The Biden administration is funneling $1 billion in taxpayer funds to America’s northern and southern borders to make dozens of federal ports of entry more climate friendly, despite ongoing concerns about the surge of migrants straining federal resources.
The General Services Administration (GSA) announced that it would direct Inflation Reduction Act funds to support climate initiatives at the border, with the goal of reducing harmful emissions. This move has been met with criticism from Republicans and experts, who argue that the administration should be focusing on addressing the border crisis rather than investing in green technology.
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., slammed the administration for prioritizing green energy projects at the border while the border crisis continues to wreak havoc on local communities and federal lands. He emphasized the need to address the crisis created by the administration rather than investing in environmentally friendly infrastructure.
The funding will support reduced overall operational emissions of federal activities at the border, development of all-electric buildings, projects ensuring net-zero emissions at land ports of entry, and modernization and paving projects involving embodied carbon avoidance. For example, funds will be used to renovate ports in El Paso, Texas, Cochise County, Arizona, and San Luis, Arizona, among others.
In addition to investments in southern border ports, GSA is also earmarking funds for decarbonization projects along the U.S.-Canada border in several states. Critics argue that while the administration is focusing on sustainable technologies at the border, the migrant crisis is straining local resources, destroying environmental sanctuaries, and creating unsustainable dynamics that weaken conservation efforts.
Despite the administration’s efforts to implement green energy projects at the border, the migrant crisis continues to escalate, with over 156,000 migrant encounters reported at the U.S. southern border in January. The White House has not yet responded to requests for comment on the funding allocation.
Overall, the decision to invest in green energy projects at the border has sparked debate among lawmakers and experts, highlighting the complex challenges facing the administration in addressing both environmental concerns and the ongoing border crisis.
