Environmental & Ecotourism Impact of the Proposed Border Wall, Part Two: Smart Walls with Technology, by J.D. Meyer

A smart border wall uses technology—not just cement and steel. https://www.engineering.com/BIM/ArticleID/16775/Border-Walls-Get-Teched-Out.aspx Surveillance devices include “underground motion sensors, remote-operated cameras, long-range radar towers, aerostats (balloons and blimps) and drones.” Moreover, it’s cheaper. A 2017 estimate stated wall infrastructure should include the deployment of radar, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) technology and other sensors. This article begins with descriptions of “famous border walls across the centuries”: (1) The Wall of Mardo (Sumerian city of Ur), (2)The Great Wall of China, (3) Hadrian’s Wall (Roman Britain versus the Scots),(4) The Berlin Wall, and (5) Israel’s West Bank Barrier.

The cost could be as low as $500,000 per mile as opposed to $27 million per mile. https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/355354-technology-will-be-a-critical-component-of-a-good-border-wall The Israeli West Bank Wall uses such technology. Furthermore, this isn’t normally harmful to the environment; walls can cause floods; moreover, it takes forest-clearing to build them. Currently the 12,000 remote sensors can track people from up to seven miles away. Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) at places like the Hidalgo crossing can read the license plate, car, and driver. “While the new congressional budget didn’t include all the money for Trump’s desired super wall, it has allocated about $400 million for border technology, including $50 million for towers and $20 million for ground sensors.” “By far the most promising technology that the bill promises to consider is LIDAR, a system that uses lasers instead of radio waves to build up a 3-D image.”

On another note, the Texas Observer reports when the wrong technology in the wrong place can be harmful to animals. “An earthen river levee that runs through the 100-acre property would become a 30-foot concrete-and-steel border wall, bisecting the reserve and leaving more than two-thirds of the land stranded on the wrong side of the barrier. The wall will be littered with cameras and draped with at least 22-foot tall LED lights, a potential catastrophe for sensitive insects. Tourism to the center could crater, forcing the center to close and wasting 17 years of effort cultivating the refuge.” https://www.texasobserver.org/butterfly-trump-restraining-order-lawsuit-border-wall-texas/

https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Environmental-Ecotourism-Impact-of-the-Proposed-Border-Wall Environmental & Ecotourism Impact of the Proposed Border Wall (Part One).

One thought on “Environmental & Ecotourism Impact of the Proposed Border Wall, Part Two: Smart Walls with Technology, by J.D. Meyer

  1. Pingback: Alternatives to the Environmental & Economic Damage by the Border Wall Joffre (J.D.) Meyer @bohemiotx | bohemiotx

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s