By Gregory Kolen II.

In communities across the country, women have long been the driving force of the environmental justice movement. From protesting toxic dumps to defending clean water, it’s often women – mothers, grandmothers, and daughters – who first speak out when their families’ health is at risk. This Women’s History Month, we honor the trailblazing women who turned personal concern into public action, launching campaigns to clean up neighborhoods and fight for a healthier, more equitable world. Their victories are both a celebration and a call to action, reminding us that the fight for environmental justice is far from over.

One of these pioneers is Lois Gibbs, who in 1978 was a young mother in Love Canal, New York, when she discovered her neighborhood sat atop 21,000 tons of toxic chemical waste (Lois Gibbs – Goldman Environmental Prize). With no prior experience, she organized her neighbors to demand relocation and cleanup. Gibbs’s relentless advocacy led to the evacuation of over 800 families and the creation of the federal Superfund program to clean up hazardous waste sites (Lois Gibbs – Goldman Environmental Prize). She went on to found the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ), proving how one determined woman can spark a nationwide movement for change.

Another early hero is Hazel M. Johnson, often hailed as the “mother of environmental justice” (Hazel Johnson Launched an Environmental Movement in Chicago That Trump Is Trying to End – Inside Climate News), who fought environmental racism in Chicago. Living in a public housing complex surrounded by landfills and factories, Johnson exposed the pollution poisoning her neighbors. In 1979 she founded People for Community Recovery and spent decades advocating for clean air and water, a crusade that helped push President Bill Clinton to sign the first federal Executive Order on environmental justice in 1994. In New York City, Peggy Shepard co-founded WE ACT for Environmental Justice after witnessing Harlem plagued by disproportionate pollution. She was even arrested for blocking traffic to protest a sewage plant’s foul impacts, and has since devoted her life to preventing low-income communities from being treated as “sacrifice zones” (The godmother of the environmental justice movement speaks out | EDF).

Today, women continue to lead the charge for environmental justice with the same courage and resolve. Linda Garcia, for example, rallied her community in Vancouver, Washington for years to stop a giant oil terminal that would have endangered her city. Facing intimidation and even death threats, she persevered – and ultimately the proposed terminal, which would have been the largest in North America (Fighters for Environmental Justice: Lois Gibbs and Linda Garcia), was cancelled. Around the world, women are also front and center in this fight. In Kenya, Wangari Maathai mobilized rural women to plant over 30 million trees, linking environmental restoration with women’s empowerment (Inspiration for Women’s History Month: Wangari Maathai – Carolina Women’s Center).

As we celebrate these extraordinary activists, we are reminded that our work is not done. Every community deserves clean air, safe water, and a healthy future – and women are continuing to rise up to make it happen. This Women’s History Month, let’s honor their legacy not just with words, but with action:

• Support organizations and campaigns that fight for environmental justice in affected communities.
• Amplify the voices of women leaders and community members calling for change.
• Demand policies that put public health and equity first, so no group is left to bear the brunt of pollution.

The stories of Lois Gibbs, Hazel Johnson, Peggy Shepard, Linda Garcia and so many others inspire us to stand together in the ongoing fight for a healthier, more equitable world.

By Juliet Porter.

On February 24th, the trial against Greenpeace, filed by fossil fuel giant Energy Transfer, began in North Dakota. The company is pursuing a $300 million SLAPP suit—short for “strategic lawsuit against public participation”—a legal tactic designed to intimidate and silence activists. This lawsuit specifically targets Greenpeace, one of the most prominent environmental nonprofit organizations in the world, for its role in supporting protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Though the pipeline was completed in 2017, Energy Transfer has strategically revived this legal battle years later, signaling a broader effort to punish environmental activism and deter future opposition. As reported by (Environmental Health News, 2024).  

The allegations being pressed by Energy Transfer surround claims that Greenpeace spread information, and even incited illegal activity, during the indigenous-lead protests at the time of the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (MSN, 2025). The DAPL represents a pivotal moment for the environmental justice movement and its advocates in the US. The DAPL protests were led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who opposed the pipeline due to threats to water and sacred lands as reported by (Environmental Health News, 2024).   

SLAPP suits like this attempt to silence Indigenous voices and grassroots activism. If Greenpeace loses, it could set a precedent where corporations sue activists into silence, making it harder for communities to fight pollution, climate change, and corporate harm. SLAPP suits weaponize the legal system against those working for climate justice. They represent both a threat to free speech and the right to protest as reported by (Environmental Health News, 2024),  

So why now, you might ask? Why would the company wait eight years after the protests and construction occurred to pursue this legal challenge? This is a signal of long-term retaliation against environmental activism. Unfortunately, this incident doesn’t represent an isolated case. Similar lawsuits against climate activists and journalists have been successful in silencing the cries of protest.  If Greenpeace loses, it would be a major setback for environmental advocacy. it could set a precedent where corporations sue activists into silence, making it harder for communities to fight pollution, climate change, and corporate harm.

Why Is this Important?  This lawsuit is not just about Greenpeace—it’s about the future of environmental activism and the right to protest corporate harm. If Energy Transfer succeeds, it could create a chilling effect, discouraging advocacy groups and frontline communities from speaking out against environmental injustice.

However, the fight for climate justice does not end here. Organizations like The Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) will continue to support activists fighting for environmental justice, ensuring that those on the frontlines of environmental defense are not silenced by corporate intimidation. The right to protest is fundamental to environmental justice, and it is through collective action that we can push back against corporate suppression.

Now is the time to stand in solidarity with Greenpeace and sign its open letter to demand the protection of free speech and climate activism .

Background Information:

 https://www.ehn.org/fossil-fuel-companys-lawsuit-against-greenpeace-heads-to-trial-in-north-dakota 2671203092.html?vgo_ee=hjtl0nkE5iu873lvRJ1Pxn1kp5hmwuDDWM23LCAhLN%2FA5g%3D%3D%3A9qrAobJxq2RmX%2BzHMPpm%2F5UHdbWp%2F09J

By Stephen Lester.

Earlier this month marked the two-year anniversary of the horrific train derailment and the subsequent burning of train cars that changed the lives of pretty much everyone who lives in East Palestine, OH. The decision by Norfolk Southern to intentionally burn 5 tanker cars carrying vinyl chloride and other toxic chemicals released a toxic cloud of chemicals into the community.

The community marked the two-year anniversary by holding several events while awaiting Vice-President JD Vance, former senator for Ohio who visited that day. Vance’s message was that East Palestine “will not be forgotten.“ But outside the press conference, the group Justice for East Palestine Residents and Workers held a protest with signs saying, “Stop the Cover-up” and “We are still sick.” Residents expressed hope that Vance might meet with them directly and listen to their concerns and pleas for help.

Earlier the group held a national meeting of residents, workers and trade unionists to demand that residents be given healthcare through the declaration of East Palestine as a “mass incident casualty site” under the Stafford Act that would provide victims with federally funded healthcare and money to relocate from their toxic homes.

The situation in East Palestine remains fragile for many residents who continue to try to make sense of the many adverse health symptoms people are still experiencing, such as unexplained rashes, asthma, coughing and more, despite assurances from EPA that everything is fine. The biggest questions that remain unanswered are about the long-term health consequences of the accident. Thousands of people were exposed to many chemicals in the toxic cloud including dioxin, one of the most potent carcinogens ever tested. People want to know what is going to happen to their children and to their families. Some like Jamie Wallace, feel that things are beyond repair, that East Palestine will never be the same again, “it will never be the East Palestine that we knew and loved, it will never be home again.”  

The ongoing legal battles continue in the community. The village accepted a $22 million settlement with Norfolk Southern to “strengthen the future of our community,” according to the mayor. This settlement brought the total funds given to the village by Norfolk Southern to more than $60 million. Meanwhile, the $600 million dollar class action settlement between the residents and Norfolk Southern is on hold because of an appeal filed by many of the people named in the lawsuit. Some residents we outraged to learn that the settlement called for each family, whether there were two people in the family or six, to receive a lump sum payment of $70,000 less any temporary relocation costs that the family might have already received from the rail company. Many believe that the settlement does not do enough to compensate the residents for possible future health effects. People are concerned about developing cancer and other serious ailments in the future. They also want to know what the lawyers uncovered during their investigation so they can better judge the risks. Oddly, the judge overseeing the case ordered the residents who are appealing the settlement to put up $850,00 bond to continue their appeal. This order is also being appealed. According to local news reports, at least nine other lawsuits have been filed including one on the day of the anniversary alleging that people have died because of the train derailment. 

CHEJ’s Science Director Stephen Lester participated in a Town Hall meeting shortly after the accident and CHEJ has been involved since providing science and organizing support to the residents.

A New Study Is Being Launched

By Sharon Franklin.

The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health announced in a recent article by Todd Datz, a multi-institutional collaboration study, L.A. Fire HEALTH Study.  This study is being undertaken by researchers from the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Davis, the University of Texas/Austin and T.H. Chan School of Public Health, all of which have expertise in environmental exposure assessment, health outcomes, wildfire risk assessment, management, and data science.  https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/long-term-multi-institutional-study-on-health-impacts-of-los-angeles-wildfires-launched/

The study’s focus will be on wildfire hazards, similar to the ones currently on-going in the Los Angeles, California and other urban areas, which have unique hazards arising from incinerated buildings, cars, and products.  All of which can expose people to particulate gases, chemicals, heavy metals, asbestos, PFAS, microplastics, and other toxic pollutants.  These potential health hazard exposure that can impact millions include:

• Acute respiratory symptoms and worsening of lung conditions, (asthma and COPD),
• Neurological impacts, (headaches and cognitive issues),
• Cardiovascular effects, (increased risk of heart disease and stroke),
• Immune system disruption,
• Reproductive health concerns, and
• Increased cancer risk.

Anthony Wexler, Director of Air Quality Research UC Davis, stated “Air pollutants, such as those from wildfires, are linked to short-term health problems such as asthma and longer-term ones such as Alzheimer’s disease”.  Michael Jerrett, Professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health stated “Here in Los Angeles, we know that communities need accurate and timely information about what individuals and families can do to prevent and mitigate health effects from fires, both in the near- and long-term,” … “With this study we can supply sound science to help residents repopulate and rebuild their neighborhoods safely, and for the first time, we can learn about the long-term health effects of wildfires.”

Kari Nadeau, a practicing physician, at Harvard Medical School, and also a professor at Harvard Chan School, said “This was an environmental and health disaster that will unfold over decades,” and“ By bringing together experts from across multiple institutions and disciplines, we can rigorously examine the health effects from the wildfires’ toxic particles and gases that have spread hundreds of miles beyond the fire zones and provide the communities with this information in real time.”

What Are the Study’s Goals?     

To distribute the findings to civilians, firefighters, businesses, researchers, and government agencies.

• To examine which pollutants are present,
  • at what levels, where, and
  • how they change over time;
• To determine if the fires and aftermath are associated with chronic health effects in the nearby populations;
• To share evidence-based, rapid answers to the affected communities; and
• To distribute the findings to civilians, firefighters, businesses, researchers, and government agencies.

By Leila Waid.

In January 2025, The Lancet Planetary Health journal published a literature review article outlining the best practices advocates should utilize when conducting outreach efforts with policymakers. The article, titled “Communicating with policymakers about climate change, health, and their intersection,” synthesizes lessons learned from over 139 peer-reviewed studies about how to persuade policymakers to address environmental justice issues effectively.

The main takeaways include the need to effectively tailor the message, choose the best message avenue, prepare in advance to address and limit pushback, and utilize social media and community resources.

How the message is delivered to the policymaker is the most important factor in how successful the communication will be. It’s crucial to analyze your audience to understand if they would be more impacted by human-driven stories or if they are looking for empirical data and evidence instead. For example, if you are advocating for a clean-up of a superfund site in your community, would the policymaker you are appealing to care more about the emotional, physical, and mental toll the environmental injustice has caused the community? Or would they instead want you to present them with statistics about how much the town residents spend on healthcare costs? How will you frame your issue? For example, the researchers found that discussing climate change in the context of how it impacts an individual’s health was found to be especially effective.

Overall, it’s vital that the message, regardless of what approach is used, is short, concise, and timely. Additionally, while it is important that the argument you are making is grounded in evidence and research, that alone is rarely enough to propel a policymaker into action. Take, for example, the issue of climate change and the need to shift to a green, regenerative economy. There are countless pieces of evidence and articles from researchers all over the world discussing the need for this urgent action. However, legislation at the international, national, state, and local levels has not moved swiftly enough.

The researchers also found that who delivers the message is just as important as what the message is. It is common for health communication campaigns to utilize celebrities, or influencers, to make their message seem more trustworthy. Similarly, when reaching out to a policy maker it is important to consider who can evoke respect and admiration from the policymaker – who can be the “influencer” in your campaign.

Another critical factor to consider when tailoring the message is how you present it. Are you conducting a letter-writing campaign, calling the representative, attending legislative hearings, writing policy briefs, hosting events for policymakers to attend, or utilizing the power of social media? The researchers found that utilizing more than one type of approach to communicating with the policymaker is important.

Another common theme found through the literature review is the importance of coalition building and focusing on fostering long-term alliances with the policymaker. Strengthening ties with policymakers can make them more amenable to your communication efforts. Reaching out to policymakers who are sympathetic to the environmental justice cause can help you strengthen your coalition and outreach efforts to other legislators.

Before you even get to the message tailoring phase or figure out the logistics of your communication campaign, it’s essential first to take a moment to ask important questions during the planning phase. Based on their research into this topic, the authors created a list of questions that all advocates should be prepared to answer before beginning their communication campaign:

Advancing policy towards climate and environmental justice is a slow process, with incremental gains and setbacks along the way. And even though, at the national level, the priorities seem to shifting away from environmental justice, it is important to not get discouraged and continue to advocate at the state and local levels. After all, grassroots advocates are intimately aware that change happens from the bottom up, not from the top down.

By Ben Chisam.

While President Trump has only been in office for a week and half, there have already been major changes to the political landscape. Most of the action taken towards environmental policy by the Trump administration thus far has come in the form of executive orders, the majority of which were signed on Trump’s first day in office. Executive orders are different from legislation and thus do not require congressional approval. The power of an executive order varies, and is subject to review by the courts, but generally they can impact the internal affairs of federal agencies and can even circumvent legislation when the president declares a national emergency. 

Several of Trump’s executive orders explicitly target federal environmental justice programs. “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” requires agencies to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, and ‘environmental justice’ offices and positions.” Agencies have 60 days to comply with the order and affected programs will likely include the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Environmental Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Environmental Justice and Civil Rights. These offices work to build relationships with communities that face disproportionate environmental harms, providing funding and promoting fair involvement in the decision making process. 

Additionally, Trump rescinded several executive orders from previous administrations related to environmental justice, including:

• “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” signed February 16, 1994 by President Clinton. This landmark order stated that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”
• “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” signed January 27, 2021 by President Biden. This order created the Justice40 Initiative, which sought to direct 40% of federal climate and clean energy investments to disadvantaged communities.
• “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All,” signed April 26, 2023 by President Biden. This strengthened Clinton’s order by supporting a “whole-of-government” approach to environmental justice. 

Beyond these, Trump revoked a Carter-era executive order that gave the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) the ability to regulate how federal agencies comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA is a law that requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of major government projects. For decades, environmental organizers have used NEPA to challenge government projects that pollute communities. While NEPA is still law, its future application is uncertain as agencies have relied on the CEQ’s regulations for guidance since the 1970s. You can read a more thorough analysis of what this change means here. 

The President has made nonrenewable energy an early priority with executive orders that will open up new land in Alaska for drilling, explore drilling opportunities on other Federal lands and waters, withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accords, and remove incentives for electric vehicles. Trump has also declared a National Energy Emergency, suggesting that the EPA use emergency powers to relax the requirements of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. In practice, these orders set the stage for more pollution of air, water, and soil in our future. 

While executive orders have less weight than legislation, they set the direction a presidential administration intends to take. As predicted, the Trump administration appears to be heading towards deregulation and away from environmental justice. Despite this, environmental groups across the country are already preparing to defend the environmental justice framework in court. As for CHEJ, to quote what I wrote in November, “the core of our work – grassroots community organizing – will remain the same.” Although the future remains uncertain, we always have the power to work together to create change.