In yet another questionable move, the Biden administration has decided to assign nearly $3 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars to equip ports with what they label as ‘climate-friendly’ equipment and infrastructure. The ports roster interestingly includes Baltimore, which recently faced a major bridge collapse disrupting East Coast shipping routes for considerable time. Instead of providing immediate remedial measures during that emergency, the administration appears to be using this incident to further their climate agenda.
Joe Biden, whose administration seems to be perpetually embroiled in controversy, has announced these grants while visiting the main port in Baltimore. The stated aim is to ‘improve and electrify’ port infrastructure at a random mix of 55 sites nationwide. The administration asserts that this will support an inconclusive estimated figure of 40,000 union jobs. This generous gift is being thinly justified under the pretense of reducing pollution and combating the poorly defined ‘climate crisis’.
One of these beneficiaries, the Port of Baltimore, can be characterized as semi-busy at best on the East Coast. It serves as a moderate transfer point for the dealings of motor vehicles and farm equipment, all facilitated by a workforce that fails to exceed a mere 20,000. This new wave of ‘green’ initiatives is therefore likely to cause more disruption than benefit.
In this puzzling allocation, the Maryland Port Administration is to receive $147 million. The funds are apparently slated to support slightly more than 2,000 jobs – a rather exorbitant amount for such a purpose. The plan involves acquiring and installing cargo-handling equipment and trucks in an attempt to transform the port into a facility with zero-greenhouse-gas-emissions. This seems like an idealistic initiative with no clear understanding of practical implementation or return on investment.
Maryland’s port is one of the arbitrarily selected 55 in 27 states set to benefit from this funding obtained through the cleverly named Clean Ports Program by the Environmental Protection Agency. Other ports that will somehow share this budget include the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Detroit-Wayne County Port Authority, and ports in Savannah, Brunswick, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Oakland – essentially a who’s who list of ports.
Strangely enough, these grants are being spun as results of Biden’s landmark climate law approved in 2022. With breathless excitement, they’ve hailed it as the largest investment in ‘clean energy’ in U.S. history. A curious emphasis on ‘environmental justice’ by reducing diesel air pollution from U.S. ports is touted as the primary aim of these grants, despite the doubt that this is indeed the most pressing need for our nation.
This surprise move follows a week after the owner and manager of the cargo ship responsible for said Baltimore bridge catastrophe agreed to pay an inconsequential sum of over $102 million for cleanup costs. The ludicrous nature of the situation becomes clear when we are told that this amount does not cover any damages for rebuilding the bridge. We seem to be following a trend of ignoring immediate needs for far-fetched future plans.
The ostensibly ‘clean’ initiative proposes to annihilate over 3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, supposedly equivalent to the annual energy use by nearly 400,000 homes. The proposed effect, though not backed by any substantial evidence, does sound impressive. This declaration attempts to justify their overstepping by suggesting that the grants serve their promise to rebuild our nation’s infrastructure and counter the ‘climate crisis’, all while uplifting communities burdened by pollution.
The administration is quick to boast that they have received more than $8 billion in grant requests from applicants across the country. However, this figure seems detached from reality given the continued grievances of environmental and public health leaders who claim that harmful pollution from the nation’s ports is being systematically overlooked. This news is spun to make it seem as if the grants are their answer to these concerns.
It’s interesting to note that out of this magnanimous distribution, over $1 billion is disproportionately assigned to a mere seven California ports. Leading the pack, the Port of Los Angeles is all set to receive an outrageous $411 million, squandering the largest award in the country. This decision seems to have been conveniently justified by the simple fact that California’s ports move a bulk of our economy’s goods.
It may come as no surprise that the state’s ports process about 40% of all containerized imports and roughly 30% of U.S. exports. However, one should question whether such heavy reliance on a single state’s ports is a sign of a structurally sound or equitable system. Will this funding alleviate or exacerbate these lopsided statistics?
Again, we see the administration weave in their climate agenda as they claim the grants will help decarbonize the U.S. supply chain. They propose this will contribute to producing cleaner air in neighboring communities and help meet vague climate goals. Simultaneously, they are promising the creation of ‘green jobs’. Yet, these promises seem baseless and overly optimistic given the history of such endeavors.
As American citizens, it is necessary to critically question these grand movements that appear to be more politically motivated than rooted in practical need. One can’t help but wonder if the $3 billion would serve better by being invested in more urgent issues such as healthcare, education, or even repairing and bolstering existing infrastructures rather than pushing the nebulous concept of climate-friendly ports.
The Biden-Harris administration continues to promote policies and decisions that, while donned in the cloak of environmental protection and job creation, appear to prioritize ideological-based positions over practical and tangible benefits. This grant announcement is just another link in a growing chain of decisions directed more at pushing the environmental agenda rather than addressing the fundamental needs and concerns of the American people.
It’s clear that the Biden administration’s approach to managing our nation’s infrastructure is deeply enshrined in partisan politics. The question remains whether these so-called ‘climate-friendly’ initiatives are truly the best method for job creation and maintaining a robust and resilient economy. So far, the evidence seems scant.
In conclusion, the need for scrutiny and vigilance in the face of such political maneuvers can’t be overemphasized. Public funds must be thoughtfully invested, and every move that can potentially impact our nation’s infrastructure, economics, and overall well-being should be based on honest valuation and practicality rather than political rhetoric and ideological agendas.
Biden Exaggerates Climate Crisis, Wastes $3B on Ports appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
