By Charlie Reeves

As pollution seeps into low-income and minority communities at disproportionate rates, populations are continuously left unprotected. On Wednesday, August 21, 2024, a U.S. District Court in Louisiana ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency did not have the authority to investigate and determine if pollution-creating factories disproportionately impacted predominantly-minority areas. 

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is intended to ensure that federal funds are never used to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race or ethnicity. The EPA, investigating and attempting to shut down chemical plants and other sources of industrial pollution that were affecting marginalized communities, was accused of going beyond the true scope of Title VI enforcement. The Louisiana court ruled that, due to the impacts of pollutants unintentionally affecting low-income and minority areas, there was no legal violation. 

The decision in Louisiana only applies to the state, but it represents a far greater concern within the push for environmental justice. The burden of proof is endlessly being placed onto the shoulders of the most vulnerable—the at-risk communities themselves—although it has been proven time and time again that racial minorities suffer disproportionately from the effects of fossil fuel pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency was originally sued by the state of Louisiana for no more than an investigation into the potential violation of civil rights law. Now the agency is barred from asking questions that could save lives and expose blatantly racist corporate decision-making. 

In Louisiana, Black communities have been repeatedly abandoned when it comes to environmental policy and injustices. In “Cancer Alley”, a stretch of predominantly Black communities surrounded by petrochemical plants with rampant toxic emissions, the cancer rate is seven times the national average. The EPA and the state of Louisiana have failed to help minority communities like this, sometimes known as “sacrifice zones”.

Sacrifice zones are clusters of industrial facilities with adjacent communities nearby, and they are devastating microcosms of environmental injustice, government neglect, and tricky legal loopholes used by greedy corporations. 

After the recent ruling, though, a more malicious handling of low-income and minority communities’ concerns has been revealed. By blocking the EPA from attempting to reveal discriminatory actions, Louisiana has set a concerning precedent. With the EPA’s regulatory powers being constrained into near-oblivion, and with the courts in many areas newly emboldened to dismiss concerns that lie at the intersection of civil rights law and environmental law, a framework has been established where injustice cannot even be properly identified as such.

By Gregory Kolen II.

As the world faces increasing environmental challenges, from climate change to pollution, the most vulnerable among us often bear the brunt of these impacts—our children. Environmental justice is not just about addressing the broad issues of pollution and climate change; it’s about ensuring that every child, regardless of where they live or the color of their skin, has the right to grow up in a healthy environment. Protecting children’s health through environmental justice is a moral imperative that requires urgent attention and action.

Children are particularly vulnerable to environmental hazards due to their developing bodies and behaviors. They breathe more air, drink more water, and eat more food per unit of body weight than adults, making them more susceptible to the harmful effects of pollution. Additionally, children’s natural curiosity often leads them to explore their environments, sometimes exposing them to toxic substances in soil, water, and air.

Pollution, from industrial emissions to pesticides in agricultural areas, disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color. These communities often live near highways, factories, and waste disposal sites, where the air is thick with pollutants that contribute to respiratory diseases, developmental delays, and other health problems in children.

The environmental injustices faced by children in marginalized communities are stark. For example, children in urban areas with high levels of traffic pollution are at a greater risk of developing asthma. According to the American Lung Association, children living in low-income neighborhoods are twice as likely to suffer from asthma as those in wealthier areas. This disparity is not just a health issue but a social justice one, as it reflects broader systemic inequalities.

In rural areas, the use of pesticides and poor access to clean water pose significant health risks. Children in agricultural communities are often exposed to harmful chemicals used in farming, leading to higher rates of neurodevelopmental issues and cancer. These children, often from migrant worker families, are caught in a cycle of poverty and environmental neglect.

Addressing these injustices requires strong environmental policies and advocacy at all levels of government. Environmental justice must be at the forefront of policy-making, ensuring that regulations protect the most vulnerable populations. This includes stricter controls on industrial pollution, improved standards for clean water, and the reduction of pesticide use near schools and residential areas.

Moreover, community-driven solutions are essential. Empowering communities to have a voice in the decisions that affect their environment is crucial for creating sustainable change. Grassroots organizations, often led by parents and local leaders, play a vital role in advocating for safer environments for their children. These groups have been instrumental in pushing for legislation that addresses environmental hazards in schools, playgrounds, and homes.

Protecting children’s health through environmental justice is not just about reducing pollution or cleaning up toxic sites. It’s about ensuring that every child, regardless of their socioeconomic background, has the opportunity to live in an environment that nurtures their growth and development. It’s about breaking the cycle of poverty and health disparities that plague marginalized communities.

We must hold industries accountable for their environmental impacts and demand that our leaders prioritize the health of our children in their policy decisions. Every child deserves to grow up in a safe, clean, and healthy environment. The fight for environmental justice is a fight for our future—one where all children have the chance to thrive.

Together, through advocacy, policy change, and community action, we can protect our children’s health and build a more just and equitable world.

By Stephen Lester.

Just over a month ago, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded its investigation into the train accident that occurred in February last year in East Palestine, OH. A Norfolk Southern train with more than a hundred cars many of which were carrying toxic chemicals derailed causing 38 cars to come off the tracks. Five of these tanker cars contained vinyl chloride, a highly toxic chemical known to cause cancer, liver damage, central nervous system and other adverse health effects.

Concerned that the derailed cars might explode causing a disaster in the community, Norfolk Southern made the decision to drain the liquid chemicals in the derailed tanker cars and burn them. This released a huge toxic cloud which contained its own toxic ingredients including dioxin, a potent carcinogen and one of the most toxic chemicals ever tested. The decision to intentionally burn the five tanker cars of vinyl chloride has remained a controversial issue for the community which continues to report various health problems that they believe were caused by the intentional burn.

The community now has a clear answer about what happened. The NTSB concluded that intentional burn-off of toxic chemicals was unnecessary. At the public meeting in East Palestine where the NTSB released its findings, Jennifer Homendy, the chair of the NSTB committee, described the impact on the community of the derailment and hazardous material release as “devastating.”

The committee found that the derailment occurred because a bearing on one of the cars  overheated and caused an axle to separate. The NTSB Report described a number of factors including design constraints and Norfolk Southern’s (NS) standard operating procedures that led to the train crew not having adequate warning to stop the train before derailment. The committee found that the vinyl chloride in the 5 derailed tanker cars “… remained in a stabilized environment (that is, was unable to undergo polymerization, a potentially dangerous chemical reaction) until those tank cars were deliberately breached with explosives (the vent and burn procedure).” They went on to say, the “vent and burn procedure was not necessary to prevent a polymerization induced explosion.“

Furthermore, “NS and its contractors continued to describe the polymerization as an imminent threat when expert opinions and available evidence should have led them to reconsider their course of action. NS compromised the integrity of the decision to vent and burn the tank cars by not communicating expertise and dissenting opinions to the incident commander making the final decision. This failure to communicate completely and accurately with the incident commander was unjustified.”

The chair of the NTSB committee Jennifer Homendy also criticized Norfolk Southern for its reluctance to provide information to the committee. A Washington Post news report cited Homendy saying that “the company delayed handing over or failed to provide information to the NTSB and attempted to  ‘manufacture evidence’ outside of the NTSB investigation.” According to the Post, Homendy also alleged that a senior Norfolk Southern executive delivered what she and other NTSB employees interpreted as a “threat” several weeks before the  public meeting when a “ … senior executive allegedly asked her to ‘put to rest’ speculation about whether Norfolk Southern pushed for the vent-and burn to get the train cars moving and suggested the results of the investigation could ‘close a chapter’ for the railway.”

I learned a long time ago that when someone protests too loudly, there’s usually a good reason. We may never know the real reason why Norfolk Southern pushed for the vent-and burn. Maybe it was to quicky and efficiently reopen the rail line, or not. One can’t but help wonder. To read the published synopsis of the NTSB report, click here.