Biden’s Misplaced Priorities: Ports Over People

The Georgia Ports Authority has been granted an extravagant $48,763,746 to implement shore power systems for vessels at the ports of Savannah and Brunswick. This is yet another example of the questionable decisions made by the Biden administration, which has taken it upon itself to disburse almost $3 billion for the modernization of port infrastructure nationwide. This is all part of a supposed effort to reduce pollution and supposedly address climate change. The overhaul includes ports in Baltimore, where a disastrous bridge collapse caused by poor planning and oversight led to the needless loss of six lives and disturbed East Coast shipping for months.

Interestingly, Biden has chosen to make a special appearance in Baltimore on October 29 to announce these funds, a clear attempt to divert attention from his administration’s dismal track record on effective governance and infrastructure management. The Port of Baltimore, notorious for its hefty reliance on imported goods, will seemingly benefit from this funding. More than 20,000 individuals, including unionized staff and truckers, are employed in daily port operations.

The grants to be announced on the aforementioned date include a whopping $147 million for the Maryland Port Administration, a move expected to sustain over 2,000 jobs. But consider the caveat: this grand gesture is earmarked for the purchase and installation of cargo-handling equipment and trucks, with the stated aim of turning the port into a zero-greenhouse-gas-emission facility. One can’t help but question the feasibility and long-term impact of such a hasty, not to mention costly, transition.

The Maryland port is just one among 55 ports in 27 states and territories on the receiving end of a staggering $3 billion from the Clean Ports Program, helmed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Recipients of these funds stretch across the US, from the Ports of Savannah and Brunswick in Georgia, to the Detroit-Wayne County Port Authority, and even those in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Oakland, California.

It is important to remember that these grants come from Biden’s ambitious, but deeply controversial climate law, which came into effect in 2022. Dubbed the largest investment in clean energy in US history, this legislation has proven divisive, with many questioning its practicality and long-term sustainability. Critics argue that an aggressive push for clean energy could undermine the reliability of the energy sector and ultimately pose a threat to the nation’s economic resilience.

With this spending, the administration is framing diesel air pollution from US ports as a pressing issue that needs urgent attention. The EPA Administrator has even gone so far as to brand our ports, grappling with supply chain issues and the economic fallout of the pandemic, as the economic backbone of the country. But, rather than square off against actual problems of economic recovery and job creation, they’ve chosen to focus on hypothetical environmental threats.

The so-called environmental justice that Biden’s administration seeks to promote is beginning to look a lot like an economical injustice for the tax paying population. By prioritizing abstract ideals over tangible needs, the government risks alienating the very people it professes to protect.

A week before, the operator and manager of the cargoship implicated in the tragic bridge collapse had consented to pay more than $102 million for the ensuing cleanup. This was the result of a lawsuit by the U.S. Justice Department, although it did not factor in damages related to the bridge’s rebuilding. This case is yet another example of the bureaucracy failing to address core issues related to infrastructure quality and corporate responsibility.

The State of Maryland has filed its own claim for damages. The estimated cost of rebuilding the bridge alone could soar to $2 billion, raising new questions about the efficacy and accountability of the government’s infrastructure plans. While they are busy promoting new spending on green initiatives, significant problems with existing infrastructure are being side-lined.

The EPA claims that the Clean Ports program will drastically reduce over 3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, equivalent to the energy consumed by about 400,000 homes in a year. It also professes to eliminate 12,000 short tons of nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. However, with the current state of the nation’s energy sector and issues relating to utility costs and product affordability, it’s clear the administration’s priorities are grossly misplaced.

A climate policy advisor to the President attempts to portray these grants as fulfilling Biden’s promise to ‘rebuild our nation’s infrastructure and tackle the climate crisis’. But it’s increasingly apparent that the administration’s narrative is more about publicity stunts and extravagant spending than honest, effective policy-making. It appears they are more interesting in uplifting image than truly helping communities burdened by pollution.

Previously, the EPA had announced two funding opportunities to further line the pockets of U.S. ports – one competition to support zero-emission equipment and infrastructure, alongside another for climate change and air-quality programs. The total asked from hopeful applicants nationwide was a remarkable $8 billion. Perhaps the Biden administration should be more concerned with executing feasible projects, rather than throwing around grandiose sums of money.

Despite the administration’s intentional omission of any potential drawbacks, it’s essential to critically examine these actions. Every decision made on this scale has potential-wide reaching effects, both positive and negative. We must be cautious of any promises that seem too good to be true, especially when they come from the Biden administration.

It’s alarming that the administration has prioritized the ‘cleanliness’ of our ports at the expense of other pressing issues. While the environmental benefits cannot be completely disregarded, offsetting such high costs for these benefits raises questions about the administration’s real priorities.

Is the Biden administration truly concerned about communities affected by port operations? Does the EPA genuinely want to protect the environment, or are these just catchy headlines? It’s time to scrutinize the real intentions behind these elaborate expenditures.

At the end of the day, the glaring truth remains: while the Biden administration continues its mission to rebrand itself as the savior of ‘environmental justice,’ it does so at the cost of real, immediate and pressing issues that directly impact the lives of everyday Americans.

Biden’s Misplaced Priorities: Ports Over People appeared first on Real News Now.

About Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *