We’re at the point where President Donald Trump could say that the sky is blue, and the headline on the New York Times tomorrow would be “Debate Rages Over Color of Sky.” PolitiFact would probably rate the president’s claim “half-true,” noting that while the sky is indeed blue on some days, it is cloudy on others.We bring that up only because it was just last week that Trump was getting ravaged for supposedly saying “screw you” to the planet in pulling out of the Paris Agreement, an agreement that wasn’t binding legally, and would cost the U.S. $100 billion a year to reduce temperatures by a negligible 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Even former NASA scientist James Hansen, the “father of climate change,” concurred that the Paris Agreement was a bum deal.
That aside, it’ll be interesting to see the excuses those same environmentalists have for opposing a new environmental twist on Trump’s “big beautiful wall.”As Fox News reported, President Trump on Tuesday reportedly suggested that solar panels could offset some of the costs to erect a border wall on the U.S.’s southern border.
Trump made the pitch on Tuesday during a meeting with congressional Republicans, two lawmakers who attended the meeting told The Wall Street Journal.
The details of the plan were still unclear, but the revenue from selling the solar power generated by the panels could help offset some of the construction costs.“I think it’s innovative,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told the paper. “To authorize it and to appropriate it wouldn’t cost as much.”
Solar panels and other forms of green energy are popular among those who strongly opposed Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accord, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, most Democrats have been against Trump’s key campaign promise of building a border wall.
“He’s been looking at a lot of options and this is a new option that he’s been looking at that sounds like its got real promise,” House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said.The proposed border wall would cost between an estimated $10-$25 billion (depending on which estimate you look at), but Congress has yet to allocate any funds towards it. Trump said he would revisit getting money to fund the wall in September.
Gleason Partners LLC is responsible for officially proposing a solar-border. Two of their renderings of what such a border would look like are pictured below:
In this scenario, Mexico won’t be paying, but there would at least be some kind of “return on investment” from the border wall in addition to the effects that it has on controlling illegal immigration and the flow of drugs over the border.
Meanwhile, it’ll be interesting to see liberals turn against solar in response to this news.