The Boston Globe - 07.09.2019

12
SEPTEMBER 7, 2019

CHRISTOPHER WEYANT

I

t’s not just that the Trump

border wall proposed for the

Mexican border is an offense

to American values.

It’s not just that it’s a waste

of time and money and effort.

What it has now become is a giant

siphon of $3.6 billion in Defense De-

partment construction funds that

were destined for far more worth-

while projects that were truly aimed

at keeping this nation safer, not sim-

ply keeping an ill-advised campaign

promise.

Trump, you’ll recall, promised

during the 2016 campaign that his

vast negotiating skills would enable

him not only to build the wall but al-

so to charge Mexico for the costs.

Once elected, though, it turned out

that by “Mexico” he meant “American

taxpayers.”

When Congress, first under a Re-

publican majority and later with

Democrats in control of the House,

balked at funding a wall along the na-

tion’s southern border, President

Trump last February simply declared

a national emergency along that bor-

der, allowing him to tap Defense De-

partment funds.

With the Pentagon now under the

new and more compliant manage-

ment of Defense Secretary Mark T.

Esper, the formal decision to divert

the funds to pay for 175 miles of bar-

rier construction on the southern

border came this week. In a letter au-

thorizing that diversion, Esper insist-

ed the border wall “will reduce the

demand for [Department of Defense]

personnel and assets at the locations

where the barriers are constructed

and allow the redeployment of DoD

personnel and assets to other high

traffic areas on the border without

barriers.”

It’s nonsense, but all part of the re-

quired boilerplate that enables the di-

version.

Accompanying that letter was the

list of 127 projects in 23 states, three

territories, and 20 countries. And it’s

far more than a list of Defense nice-

to-haves. It includes some critical de-

fense infrastructure projects. For ex-

ample, some $400 million has been

diverted from the rebuilding of mili-

tary installations in Puerto Rico and

the US Virgin Islands devastated dur-

ing Hurricane Maria in 2017. Guam,

which came under threat from North

Korea in 2017, stands to lose more

than $280 million.

There is a school of thought that

there is more than a little Trump-gen-

erated payback involved in the hit list

of “deferred” projects. Hence the ma-

jor blow to Puerto Rico and the $

million loss to projects in Utah, home

to US Senators Mitt Romney and

Mike Lee, two Republicans who op-

posed Trump’s use of emergency

powers to fund the wall.

Just as shameful is the abandon-

ment of some $770 million in proj-

ects aimed at hardening US defenses

and protecting allies in Europe, in-

cluding a facility for special ops forc-

es in Estonia, and facilities in Poland,

Hungary, and Slovakia. The projects

were part of the European Deter-

rence Initiative created in the wake of

Russia’s annexation of Crimea. (Why,

it’s almost as if Trump doesn’t mind

Russian aggression.)

Pentagon officials insist that most

of the domestic projects are simply

“deferred,” put on hold until Con-

gress once again appropriates funds

to “backfill” them. But with Demo-

crats accusing Trump of “stealing”

funds already appropriated, and with

trust in rather short supply on Capi-

tol Hill, a reappropriation seems un-

likely — for now.

The real issue, however, isn’t the

$3.6 billion diversion from a Defense

budget that annually runs in excess

of $700 billion. The real issue is the

lawlessness of a president who used

an obscure Cold War-era law to ride

roughshod over a coequal branch of

government to get his way.

Utah’s Lee has proposed legisla-

tion that would make it more diffi-

cult for presidents to abuse those

emergency powers in the way that

Trump now has. That bill would be a

good place to start. And the shared

pain of these foolish cuts should be

just the impetus members of Con-

gress — Republicans and Democrats

alike — need to find their voice and

to push back against presidential

overreach.

A lawless president

funds his wall

Editorial

OPINION

READERS’ FORUM

If only we took

action, teen’s

activism would not

be necessary

It was with concern that I

read Niall Ferguson’s “Beware

Greta Thunberg’s science fic-

tion — the end of the world is

not nigh” (Opinion, Sept. 2).

First and foremost, personal

attacks about Thunberg’s ap-

pearance — “The pigtails. The

unsmiling stare.” — should

have no place in the Globe or

elsewhere in discussions

about the climate.

Furthermore, the brave ac-

tivism that Thunberg has ex-

hibited would not be neces-

sary if the United States took

even small steps toward ad-

dressing climate change. By

way of contrast, the Trump

administration’s recent plan

to deregulate methane emis-

sions takes us in the opposite

direction.

Finally, Thunberg has sci-

ence on her side, so the term

“science fiction” should be re-

served for policies that ignore

the basic science of the atmo-

sphere, oceans, and climate.

As Ferguson notes, we should

respond and adapt, but that

clearly won’t happen without

public involvement and politi-

cal will.

JAMES MORRIS

Waltham

The writer is a professor of

biology and chair of the

Health: Science, Society, and

Policy program at Brandeis

University.

A just response to

climate crisis must

see to world’s poor

I was surprised the Globe

chose to publish Niall Fergu-

son’s harsh criticism of Greta

Thunberg, the youth activist

who has mobilized young peo-

ple to demand a livable future

for their generation and ones

to follow, and who has called

for a global student strike on

Sept. 20.

Ferguson’s ad hominem

swipes at a 16-year-old are

distasteful. However, more

shocking is his indifference to

the well-being of future gener-

ations, his dismissal of climate

change as a threat, and his

disregard for other species.

Ferguson is correct about

one thing, however. A just re-

sponse to the climate crisis

must respect the needs of the

global poor for economic de-

velopment. But this is a cause

for action, not inaction. Spe-

cifically, the United States and

other high-income countries

should be investing massively

in supporting development

through renewables in low-

and middle-income countries.

It’s not just our ethical obliga-

tion, but it is one of the most

cost-effective ways to limit

warming.

A global Marshall Plan of

sorts along those lines will be

possible only with activists

like Thunberg telling the truth

and holding our leaders —

and all of us — to account.

JACOB BOR

Boston

The writer is a professor at

the Boston University School

of Public Health.

From capital of

Bangladesh, he

sees unacceptable

status quo

Formerly a Bostonian, I now

live in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Dhaka’s population is about

twice that of the entire Boston

metro area; most people here

live within a few feet of sea

level. Scientists recently rec-

ommended that coastal com-

munities worldwide plan for

more than 6 feet of sea level

rise by 2100. Despite Niall

Ferguson’s blithe reassurance

that “we shall adapt,” this will

pose tremendous challenges

for Boston, much more so for

the millions in Dhaka, where

streets regularly flood thigh-

high during storms, or for

tens of millions more along

the marshy coast, in this

country where income averag-

es a dollar or two a day.

Bangladesh, I need hardly

add, contributes virtually

nothing to climate change.

The average Bangladeshi’s

emissions are a rounding er-

ror for that of an American.

Like many who enjoy the

status quo, Ferguson minimiz-

es the challenges ahead. He

promises salvation from un-

named “technological innova-

tions” and an apparently mag-

ical ability to “ward off” flood-

waters.

We need fewer Niall Fergu-

sons and more Greta Thun-

bergs: people willing to face

future challenges honestly,

courageously, and with com-

passion for all those who live

at the edge.

GREGORY HOWARD

Dhaka, Bangladesh

In final analysis,

precautions are

worth cost

Niall Ferguson thinks that the

costs of taking precautions to

lessen climate change are not

worth the benefits of taking

action to avoid climate disas-

ter. His analysis has two major

flaws.

First, in such cost-benefit

analyses, economists cannot

reasonably assign a monetary

value to the benefits — that is,

avoiding the losses that cli-

mate change will bring. For

example, how great is the ben-

efit if we prevent dozens of

coastal cities worldwide from

becoming uninhabitable?

How much should we value

slowing the spread of

droughts that, without action,

are likely to lead to tens of

millions of people seeking

somewhere else to live? How

much is it worth to avoid

climate-change-driven wars in

which millions of people may

die? Ferguson thinks we

should ignore such “apocalyp-

tic visions” and that we’ll

“adapt.”

Ssecond, as explained in

detail by the recently deceased

Harvard economist Martin

Weitzman, the catastrophic

damages that climate change

may bring are not unlikely,

and they must not be ignored.

Multiply the probability of

such events by the essentially

unbounded benefit of avoid-

ing disastrous outcomes, and

we see that we do, in fact, ur-

gently need to undertake

economy-wide restructuring if

we are to have any chance of

preserving a livable world.

LARRY ROSENBERG

Cambridge

Youth movement

rises to meet failed

leadership

Niall Ferguson’s attack on

young climate activists inad-

vertently highlights a key rea-

son that the youth movement

for climate action exists: the

empty, failed leadership of

bullies who hold fast to the

status quo.

The 1 degree Celsius of

warming that our heat-trap-

ping emissions have caused

means that young people in

school today have known only

a world of record heat.

The devastation from

Dorian and other recent hur-

ricanes shows us the kind of

ferocity climate change

brings.

Contrary to Ferguson’s as-

sertions, science and econom-

ics show that it will hurt and

cost too much to adapt to un-

checked climate change. We

need to cut emissions swiftly

and deeply, and we can, with

low-cost solutions available

today. What we lack is politi-

cal will, so young people are

calling us out with moral au-

thority, rattling the Fergusons

of the world.

My daughters, ages 15 and

17, will surely join Greta

Thunberg and millions of oth-

ers in the Sept. 20 general

strike.

ERIKA SPANGER-SIEGFRIED

Cambridge

The writer is senior analyst

in the climate and energy pro-

gram at the Union of Con-

cerned Scientists.

Nobody puts Greta

Thunberg in the corner

BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP/GETTY

Greta Thunberg joins activists outside the United Nations

during a protest Sept. 6 in New York.

Therealissueisthe

lawlessnessofapresident

whousedanobscure

ColdWar-eralawtoride

roughshodoveracoequal

branchofgovernmenttoget

hisway.

abcde

Founded 1872

JOHN W. HENRY

Publisher

VINAY MEHRA

President

LINDA PIZZUTI HENRY

Managing Director

SENIOR DEPUTY

MANAGING EDITORS

Mark S. Morrow

Jason M. TuoheyDigital Platforms and Audience Engagement

DEPUTY MANAGING EDITORS

Marjorie PritchardEditorial Page

David DahlPrint and Operations

Felice BelmanLocal News and Features

Veronica ChaoLiving/Arts

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

Dhiraj NayarChief Financial Officer

Dan KrockmalnicGeneral Counsel

Kayvan SalmanpourChief Commercial Officer

Anthony BonfiglioVice President, Engineering

Claudia HendersonChief Human Resources Officer

Jane BowmanVice President, Marketing & Strategic

Partnerships

Dale CarpenterSenior Vice President, Print Operations

Charles H. TaylorFounder & Publisher 1873-

William O. TaylorPublisher 1921-

Wm. Davis TaylorPublisher 1955-

William O. TaylorPublisher 1978-

Benjamin B. TaylorPublisher 1997-

Richard H. GilmanPublisher 1999-

P. Steven AinsleyPublisher 2006-

Christopher M. MayerPublisher 2009-

Laurence L. WinshipEditor 1955-

Thomas WinshipEditor 1965-

BRIAN McGRORY

Editor

JENNIFER PETER

Managing Editor

RELEASED BY "What's News" vk.com/wsnws TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws