As individuals who care deeply about the health of our communities, environment, and future, we know that the decisions made at every level of government impact us all. Voting is one of the most effective ways to shape those decisions, ensuring our voices are heard on issues that matter most.
At the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, we believe that every person has the right to live in a safe, healthy environment. Voting connects us with this right, giving each of us a say in policies that impact public health, climate action, and environmental justice.
Here’s how you can make a difference:
Mark the Date: Check your local voting dates and mark them on your calendar. Every vote counts, whether it’s a local, state, or national election.
Be Informed: Research the candidates and measures on your ballot. Understanding their positions on issues like clean water, air quality, waste management, and climate change empowers you to make choices that reflect your values.
Spread the Word: Encourage friends, family, and neighbors to vote. Many people don’t vote simply because they aren’t reminded or don’t feel their voice matters. Your encouragement can make all the difference!
Vote Early or By Mail if You Can: Many areas offer early voting or mail-in ballots, making it easier to fit voting into your schedule.
Voting is not just a right; it’s a responsibility to our communities and our planet. Let’s take a stand for health, environment, and justice by showing up at the polls. Together, we can make a lasting impact. Be sure you are ready to vote by visiting vote.gov.
Federal environmental standards were created to protect the environment and human health. Regulations to limit chemicals in water, air, soil, and food set requirements that must be upheld by all levels of government (local, state, tribal, etc.), ideally creating uniform policy and protections for communities across the country. Examples include the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that regulate pollutants in drinking water, air, water and food, respectively. It’s natural to think that these laws would protect people from exposure to toxic chemicals, but this is only partially true. While these regulations have made significant improvements in drinking water, air, water and food quality, there are many gaps and limitations in these regulations that result in people unwittingly being exposed to toxic chemicals, especially in environmental justice communities.
With one exception, a major problem with these laws is that they do not establish legally enforceable standards. Instead, government agencies have developed guidelines and recommendations. Another significant problem is that several key regulations only apply to point-source pollutants (“single, identifiable sources of pollution from which pollutants are discharged, such as a pipe, factory smokestack, ditch, etc.”), leaving non-point source pollutants (“pollution that comes from multiple diffuse sources,”) to state, tribal, or local jurisdiction or without regulations. This gap results in discrepancies in exposures to chemicals and health outcomes of communities based on where people live and work, especially in areas described as Sacrifice Zones – areas that are disproportionately impacted by pollution produced by proximity to intensive, concentrated industry, often in low-income communities of color. Without standards in place to protect these areas, these communities are exposed to abnormally high levels of chemicals which increases their risk of cancer, respiratory illnesses, and other diseases.
Health-based standards are important because they define a level of exposure that’s intended to protect the health of all people. Only the Safe Drinking Water Act, which was passed in 1974, sets a health-based maximum concentration of a chemical allowed in water. This legally enforceable standard sets this rule apart from all other regulations. If the level of chemical exceeds its drink water standard, health agencies will issue orders notifying people to stop drinking the water. And, if a company is found responsible for contaminating the water, they are held liable for treatment costs and any potential adverse health effects that result. This is the way health-based regulations are supposed to work.
However, this is not how the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Acts work. For these regulations, similar maximum exposure levels are not defined. There are no air standards that define a “safe” or even “acceptable” concentration of a chemical in the air. The Clean Air Act (CAA), which passed in 1970, established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) which include regulations for 6 pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution, and sulfur dioxide. This rule sets emissions limits for each of these pollutants for varying periods of time such as one year. Under this system, there is no limit to how much a person could be exposed to in the ambient air. Put another way, no one knows what it means if a person is exposed to 50 parts per million (ppm) of benzene in ambient air.
Similarly, the Clean Water Act, which passed in 1972, also does not define a “safe” or “acceptable” concentration of a chemical in open waters. The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates contaminants and wastewater only from point source polluters by “prohibiting the discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters.” A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be acquired in order to discharge pollutants to water bodies. The permit regulates what can be discharged (and how much) and establishes a monitoring system to track discharges. This regulation does not address non-point source pollutants. As is the case with the CAA, there is no limit to the concentration of a chemical that can be discharged into a body of water. Put another way, no one knows what it means if a person is exposed to 50 ppm benzene in a river.
The situation is even worse when it comes to chemical contamination of soil. In this case, there are no federal standards that protect ambient soil quality. EPA has developed guidelines ad recommendations for determining “acceptable” levels of residual contamination at Superfund sites post-remediation. These Superfund sites use Soil Screening Guidance (SSG) which “presents a framework for developing risk-based Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) that protect human health.” However, these guideline values are not legally enforceable standards. Instead, they are used by state and federal agencies to decide how much residual contamination is “acceptable” in one community versus another. EPA can decide to leave 100 parts per million (ppm) of lead at one site and 1,000 ppm at another by using different risk factors. According to EPA, this “flexibility” is important in managing risks. Practically, this means that the community that’s organized and generates political pressure gets a better cleanup, while the one that doesn’t, gets less protection and higher levels of contamination which is typical in Sacrifice Zone communities.
The same goes for toxic chemicals in food. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was passed in 2002, regulates pesticide levels in foods. These regulations define how much pesticide can be applied to food in the field, how often, and the timing of the application in relation to consumption. There are also guidelines for certain metals. For example, FDA has seafood intake recommendations intended to limit exposure to metals like mercury. These guidelines and are not legally enforceable. FDA states the reason for this is that metals are often “widespread in the environment and because it is not possible to remove [them] from seafood or grow or produce certain foods completely free of [them].”
It’s reasonable for people to think, and expect, that government wouldn’t allow unsafe levels of toxic chemicals in the air we breathe, the water we swim in, the soil we play in, and in the food we eat. However, that’s not the case. With exception of drinking water, existing environmental and public health regulations do not set health-based standards that define a level of exposure that’s “safe” or even acceptable. Instead, we are left with unenforceable guidelines that give federal agencies enormous power to negotiate with the companies responsible for the contamination. This may be practical, but it’s not protective of public health and it leaves communities vulnerable to toxic exposures that can negatively impact their health.
The 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, which began on June 1 and will end on November 30, has already produced many storms and hurricanes that have left a trail of devastation in the U.S. Florida was hit by back-to-back hurricanes, Helene and Milton, within a two-week span. Experts warn that these repeated traumatic exposures to natural disasters can have a tremendous impact on mental health and emotional well-being.
In May 2024, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)predicted the 2024 hurricane season would be “above-normal,” in part due to “near-record warm ocean temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean.” Researchers have long predicted that climate change will lead to stronger and more intense hurricanes. As described by the Lancet, “a warmer world makes hurricanes nastier and wetter, giving them more energy and greater intensity.”
Now that we are faced with the reality of disastrous hurricanes year after year that are projected to get worse and worse, how do we organize and protect ourselves and our communities from these natural disasters that are made worse by anthropogenic activity?
There are two main approaches to addressing climate change: mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) and adaptation (adjusting to current and future climate change events). Although mitigation techniques are incredibly important, they alone are not enough to overcome the barriers communities face from a changing climate. Adaptation techniques are needed. One such critical adaptation approach is called community resilience, which researchers define as “ a community’s capability of bouncing back—restoring the original pre-disaster state, as well as bouncing forward—the capacity to cope with emerging post-disaster situations and changes.”
No single community is the same as another, and there are variousways one can define a community. Thus, the specific community resilience method that works best for one community may not work as well for another – after all, climate change solutions are rarely a one-size-fits-all approach. Some examples of community resilience include increasing funding for community resources. For example, some researchers argue that increasing funding for Rural Local Public Health Departments can help increase the healthcare infrastructure and help with climate resilience in communities that tend to be geographically isolated. Other researchers have pointed out the importance of utilizing public health preparedness and response frameworks to increase community resilience.
Other examples of community resilience focus on increasing mental health services for communities since natural disaster events, such as hurricanes and floods, can lead to an increase in depression and PTSD. Education is another important aspect of community resilience. Many individuals may not realize that they are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, or if they are aware of the risks, they may feel helpless in doing anything about it. It’s important to increase individuals’ “risk perception” of climate change to motivate them to take action.
EPA recently released the Climate Resilience and Adaptation Funding Toolbox (CRAFT), a resource for organizations interested in implementing climate change adaptation techniques in their communities. Question to consider: If you were to apply to help strengthen your community against climate change, what would you want to focus on?
A recent article in the Washington Post painted a very clear picture of the enormous amount of energy being used by data centers to fuel the exploding world of Artificial Intelligence (AI). According to the article, roughly 25% of all Americans have used ChatGPT (an artificial intelligence chatbot developed by OpenAI) since it was released in 2022. These chatbots use massive amounts of energy to respond to questions on-line. Keeping these computers operating means keeping them cool and that is taking a significant toll on the environment.
Two often cited concerns are the massive amounts of water and electricity that these data centers require, not to mention the strain on the local infrastructure that results from the increased demands. Working with researchers from the University of California at Riverside, the Washington Post estimated how much water and energy OpenAI’s ChatGPT uses to write the average 100-word email.
Water used to generate a single 100-word AI response:
Once: Requires 519 milliliters of water, a little more than 1 bottle.
Once weekly for a year: Requires 27 liters, about 1.43 water cooler jugs.
Once weekly for a year by 1 out of 10 Americans (roughly 16 million people): Requires 435,235,476 liters, equal to the water consumed by all of Rhode Island households for 1.5 days.
Energy used to generate a single 100-word AI response:
Once: Requires 0.14 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, equal to powering 14 LED light bulbs for 1 hour.
Once Weekly for a year: Requires 7.5 kWh, equal to the electricity consumed by 9.3 Washington, DC households for 1 hour.
Once weekly for a year by 1 out of 10 working Americans: Requires 121,517 megawatt-hours (MWh), equal to the electricity consumed by all Washington, DC households for 20 days.
The computers used to generate an AI response run through “thousands of calculations to determine the best words to use in a response.” This process generates a great deal of heat. According to the article, water is usually used to cool these computers, typically housed in data centers that are cropping up all over the country because of the exploding demand for AI. “Water transports the heat generated in the data centers into cooling towers to help it escape the building, similar to how the human body uses sweat to keep cool.”
According to the Post article, where electricity is cheaper or where water is scarce, electricity is often used to cool the computers using large air-conditioning-like units. You might see this in Arizona, southern California, Georgia or anywhere in the southern half of the United States. As a result, large portions of the country are suddenly developing a growing need for electricity that’s not necessarily readily available. Another Washington Post article describes energy demand in Georgia reaching record highs and the Arizona Public Service, the largest utility in the state, struggling to keep up with energy demand, projecting it will run out of transmission capacity by the end of the decade. Similar energy challenges are playing out in Northern Virginia, Texas and other places where these data centers are being built.
This growing demand for electricity has triggered lots of push back from local communities that are unsure whether they want these data centers. Concerns have been raised about the noise generated by these centers as well as the enormous amount of water and electricity they use. Questions have been raised about who gets the electricity from the grid and how is it paid for. Some local residents worry that their electric bill will go up to help subsidize the cost of meeting the increased need for electricity.
This search for energy prompted Microsoft to reach out to the Constellation Energy, a large energy company that owns the closed Three Mile Island Nuclear Power (TMI) plant near Harrisburg, PA, the site of the worst nuclear accident in US history. One of the two reactors at the site (Unit #2) suffered a partial meltdown and has remain closed since 1979. The second reactor (Unit #1) was shut down five years ago. Microsoft reached an agreement with Constellation to purchase all of the energy generated by Unit #1 at TMI for 20 years. Constellation described this as ”it’s largest ever power purchase agreement. The reactor is set to open in 2028 pending approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The agreement between Microsoft and Constellation said nothing about what’s going to happen to the radioactive waste generated by this power plant. There still is no permanent repository for this waste. Instead, it is being stored at over 70 operating and shuttered nuclear plants around the country.
The growing demand for electricity driven by the booming fields of artificial intelligence and cloud computing is here to stay. These proliferating data centers are going to require unprecedented amounts of energy and water. Where that comes from remains to be seen, but you can be sure the tech companies will do everything in their power to get what they need, even if it means reopening a dead nuclear power plant.le that will put extra demands for housing, transportation and other essentials for an expected growing population?
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) is a chemical in a class of chemicals called nitrosamines. NMDA is a yellow liquid but readily evaporates at room temperature.
Until the 1970s it was used to make rocket fuel, but was then discontinued because of the resulting environmental contamination. In the United States today, NDMA is only made for scientific research purposes. However, NDMA can be formed as a byproduct when its commonly found precursors come into contact with each other.
These scenarios where NDMA forms as a byproduct occur in industrial settings like water treatment plants, pesticide manufacturing facilities, and pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. This can result in NDMA entering soil, drinking water, and air.
NDMA can also be formed from precursors found in common consumer products like lotion, cosmetics, beer, cured meat, and smoked meat. When we use these products, we can be exposed to the NDMA in them. Furthermore, foods like cured meat, smoked meat, fish, cheese, and beer are high in compounds called nitrates, which our bodies can convert into NDMA once we eat them. These kinds of consumer products are how most of the population is exposed to NDMA.
Exposure to NDMA can cause liver damage in humans. Workers exposed to NDMA in industrial settings had higher risks of liver, blood, bladder, stomach, and prostate cancers. Increased NDMA exposure through food is associated with stomach and colorectal cancers. In studies of laboratory animals, NDMA exposure caused liver injury and stillbirth as well as liver, lung, kidney, and testicular cancers. Based on all of this evidence, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer both classify NDMA as a probable cancer-causing chemical in humans.
Because NDMA can be found in industrial settings and a wide variety of consumer products, it can be hard to know our exposure risk. This makes it particularly important for the federal government to regulate NDMA precursor chemicals in manufacturing, personal care products, and food preservation in order to keep people safe from the adverse health effects of exposure.
Floodwater inundates South Asheville, North Carolina September 28,2024. Photo Credit: North Carolina Department of Transportation
By Sharon Franklin.
Before recent hurricanes that have reduced towns and cities in the Southeast, there was a trend for Americans most affected by the climate crisis to move to the Midwest. Now, the question is.. Will there be more? In a recent article by Stephen Starr, Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/22/climate-crisis-americans-move-midwest he noted that the 65,000 person city of Muncie, Indiana may not be the most exciting place in the world, because it doesn’t have beaches, or year-round warm weather, it is now home to Laura Rivas, a former resident of North Miami Beach, Florida.
Why? It was the climate crisis and strengthened hurricanes, flooding and skyrocketing insurance premiums for homeowners or the inability to just obtain homeowner insurance. Rivas noted, “every hurricane season was worse than the last to the point that insurance companies “couldn’t afford [to operate in Florida] any more. For her, after receiving a notice that her insurance was being increased to $3,000/month, she knew it was time to go.
Now she says “My mortgage and homeowner’s insurance are $600 a month, total,” “Five times less than my homeowners’ insurance for a home half the size in Florida.”
Photo Credit: Muncie, Indiana, Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian
Rivas is not alone, many from Puerto Rico fled after 2017. “It’s probably no coincidence that the majority of the Climate Migrants are coming from Texas, California and Florida, said Evan Hock of MakeMyMove, an Indianapolis-based company that partners with small cities across the country to offer incentives to remote workers to relocate.
Currently, Hurricane, Helene has shown that there is no escape from the effects of the climate crisis, regardless of location, as noted by the recent weather-related events in the Southeastern states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.
What Will Be The Climate Migrant Demands On The Midwestern States Infrastructures?
Derek Van Berkel, University of Michigan is strategizing with other researchers for the expected growing of an incoming population to the Midwest and Great Lakes region in the years and decades ahead.
The Question Remains
What can these communities expect from an influx of people that will put extra demands for housing, transportation and other essentials for an expected growing population?
