Border Wall and Catholic Teaching on Environment

[Gingersnaps4]

Your entire post is erroneous and packed with hyperbole. It will absolutely NOT “extend for thousands of miles” good grief! It seems that you have swallowed the “Great Wall of China on our southern border” narrative.

There is no WALL, there will be “walls”. There will be SECTIONS only in HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS. The total amount planned overall will be 722 miles, in several sections. You should try to find accurate sources before making such outrageous claims.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/daily-caller-trump-secured-funding-half-border-wall/

 

[Gingersnaps4]

And I might add, some of those 722 miles will be replacements for existing shoddy barrier fences that people can easily scale.

 

[Theo520]

I don’t believe climate change is a problem either, and I wonder what it would take to convince you that the alarmists concern is way overblown. Is there anything that would persuade you that global warming is no more of a problem now than global cooling was in the 70’s?

The root problem here is that Global Warming has incorporated every aspect of the environmental movement, making it virtually unstoppable. It includes basic pollution controls, providing clean water, protecting habitats, etc. All have their rightful place of concern and combine to make a juggernaut.

 

[meltzerboy2]

There is ample physical evidence that climate change is a serious problem. Nothing at present would convince me otherwise. We are burying our heads in the sand if we believe it is not a grave problem. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the GOP is doing, and the Democratic party is nearly as guilty for not putting the issue front and center. I do not recall a single question in the Democratic debates that involved climate change. So much for the so-called progressive movement.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Are you saying here that we should NOT be paying so much attention to pollution controls, providing clean water, and protecting habitats? If it were not for the environmental movement, I guarantee that conditions on earth would be even worse than they are now. Yet despite the best efforts of the environmentalists, the politics of corporate greed, unwittingly endorsed by American materialistic concerns, is stronger and cares little about the future survival of our children.

 

[Theo520]

Are you saying here that we should NOT be paying so much attention to pollution controls, providing clean water, and protecting habitats? If it were not for the environmental movement, I guarantee that conditions on earth would be even worse than they are now. Yet despite the best efforts of the environmentalists, the politics of corporate greed, unwittingly endorsed by American materialistic concerns, is stronger and cares little about the future survival of our children.

We should be paying attention to pollution control, clean water etc. But they are separate from the global warming discussion and should not be co-opted as justification.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I think we should’ve been focusing on pollution and habitats to start with, rather than CO2. Samples from ancient ice cores have shown that CO2 levels rise and fall AFTER temperature swings, not before as most people think. And by focusing on pollution, which people can SEE and we have no cause to doubt its environmental impacts, we would naturally be reducing our CO2 levels in the process. It seems like there just wasn’t as much money to be made in focusing on pollution and litter as there was in carbon credits, when all of this started…

 

[meltzerboy2]

Is pollution totally divorced from man-made climate change, or do you believe only in natural climate change? No matter what the financial incentives may have been to start with, let’s start by admitting our planet is in deep trouble now, and commit to doing what we can to prevent its destruction. Unfortunately, we have leaders, from the POTUS downward and in both major parties, who really don’t take much of this seriously at all. And neither does the American people, who are mainly focused on buying the latest smartphone device and SUV.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I believe humans contribute to climate change, but that we aren’t the major driver of it. For example- several times in the past the poles have completely melted and the ocean covered much of the land mass we see today. Areas that are very moderate or even chilly were completely tropical, steamy and hot, even without us having existed. I don’t believe that WE can bring about a climate shift as drastic as that. Especially seeing as temperature changes up or down PRECEDE the rise and fall of CO2.

But yet, pollution and climate change are definitely not divorced from one another. But we would have had a much easier time uniting around pollution and litter than we have had uniting around CO2. Especially since it hasn’t been scientifically demonstrated that CO2 drives temperature change. It’s data like that, that makes it hard for everyone to believe that CO2 is responsible for “everything”. I personally think toxins/pollution and plastics are a much bigger threat to our planet than CO2.

 

[blackforest]

First, this is a Catholic forum, and a mocking “good grief” and ROFL emoticon uncharitably counter its mission. Let’s bump this discussion up a notch or two in maturity, shall we? I’d really prefer to avoid that infamous flag icon.

Second, Trump secured funding for the portions he’s going to build. But his campaign promise was to cover the entire 2000-mile stretch. Until I see evidence otherwise, that remains his intention.

Third, have you actually been to an urban area along the border? Have you seen the activity along the border? I have. It’s dense. Populated. Active. Let’s not pretend like wildlife is now romping on through just because a wall went up. Those bears, foxes, and big-horn sheep are pretty shy.

Finally, the global warming discussion, noticeably off-topic for this thread, shouldn’t contain the phrase “I believe.” Science is about fact, not belief. That’s why I pressed you to provide scientific evidence that a border wall would improve the environment.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I’m sorry that it seems uncharitable to you, but I am rather floored that there are still people out there that think we are going to have a continuous 2,000 mile wall along our border. Frankly that’s impossible simply due to land formations. Maybe Trump did give that impression during his campaign, but if a person had been keeping up with current news in the last 2 years they would know differently now. Just like with the prototypes, that is very old news. As soon as trump was elected in 2016 and began being briefed by NSA and border patrol, not only were the ideas for any solid barrier scrapped but it was also definitely stated, and in no uncertain terms, that these barriers were only going in high traffic areas. If you need evidence please watch his last SOTU address. He clarified that yet again in that speech … I’ve never heard of that emoji I used being attributed to “ROFL”, either. My emoji’s are not labeled, I just chose one of several faces. I have gone ahead and edited to remove that emoji.

As for urban areas, large animals aren’t going to be traipsing through there even without a barrier and I never implied they would be. I said that the diversity of wildlife had gone up and natural vegetation had returned. It was not a “scientific article”. It was a news article with a picture of the area before the barrier and then another one 5 years or so later. An observation like that doesn’t need to be scientific. If 5,000 people and their litter aren’t coming through an area daily, the plants will be able to grow again, which will cause the wildlife suited to them to return.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Finally, the global warming discussion, noticeably off-topic for this thread, shouldn’t contain the phrase “I believe.” Science is about fact, not belief. That’s why I pressed you to provide scientific evidence that a border wall would improve the environment.

If you would notice, I was directly asked by Meltzerboy “Do you believe…?” To which I prefaced my answer with “I believe…”

Even lacking that though, the science on climate change is far from settled so it’s perfectly acceptable for a person to state what they believe.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Even lacking that though, the science on climate change is far from settled so it’s perfectly acceptable for a person to state what they believe.

Quite true. The alarm has been going off for years; it’s too cold, it’s too hot, there’s going to be a famine, etc. They leave out that quality of life and life expectancy have improved exponentially with the use of fossil fuels. And sadly, many Catholics have more faith in evolution and climate change (both unsettled and unproven) than they do in Sacred Scripture or the unchanging truths of the faith.

 

[blackforest]

I’m sorry that it seems uncharitable to you, but

There’s no “but.” Just keep it charitable and civil, please.

but I am rather floored that there are still people out there that think we are going to have a continuous 2,000 mile wall along our border. Frankly that’s impossible simply due to land formations.

. . . Which makes it all the more baffling that Trump has endorsed building it. Trump vs. Jorge Ramos on Birthright Citizenship, Wall, Deportation: "We're Going To Start With The Gangs" | Video | RealClearPolitics

At timestamp 1:30:

Ramos asked Trump how he would erect a 1900-mile long border

TRUMP: Very easy. I’m a builder. That’s easy. I build buildings that are 94 –

(RAMOS INTERRUPTION)

TRUMP: Can I tell you what’s more complicated? What’s more complicated is building a building that’s 95 stories tall.

What’s more is that he wants it traversing Big Bend National Park. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...tional-park-natural-beauty-local-republicans/

I said that the diversity of wildlife had gone up and natural vegetation had returned. It was not a “scientific article”. It was a news article with a picture of the area before the barrier and then another one 5 years or so later.

Yes, and I tend to find bold yet questionable assertions like this more credible if there’s actual science behind them. Anecdotally selected photos for media articles are not science.

If 5,000 people and their litter aren’t coming through an area daily, the plants will be able to grow again, which will cause the wildlife suited to them to return.

As explained repeatedly, those “5000 people” will be in the urban areas that already have at least 5000 non-crossing people. They are not in the rural Texas badlands, where the wall threatens the survival of countless species.

If you’re concerned about litter, by the way, you may want to take that up with ICE agents. Although to be fair, hopefully they cleaned up their mess after attempting to dehydrate the migrants to death . . . . https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ter-left-for-migrants/?utm_term=.0629f0feb5ae

 

[Gingersnaps4]

. . . Which makes it all the more baffling that Trump has endorsed building it.

And? Just about anyone who who has been paying attention to the news knows that this hasn’t been his stance since mid 2016. It’s pretty pointless to argue about his campaign stance seeing as it was changed as soon as he was briefed by security experts. He, a civilian, had an idea. And I think it’s pretty great that he has listened to and heeded people more knowledgeable than him when it comes to where and how it should be done.

Yes, and I tend to find bold yet questionable assertions like this more credible if there’s actual science behind them. Anecdotally selected photos for media articles are not science.

I’m not going to agree with you that it needs to be scientifically proven that plants will come back when people stop herding through an area, sorry. I didn’t make any bold claim that all border barriers will have no drawbacks at all. But, the natural environment will come back when pedestrian traffic is greatly scaled back. 144,000 people were apprehended at the southern border in May alone. Who knows how many more people crossed that were not apprehended.

Southwest Land Border Encounters | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

As explained repeatedly, those “5000 people” will be in the urban areas that already have at least 5000 non-crossing people. They are not in the rural Texas badlands, where the wall threatens the survival of countless species.

Not true. High-Traffic. The barriers that are being put up are already known to be high-traffic areas. Barriers aren’t being placed in areas that see little traffic.

…ICE agents. Although to be fair, hopefully they cleaned up their mess after attempting to dehydrate the migrants to death . . . .

Sad and wrong. Let’s hope it’s an isolated incident.

 

[blackforest]

And? Just about anyone who who has been paying attention to the news knows that this hasn’t been his stance since mid 2016.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

In politics, this is called flip-flopping. (Or “evolving” you like the politician . . . )

I see you have no science and will simply move on from that discussion.

Not true. High-Traffic. The barriers that are being put up are already known to be high-traffic areas. Barriers aren’t being placed in areas that see little traffic.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

No, I just linked to show you that the wall will be built, (and has been built, as I’ve personally seen), in rural areas. Border cities are highly trafficked along the border line, with or without a wall - visit one if you don’t believe me - so plants won’t “just come back” with a wall.

Tengo sueño – no más esta noche.

 

[PetraG]

I think if we build only as much of a barrier wall as Mexico is willing to pay for, the flora and fauna on the border will be fine.

I think it’s pretty great that he has listened to and heeded people more knowledgeable than him when it comes to where and how it should be done.

When did the President ever say that? He pointedly denied doing any such thing:

• 
  (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The Wall is the Wall, it has never changed or evolved from the first day I conceived of it. Parts will be, of necessity, see through and it was never intended to be built in areas where there is natural protection such as mountains, wastelands or tough rivers or water…

3:15 AM · Jan 18, 2018

So–the 2016 GOP Platform said: “The border wall must cover the entirety of the southern border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic" and the President says he has never changed or evolved his plan for a border wall.

Luckily, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in the great fiery furnace of utter doom that a wall such as the GOP and its standard bearer proposed in 2016 will ever be built.

 

[PetraG]

Quite true. The alarm has been going off for years; it’s too cold, it’s too hot, there’s going to be a famine, etc. They leave out that quality of life and life expectancy have improved exponentially with the use of fossil fuels. And sadly, many Catholics have more faith in evolution and climate change (both unsettled and unproven) than they do in Sacred Scripture or the unchanging truths of the faith.

Please document why you believe that profligate use of fossil fuels is necessary to live the Christian life, which I am sure you will agree is the highest quality of life that is possible on this side of the grave.

The unchanging truth of the faith found in Sacred Scriptures is “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20) and “but woe to you who are rich, for you have already recieved your consolation.” (Luke 6:24) There is nothing in there about chasing a high “quality of life” in the sense of an ever higher and higher consumption of wealth.

As for being too hot, I’m not sure how much evidence it will take for you to believe that the world it getting hotter. The scientists take temperatures; they are going up. You can quibble all you like about whether our “standard of living” is at fault, but I have no idea where in earth anybody gets the idea that the Bible would come down on the side of higher personal consumption and accumulation of this world’s goods rather than less. The two don’t have to be in any way related to be true…do they?

 

[Theo520]

Is pollution totally divorced from man-made climate change, or do you believe only in natural climate change?

pollution is functionally separate from MMGW. The US and Europe significantly reduced pollution in the past 50 yrs without stopping use of carbon fuels. China and India can do same. They are separate problems and must be targeted with separate measures,

let’s start by admitting our planet is in deep trouble now, and commit to doing what we can to prevent its destruction.

False premise, we have no evidence we are deeply in trouble. Measured temps are not matching climate model projections, the evidence we have points to an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1-1.5C warming with CO2 doubling.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

No, I just linked to show you that the wall will be built, (and has been built, as I’ve personally seen), in rural areas. Border cities are highly trafficked along the border line, with or without a wall - visit one if you don’t believe me - so plants won’t “just come back” with a wall.

Cities are highly trafficked but so are many rural areas. The government isn’t going to waste millions of dollars erecting sections where no one comes through. Even a quick google search shows that small towns and farmers etc are dealing with a steady influx of immigrants. The sections of barrier are meant to steer people toward legal points of entry. You seem to think you know a lot about this subject, but most of what you have stated here is old news from 3 years ago during the campaign.