wall is a disaster for people and wildlife alike," said Noah Greenwald, the Center's endangered species director. "It could drive magnificent species to extinction."

Read more and access the study in our press release.

Posted - December 6, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 5391
    Unless we can furnish those species with $100 saws-alls to cut through the bars like the Mexicans do...
      December 6, 2019 3:52 PM MST
    1

  • 46117
    We can feed them to the poison snakes and alligators in the meantime.
      December 6, 2019 7:24 PM MST
    0

  • 5391
    Yeah, the environmentally incompatible species the ”genius“ President wants to accompany his “big, beautiful” wall that will never be built, much less paid for by Mexico. 
      December 6, 2019 8:01 PM MST
    1

  • 46117
    It's okay.  Genius has asked if "we" can just shoot 'em in the legs.  
      December 6, 2019 8:04 PM MST
    0

  • 5391
    Genius idea that:  keep them from crawling back to the FREE HEALTHCARE in Mexico...
      December 6, 2019 8:06 PM MST
    1

  • 1152
    I have vague recollections of a children's story (maybe Yurtle the Turtle?) where a sovereign convinces his subjects to build an edifice to his greatness and glory, regardless of the cost and social consequences.

    That's pretty much what the border wall has become.

    It does not work

    It can cut, climbed, dodged, or tunneled under.

    It does nothing to address immigrants who arrive by ship, by air, or in motor vehicles (whether overt or hidden).

    The large majority of illegal immigrants who do come to the United States come on LEGAL visas, then overstay their legal visiting period. The wall will not stop them.

    But much like the Y2K preppers who wasted huge amounts of time, money and resources on their bunkers, our present-day White Supremacy Warriors will support any attack on The Brown People, no matter how useless or wasteful. It's the symbolism that counts, not whether it actually works or not.

    And if some endangered species get wiped out...well, that's just "collateral damage" in the all-important war.

      December 6, 2019 6:22 PM MST
    2

  • 46117
    God gave us this playground to do as we please.  It's on page 77 of the Evangelical Bible.

      December 6, 2019 7:28 PM MST
    0

  • 4624
    I didn't know that. Which species?

    I think there's a chance that Trump will be out at the next election - so maybe the wall won't be finished.

    But if I'm wrong and it is built, surely there are alternatives.

    Think how successful the Sierra Club has been in helping to preserve wilderness.

    There must be philanthropists in the States who would buy up the necessary size of habitat to support a population large enough to avoid inbreeding. And surely they could afford to equip the land with appropriate protections against predators, a vet centre, a specialist zoo with a breeding program, and a bequest to fund the wages of staff.

    I don't know about the migration corridors. Anything that fliers would be okay.
    Perhaps it would be possible to build corridors through the wall in their current natural positions.
    Here in Australia, we build underpasses and overpasses for wildlife to cross highways without danger to or from traffic. It's never been a 100% successful but it does make a significant difference in saving most of the animals. The key is the design - it must work effectively for the instincts of each particular species.

    I agree with you, Sharonna, that I'd rather there were no wall.
    Australia has a similar problem with a right-wing government committing human rights violations against refugees and asylum seekers. There's strong social pressure on the government to change its policies but it is astoundingly intransigent and unapologetic. It's a national shame which covers us in fully justified international shame. This post was edited by inky at December 6, 2019 10:40 PM MST
      December 6, 2019 10:32 PM MST
    0

  • 1152
    That might be true if the United States was a semi-civilized country like yours.

    Imagine if your politics was utterly dominated by Bogans (and Boganettes) who consistently voted for rich plutocrats whose main goals were to consume as much natural resources as possible.

    Meanwhile, the environmental community is too busy trying to stave off every other kind of ecological atrocity being legalized in the name of The Almighty Profit (and, for the Bogans, so they can 'own the libs').

    That's what the Reality-Based Community is facing in the United States.


    @Bookworm -- You edited your post after I started constructing mine. Apparently, the White Supremacy War has reached your shores as well... This post was edited by SaltyPebble at December 6, 2019 10:46 PM MST
      December 6, 2019 10:43 PM MST
    1

  • 4624
    I can see that the environmental challenges are overwhelming.
    I've seen clips of Trump denying climate change in his inimitable way.
    He makes it impossible for the US government to do its part just when it's most necessary for all governments around the world to work together.
    Australia's present government is the same in its intransigence. One small difference is that they no longer deny the science. But they still don't recognise the severity of the problem, or the urgency. They don't accept facts of the interactiveness of all the natural systems on the planet, and of the feedback loop which makes the acceleration of warming exponential if we don't do enough within the next ten years.

    If I remember correctly, there were enough pro-Democrats at the last elections to get a Democratic government into power, but a huge number didn't vote, especially the young people. Hopefully, Greta Thunberg's campaign and the Climate Extinction rallies and lectures will galvanise the young to register and vote in droves at the next election.

    Australia's contribution to global greenhouse gases is 4.5% - but we are a small population living an extravagantly luxurious lifestyle - driving cars everywhere, transporting trade goods over vast distances, and burning energy in air-conditioners almost full-time.
    That figure doesn't count our indirect contributions via the coal, gas and petroleum that we export - a huge amount of it to China - the world's worst polluter.
    America's contribution is 25% of global greenhouse gases - due to both high population and high carbon footprint per person - lifestyle.

    There's a great deal each of us can do at the personal level.
    We can build solar passive and active houses, convert to solar-powered electric cars, avoid flying in jets, invest in renewable energy production, reduce consumption of beef and mutton, wear only natural fibres, eat only fresh foods, and where ever possible boycott petroleum-based products.
    The poor have the most difficulty making these transitions - but the more who do it, the quicker the costs come down.
    In the end, all these things cost much less, and there is actually no loss, only an increase of health and quality of life.
      December 6, 2019 11:02 PM MST
    1

  • 1152
    It's a shame, but I do not see humanity getting its collective poop together in time to stave off major social and economic disruption from global climate change.

    Maybe after India nukes Bangladesh because the flood of Bangladeshi refugees fleeing rising sea levels starts a shooting war between the two countries, THEN maybe the world will stop and say "Gee, we gotta do sumthin' about this."

    As you note, the technology is there. But the political will to look at the problem (which, admittedly, involves extremely complex and interactive changes to how we live is not there. Some of the changes will mean many people have to give up their Sacred Cows (that's almost literal given the real environmental costs (currently not built into the market price) of beef production). and there are too many entrenched interests resisting the necessary steps.
      December 6, 2019 11:22 PM MST
    1

  • 4624
    I agree.
    In fact such major social, economic and ecological disruptions have already begun and are increasing at an alarming rate.
    Has anyone here seen David Attenborough's documentary on climate change?
      December 6, 2019 11:33 PM MST
    0