I've never considered myself an environmentalist. I care about the environment, and I behave as environmentally correctly as possible, but it's usually not the thing that gets me up in arms. Except this morning.

Did you know that our government is building a wall that will keep jaguars, bears, antelopes, migratory birds and countless other species of animals out of the US? Indeed, by building a single wall, they will be able to protect us from the vicious plight of the Sonoran Plonghorn, an insidious bird, of which only 100 exist, and they can be wiped out with one fell swoop - or section of border wall. Yes, it started as an ostensibly logical (?) solution to the immigration problem, (because everyone knows it's better to deal with symptoms than problems) but it has turned into an environmental disaster.

When congress passed the REAL ID Act in 2005 - which is what granted the authority to build the border wall - I don't think the intent was to demand REAL ID from all native species in order for them to continue their natural grazing and migration, or life in their natural habitat.

But that is precisely what's happening. In a sweeping waiver aimed at speeding up the construction of the 670-mile wall along the US / Mexico border, congress granted the Department of Homeland Security the permission to ignore virtually every existing environmental regulation dealing with construction.

What's the big deal? According to a Sierra Club statement:

The proposed border wall in all three Texas areas targeted for wall construction could potentially negatively impact: 1. Riparian woodland and wetland habitat; 2. Threatened, endangered and rare animal and vegetative species; 3. Migratory birds, bats and butterflies, including some threatened and endangered species; 4. Plans to create wildlife corridors; 5. Management plans and natural habitat areas; 6. River flows (as a result of local soil erosion and cut off of local arroyos); 7. Livestock management (due to the loss of foraging and watering areas along the Rio Grande); 8. Enjoyment and study of archaeological, cultural and historic sites; 9. Eco-tourism opportunities in the Rio Grande; and 10. The economies of certain areas (due to the loss of eco-tourism and even legal migration).

I am particularly amused that, according to an MSNBC article, the government of Mexico is pleading with the US government for expanded environmental impact studies, as this wall threatens 100s of native species and indigenous eco systems that exist nowhere else on earth. Um, considering Mexico City is one of the most polluted places on the planet, the fact that they are urging us to look at what we're doing is frightening to me. That's bad! (The picture I have in my head is of a strung out junkie looking at someone about to stick a needle in their arm for the first time, saying, "dude, don't do it!" I think we should listen!)

Indeed, according to a quote on Treehugger.com, "Mexico's top environmental official, Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada, noted that the wall, built to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering US territory, is an environmental threat to the region's deserts, mountains, rivers, swamps and marches, whose biodiversity is very rich.

‘We must bear in mind that biodiversity does not belong to the Mexicans or the Americans, because it belongs to the entire world,' Elvira Quesada noted."

What's being done about it?

According to the MSNBC article, there was talk of the Mexican Government bringing it to the United Nations international Court in the Hague if need be. So that's something. But where are all the environmental activists that usually take up causes like this. There has been media coverage about the remarkably slow and quiet response of many traditionally rabid activists. Not surprisingly, Grist.com delivers a great article about not only the environmental impact, but also the walls and fences that have silenced many voices. Although you should read the article for yourself, Grist notes that The Sierra Club in particular has, in the past, taken a "population stabilization" stand that some perceive as a contradiction to any attempt to stop the wall.

From the Grist.com article, "The Club started doing serious outreach to minority communities in the mid-1990s, but worried that those efforts could be complicated by the Club's longstanding position that America should "bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world" -- a philosophy that could be interpreted as anti-immigrant."

But, perhaps we should give Chertoff the last word here. Alternet.com quotes Chertoff as responding to the environmental outcry by saying, "I've seen pictures of human waste, garbage, discarded bottles and other human artifact in pristine areas," Chertoff said last fall. "And believe me, that is the worst thing you can do to the environment."

Got that? That beer bottle you left behind, worse than a 670-mile wall that destroys dozens of species and disrupts a fragile ecosystem. If you say so, but that seems like fuzzy logic to me. All the redneck partiers in the world couldn't leave behind enough garbage to match that wall and the logic with which it's being built.