“Just think about the Congress and the Senate and even the president. The genius of the American system is not freedom; the genius of the American system is checks and balances. Nobody gets all the power. Everybody is watching everybody else.” - Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz

Checks and balances are important no matter what the pursuit, goal or endeavor. The US-Mexico border fence is no exception, however various reports have stated the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff has been given the authority to move ahead hastily with the U.S.-Mexico border fence and override multiple public health, cultural heritage and environmental laws in the process. According to an April 2008 article by Mike Lillis posted on The Washington Independent, the Bush administration has “waived” these laws in order to proceed with the fence.

Why discuss this again? This may seem like old news however, on Friday, July 11th Ofelia Rivas, a representative of the Tohono O’odham Nation spoke in Washington D.C. about her nation of 24,000 people living on 2.8 million acres of land that crosses the U.S.-Mexican border. She spoke of the Tohono O’odham people experiencing an increased military force on their lands, in addition to other disruptions to their daily life. She also spoke of environmental concerns, the plants and animals that are being affected by the fence. Ms. Rivas stated:

“By restricting the mobility of the O’odham people, the wall prevents the free practice of their religion and their cultural traditions. Further, rights granted by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of Human Rights for Indigenous Peoples, and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man are also being ignored due to a waiver issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Under this document, the president claims the power to waive any and all environmental and federal Indian laws in order to build the wall in the name of national security,”

Several environmental concerns with the building of this fence are listed by Moscow News in a June 26th article. If the fence is completed as planned, the Audubon Society will have to close its Sabal Palm Audubon Center. The center is located near Brownsville and would be completely in “no man’s land” north of the Rio Grande behind the fence. The same report also tells of the Nature Conservancy’s Lennox Foundation Southmost Preserve and the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Both biologically diverse ecosystems that will be negatively impacted by the border fence.

In our politically charged presidential election year, it appears that this is not a hot topic for our top two contenders. According to OnTheIssues.org both John McCain and Barak Obama voted yes, in favor of building the fence in 2006. In searching John McCain’s web site he does not directly address the border fence currently being built. He does state he believes in a strong border however the fence itself is not addressed. Barack Obama does state on his web site that he does support more infrastructure, personnel and technology on the border.

As we continue to discuss energy independence, debate drilling for domestic oil, explore alternative energy sources and ask our prospective leaders what their economic plans may be…should we also pay attention to a fence that is being rapidly built at the cost of disrupting a peaceful people, harming ecosystems and the alarming reality that a governmental department has been given the authority to run with no checks and balances?

Related Posts:

• Feds Waive Environmental Rules for New Border Fence
• US Border Fence An Environmental Mistake in the Making
• Federal Judge Blocks Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon

Photo Credit: soldiersmediacenter via flickr creative commons liscense

Photo Courtesy of Luke Plunkett @ Kotaku.com

There isn’t a body count for wildlife, native plants, or eco-systems that have been killed in the struggle.

War takes a priceless toll on everything natural. Yet, nature may be the last thing that nations go to war over.

How long before we decide to protect the environment through force?

Can we go to war over the environment and still save it?

This may seem far fetched, but the possibility of an environmental war is already being discussed in the U.N.

“Ecological security must no longer be considered a luxury but rather an inextricable element of a durable peace policy,” states Klaus Topfer. He calls for international guarantees for protecting the environment similar to the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of prisoners and civilian populations in war. For ecological damage poses a threat greater than bombs to populations distressed by hunger, thirst, and disease.

If ecological damage is classified as such a great threat, could wars be declared to save the Amazon rain forest or Mediterranean fish populations?

Dr. Klaus Topfer, head of the U.N. environment program thinks that war is very likely. Perhaps not for the Spotted Owl. But as populations grow, natural resources are going to become more and more scarce. As nation’s need, war will likely occur.

Currently one quarter of the world’s population does not have access to clean water. If trends continue, Pakistan and China, both will be struggling to hydrate their populations. And a scary thing is they possess nuclear weapons. If push comes to shove for H2O, what would their options be?

To prevent this, we have to move away from our unsustainable systems. We need to use agencies like the U.N. to moderate, educate, and propagate nations towards an environmentally sustainable future. Not just for the birds and trees, but for our own survival.

We need to make our peace with green now.