Bold Plan? Replace the Border Wall with an Energy–Water Corridor
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Here’s an idea: Instead of an endless, inert wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, line the boundary with 2,000 miles of natural gas, solar and wind power plants. Use some of the energy to desalinate water from the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean and ship it through pipelines to thirsty towns, businesses and new farms along the entire border zone. Hire hundreds of thousands of people from both countries to build and run it all. Companies would make money and provide security to safeguard their assets. A contentious, costly no-man’s-land would be transformed into a corridor of opportunity.
Doesn't a capitalist economy solve problems by building things and creating opportunity? If we are going to convert our energy sector to alternative sources, why not build the manufacturing plants on the border? If we want to control the number of migrants entering the country, wouldn't jobs on the border create an incentive for migrants to stay at the border? If jobs and economic opportunity are created at the border, wouldn't Mexico have a vested interest in contributing toward and protecting that economic opportunity?
Transforming the southern border to an economic zone would allow all the problems to solve themselves. And it wouldn't require 2,000 miles of construction and development; a few economic centers spread along the border would be enough to sufficiently address the problems. Eventually natural economic development would extend along the border; development of the economic zone would grow like it does in any city.
Tags
Who is online
109 visitors
The political ideas of the Green New Deal and border security could be melded to create opportunities rather than obstacles. A wall of jobs would be more effective at securing the southern border than an iron wall. We need to think more about what we can do rather than what we oppose.
I am fond of solutions that seek to naturally address multiple problems. While there is no way for me to gauge the true cost and economic return of this, I can see how we could make an idea like this work.
At the very least, this is the kind of thinking that we should engage in. Of course wise investment of tax dollars seems contrary to how contemporary politicians operate, so they will no doubt reject this type of reasoning.
The largest desalination plant in the western hemisphere began operations in San Diego (Carlsbad) CA a few years ago...Incorporate this into the grand plan.
This is probably the best idea that I've seen in a long time.
The Bureau of Reclamation has operated one of the world's largest desalination plants in Yuma, AZ, for several decades. The Yuma plant has been responsible for quite a few improvements to desalination technology.
As long as they can call it anything other than a "wall" it will probably fly. I think it is a viable solution.
Desalination without nuclear power is a waste of effort and self defeating.
Not true. Many overseas U.S. military facilities use them. There is one at the U.S. Antarctic facility at McMurdo Station and Palmer Station. None of which use nuclear reactors.
ALL funded by ?
The same funds being requested to build barriers on the border.
The auto industry would not have become economically important without the government building roads. The aviation industry would not have become economically important without the government building airports. The west would not have developed economically without the government building hydroelectric dams.
Wouldn't public funds be better used to create opportunities rather than obstacles?
For the benefit of "Non-Citizens" also ?
I'll take the wall, some electronics and a few more Patrol Agents. It's Much CHEAPER !
Set this type stuff up "WITHIN" this Country for This Countries benefit, if it's gonna be done.
Dear Friend Nerm_L: Fascinating idea.
Worth looking into for sure.
Thanks for letting us know about it.
Please keep us posted if and as this develops.
P&AB.
Enoch.
Why is that your take away? If it benefits everybody why is that a bad thing? Your statement is very mean and punitive. And your wall benefits are not cheaper and more effective, regurgitating false information doesn't make it true. Trump is lying to you. Again.
I took it as reported !
We don't have our own problems that need solving ?
Maybe just do this "Grand Idea" and think about the other problems later, should STILL STAY the norm ?
"Kick-the-can" further if you will !
People NEED to think, before acting : "Put your own mask on first, before you help others" !
And....by the way....who is going to be hired for these jobs ?
"Joe Blow" down the street, or some Big Corporation that already has the "Man-Power" ?
That's the way international trade works. Trade deficits benefit non-citizens. The idea of creating an economic zone on the southern border would replace shipping containers with factories. Why is that a bad thing?
That's all cost and no profit. What benefit would citizens derive from that economic activity? Would that lower US trade deficits?
The US side of the southern border is WITHIN the United States. Why are capitalists so opposed to investing WITHIN the United States? Don't they understand how capitalism is supposed to work?
There's the Rub !
Everything REALLY isn't international !
"What benefit would citizens derive from that economic activity? Would that lower US trade deficits?"
Why no....no it wouldn't. "Good" diplomacy FOR a Countries citizens would. Problem has ALWAYS been....."WE" the taxpayer, seem to ALWAYS fund something that benefits others more than those in this country.
Revenue bonds.
Zero cost to the taxpayer, bonds repaid by revenue generated from selling energy and water.
Assuming a solid plan that will over time be net positive, revenue bonds seems quite sensible and appropriate for this.
Magic unicorn power!
Does anyone this that people that own property along the border, especially those in TX, would want to give up one square inch for this? They are fighting a border fence/wall tooth and nail, while complaining about illegals crossing their property.
Nice concept; but the legal cost would be exorbitant.
Besides someone already suggested building the largest solar panel project along the border- coating a wall. But that came from Trump, so it was automatically discarded.
Correction it wasn't even Trump's idea first- see below.
Solar panels wont work on a vertical wall, at least not efficiently.
Old farms have panels fixed at an angle to the ground, new ones are dual axis and track the sun.
Not a very significant deterrent to pedestrian 'invasions'.
The property could be leased rather than owned by the government. That would provide a continuous income for the land owners. There wouldn't be a need to exercise eminent domain. Rooftop solar is already handled that way. Wind turbines on private property also tend to use leases rather than transfer of ownership.
Economic development along the border means that barriers wouldn't be needed. Factories and jobs on the border means migrants won't need to travel into the interior to find work. And the migrants could live in Mexico and work in the US which provides an incentive for Mexico to be more involved. Mexico contributing to economic development on its side of the border means fewer migrants would have a need to enter the US.
Nah, makes too much sense.
no one will buy it. /s
very good article !
Well, the idea should seem obvious for a capitalist economy. If Elon Musk can build above ground subway tunnels then the idea of developing the southern border shouldn't be that outrageous.
Sure.
Property owners in TX sell or lease land for pipelines, cell towers, gas wells, wind farms, and all sorts of other stuff. Why would this be different?
It seems like none of this is stuff that needs to be at the border, so why put it there? If you're going to put up a series of power plants and other industrial sites, I would think you'd want to locate these things as near as you could to highways, towns, and any other existing infrastructure. Supplies have to get out there somehow and building hundreds of miles of new connections to the grid seems like an unnecessary expense.
I'd think you would also, for security's sake, try to locate them away from the border just a little, rather than right on top of it.
Two birds - one stone.
I don't object. I just suspect there is a lot downside to having those facilities there that could easily be avoided. Go ahead and build those things, but I bet there are better places to build them. I'd be happy to be wrong, though.
I am sure you are correct about that one dimension. But this is solving more than one problem ... an optimal solution for a multidimensional problem will not necessarily be the optimal solution for any single dimension.
Undoubtedly there are better places to build them. But then you still have 100,000 people a month crossing the border in the middle of the night.
With this idea, you can sell electricity to Mexico. Conceivably, you could partner with the Mexican utilities to build infrastructure that ultimately powers other parts of Central America.