July, 14 2011, 04:53pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jenny Neeley, Sky Island Alliance, (520) 490-3564
Julie Hillrichs, Vianovo/Texas Border Coalition, (972) 971-0117
Bill Snape, Center for Biological Diversity, (202) 536-9351
Â
New Poll: Americans Support Greater Investment in Ports of Entry, Not Border Walls
Majority Also Opposes Waiving Laws for New Wall Construction
WASHINGTON
An overwhelming number of Americans believe strengthening U.S. ports of entry is a better approach to border security than building additional border walls, a new poll by YouGov for Tucson-based Sky Island Alliance has found. The poll also found that a large majority of Americans also oppose waiving laws to build additional infrastructure and do not believe the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has the expertise necessary to do the job safely and properly.
"In examining this data, it is clear that the vast majority of Americans (92 percent) strongly prefer beefing up the ports of entry to spending billions on hundreds of miles of fencing in between the ports," said Thom Riehle, senior vice president for public affairs with YouGov, the international, internet-based market research firm that conducted the online poll of 1,000 adults May 10-12, 2011. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percent.
Riehle said the poll sheds light on how quickly accurate information can move Americans from a majority supporting to a majority opposing the border wall. Though a surprisingly large number of respondents (56 percent) do not know much about the existing border wall, the new public-opinion data demonstrate that Americans are frustrated with the way the federal government is handling border issues such as immigration (81 percent) and illegal drugs (76 percent).
Without context or information, a majority of respondents (63 percent) originally supported almost any border security measure, including the wall. Only liberal Democrats, Hispanics and adults under 35 years of age strongly opposed the concept.
However, when respondents learn that nearly 650 miles of walls and other infrastructure have already been erected along the nation's 2,000-mile-long border with Mexico and that it would cost $6 million to $9 million per mile to add more barriers, support for the wall drops by 4 points to 59 percent.
Additional information and photographs showing the flooding and damage that occurs because the Department of Homeland Security has waived all laws otherwise applicable to wall construction and lacks expertise to construct walls and other infrastructure helps to shift majority support away from extending the border wall, with 52 percent opposing or strongly opposing such a plan.
Sky Island Alliance Executive Director Melanie Emerson said the strongest arguments against extending the border wall are that the wall is ineffective and that it drains resources away from ports of entry where they are needed.
"In times of economic uncertainty it is important to focus resources where they will be most effective. There is no excuse for wasting billions on a program that we know -- and even the strongest advocates admit -- won't work," Emerson said.
Emerson also pointed out that the lack of environmental expertise at Homeland Security, and the fact that the agency is not subject to any regulations or oversight under its existing waiver authority, is a serious problem for a majority of respondents.
"Sixty-four percent oppose giving DHS sole discretion to waive environmental and other laws to build border infrastructure, and an identical number (64 percent) oppose congressional efforts to permanently waive these laws for border security," Emerson said.
Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, said: "Negative reaction is strong whether the agency is waiving environmental laws in sensitive lands or engineering and constructing border infrastructure without the engineering expertise necessary to do it safely."
Monica Weisberg-Stewart, a McAllen, Texas businesswoman and chairwoman of the Texas Border Coalition's Immigration and Border Security Committee, said Americans expect Homeland Security to do what it does best, where its efforts are most effective, and that is to block the illegal entry of immigrants and drugs at the ports of entry.
"Border Patrol policies, manpower, facilities and technology have to go hand-in-hand with customs and border-protection policies, manpower, facilities and technology. Both have to fit together to fulfill national goals involving trade, economic development, drug interdiction, foreign policy and immigration," she said. "To attempt to solve problems involving one and not the other is a recipe for failure."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Aid Coalition Says Gaza Cease-Fire Needed to Avert 'Catastrophic' Middle East War
"To avoid the security situation spiraling out of control, all efforts must be made to ensure de-escalation through political and diplomatic means alone."
Apr 16, 2024
A coalition of more than a dozen humanitarian groups on Tuesday stressed the need for an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip following Iran's retaliatory attack on Israel, which has been waging a devastating war on the Palestinian enclave for more than six months.
The humanitarian groups—including International Rescue Committee, Norwegian Refugee Council, Save the Children, and ActionAid—said in a joint statement that "recent escalations in the Middle East are unprecedented and risk regional conflagration, threatening the lives of millions of civilians."
"To avoid the security situation spiraling out of control, all efforts must be made to ensure de-escalation through political and diplomatic means alone," the statement reads. "A regional conflict would be catastrophic for the Middle East, where millions are already affected by existing crises due to conflict, displacement, poverty, and climate change."
The groups argued that escalating tensions between Israel and Iran "are closely linked to the ongoing conflict in Gaza," underscoring the need for "an immediate and permanent cease-fire" to "prevent further human suffering and to de-escalate tensions in the region."
"This latest round of violence was predictably fueled by decades of impunity for state violations of a most fundamental global rule: the prohibition on the use of force."
The statement comes days after Iran launched hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel over the weekend in response to the Israeli military's bombing of Tehran's consulate in the capital of Syria earlier this month—an attack that killed diplomats and a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander.
United Nations experts said Tuesday that both Israel's consulate attack and Iran's retaliation violated international law. The experts also said an Israeli military response to Iran's missile and drone attack would be illegal.
"This latest round of violence was predictably fueled by decades of impunity for state violations of a most fundamental global rule: the prohibition on the use of force," the experts said.
The broader Middle East conflict stemming from Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip now involves at least 16 countries, and Iran's retaliation against Israel led war hawks in the U.S. to call for further escalation—including a direct U.S. attack on Iran.
Israel, for its part, has pledged to "exact a price from Iran" in response to the firing of missiles and drones, most of which were intercepted with U.S. help.
The humanitarian coalition warned Tuesday that any further military exchanges would risk disaster and implored all parties involved to "immediately work towards de-escalation."
"Drawing on our extensive collective experience in the region, we understand that crises in the Middle East often have far-reaching consequences beyond its borders," the groups said. "A regional conflict would likely result in significant global ramifications, including forced displacement and migration, disruptions to global supply chains, and impacts on energy supplies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Should Be a Global Wake-Up Call': Coral Reefs Suffer Fourth Mass Bleaching Event
"The announcement of the fourth global bleaching event is an urgent call to do two things: reduce greenhouse gas emissions and work together to prioritize resilient coral reefs for conservation."
Apr 16, 2024
Scientists said Monday that the world's coral reefs are facing a fourth global bleaching event as the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency pushes ocean temperatures to record highs, imperiling the critical underwater ecosystems that sustain thousands of species.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI)—which NOAA co-chairs—said they documented coral bleaching in the northern and southern hemispheres of every major ocean basin on Earth between February 2023 and April of this year. It could be the worst global bleaching event on record.
"Since early 2023, mass bleaching of coral reefs has been confirmed throughout the tropics including Florida in the U.S.; the Caribbean; Brazil; the eastern Tropical Pacific (including Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia); Australia's Great Barrier Reef; large areas of the South Pacific (including Fiji, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Samoas, and French Polynesia); the Red Sea (including the Gulf of Aqaba); the Persian Gulf; and the Gulf of Aden," the organizations said in a statement.
"NOAA has received confirmation of widespread bleaching across other parts of the Indian Ocean basin as well, including in Tanzania, Kenya, Mauritius, the Seychelles, Tromelin, Mayotte, and off the western coast of Indonesia," they added.
"More than half the reefs on the planet have basically experienced bleaching-level heat stress in the last year."
Derek Manzello, coordinator of NOAA's Coral Reef Watch, said that "as the world's oceans continue to warm, coral bleaching is becoming more frequent."
Excessively warm water causes corals to expel algae from their tissues, causing the organisms to turn white. While they can recover, such bleaching is evidence that corals are under significant stress and at risk of death.
The latest global bleaching event is the second in the last 10 years and "should be a global wake-up call," Manzello toldThe Washington Post.
"More than half the reefs on the planet have basically experienced bleaching-level heat stress in the last year," said Manzello.
NOAA and ICRI's statement comes as scientists around the world are voicing growing alarm over high ocean temperatures. Research released last month showed that global ocean surface temperatures had broken records every day of the year up to that point, underscoring the need to aggressively rein in fossil fuel production and use.
"Temperatures are off the charts," Emily Darling, director of coral reefs at the Wildlife Conservation Society, said Monday. "While many corals are suffering from extreme heat stress and bleaching, some locations and species show different types of natural resilience. Finding and conserving these priority coral reefs are critical to any global strategy to safeguard the planet's oceans and blue economies."
"The announcement of the fourth global bleaching event is an urgent call to do two things: reduce greenhouse gas emissions and work together to prioritize resilient coral reefs for conservation," Darling added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Group Slams EPA Failure to Curb 'Dangerous Levels of Air Pollution'
"Air pollution standards must protect endangered plants and wildlife, but the agency failed to follow the law, or the science, to fully address this toxic air pollution's harms to the environment," said one attorney.
Apr 15, 2024
The Center for Biological Diversity on Monday lamented what it called the Biden administration's failure to improve "outdated" limits on nitrogen and soot air pollution.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed keeping existing secondary national ambient air quality standards for sulfur and nitrogen oxides after estimating that new benchmarks previously put forth would result in reduced pollution from sources including coal-fired power plants.
However, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) staff attorney Ryan Maher argued that "the EPA failed to seize this important opportunity to better protect plants and animals from these toxic pollutants."
"Since the EPA's last review of these pollution standards, the science showing the ecological harm from soot, sulfur, and nitrogen air pollution has become more certain."
"Since the EPA's last review of these pollution standards, the science showing the ecological harm from soot, sulfur, and nitrogen air pollution has become more certain," Maher added. "Rather than aligning its standards with this new research, the EPA has chosen to perpetuate dangerous levels of air pollution."
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set primary, or health-based, and secondary, or welfare-based, "national ambient air quality standards" for pollutants including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter—better known as soot. However, the EPA has failed to update the secondary standards for nitrogen and sulfur air pollution for more than half a century. Key portions of the EPA's secondary soot standards also haven't been updated in decades.
According to the CBD:
The agency published today's proposal under an agreement that resulted from a 2022 lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Environmental Health. That agreement requires the agency to finalize its decision on the air quality standards no later than December 10, 2024.
The agency will hold a virtual public hearing on the proposed rule on May 8.
Critics have also called out the EPA for not completing a mandatory Endangered Species Act consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Services about how pollution levels allowed under the proposed standards could harm endangered plants and animals.
"Air pollution standards must protect endangered plants and wildlife, but the agency failed to follow the law, or the science, to fully address this toxic air pollution's harms to the environment," Maher noted.
Separately, green groups including Earthjustice, Sierra Club, California Communities Against Toxins, and Southwestern Environmental Law Center on Monday welcomed the EPA's decision to deny an industry petition to delist energy turbines as a major source of air pollution.
"Today's decision upholds critical environmental protections that are essential for safeguarding public health, particularly in communities that have historically borne the brunt of industrial pollution," Earthjustice director of federal clean air practice James Pew said in a statement.
"Keeping pollution control requirements in place is not just a matter of regulatory compliance; it's a fundamental environmental justice issue," Pew added. "EPA did the right thing by rejecting industry's attempt to dodge these requirements and get a free pass to pollute."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular