By Sophie Weinberg, Intern
Last week marked the 75th anniversary of the two bombings that changed the course of the world, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only did these two bombings obliterate the populations of two Japanese cities, but they also still impose lasting health effects on those residents.
Thousands of people died in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the explosions. These immediate deaths were due to the explosion, the fires that followed, and radiation poisoning. Although many people did immediately die from exposure to radiation, there were many survivors of the explosions who faced the health consequences of radiation later in life. A major consequence of this radiation is the mutation and damage of genes, which therefore leads to cancer. For bomb survivors, the risk of cancer, specifically Leukemia, was shown to be 46%. This type of cancer typically appeared a couple years after the bombings. The United States government obviously understood the immediate civilian casualties that would occur from dropping the bombs but did not take into account the suffering and death that would continue decades later.
Similarly, the U.S. also failed to acknowledge the lasting health effects of other chemicals used during wartimes. Specifically, the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam is still poisoning people today. Both U.S. and Vietnamese military forces together used more than 20.2 million gallons of herbicides to destroy trees as a military tactic. These herbicides, and specifically Agent Orange, contain dioxins. Dioxins are a highly toxic group of chemicals that, among other health effects, can cause cancer. U.S. Veterans of Vietnam are still suffering from the effects of Agent Orange and are being compensated for their health issues. On the other hand, Vietnamese citizens who are battling similar consequences have not been awarded the same considerations.
Today, chemical companies in the U.S. are still disregarding human health in the manufacturing, use, and disposal of various chemicals. Many communities are suffering from health complications due to toxins in their air, water, and soil. In order to avoid the lasting health consequences of toxic chemicals, the government must do more to protect residents of these communities. Specifically, the government needs to provide more regulation on industries to avoid long-lasting health complications in sacrifice zones. In addition to this, the government should compensate communities that already have faced these adverse health effects, just as was done for Vietnam Veterans.
Category: Backyard Talk
CHEJ Blog
By Monica Lee, Communications & Development Intern
Children are oftentimes more vulnerable to the negative effects of environmental injustice. This is because their bodies have not been fully developed to face the harsh health impacts from their environment. Nonetheless, according to the National Vital Statistics Reports done by the CDC, in 2018, infants of a black mother were more than twice as likely to die compared to infants of a white, Asian, or Hispanic mother. This is an issue raised by inequality that has always been around, and yet does not receive enough attention.
There are many reasons that lead to this infant mortality gap based on race. For example, access to health care, access to adequate food, and other socioeconomic factors create differences in children’s health. Most importantly, however, the environment in which the child grows up in plays the greatest role in affecting the child’s health. Environmental injustice is the most significant factor that affects this infant mortality rate gap.
The major causes of infant mortality in the US include asthma, birth defects, neurodevelopmental disorders, and preterm birth. These illnesses are all effects of the surrounding environment, either directly affecting the child or indirectly through the mother.
Families with lower socioeconomic status tend to be disproportionately exposed to areas with more serious air pollution. Thus, children growing up in these communities have a higher chance of getting asthma. Specifically, even among adults, asthma rates are higher in blacks than in whites. This is a clear case of environmental injustice that leads to the infant mortality rate gap.
Besides asthma, the other causes of infant mortality can also be attributed to environmental injustice. Communities with higher exposures to toxic chemicals lead to more infant mortality deaths. Mothers exposed to toxic chemicals may face health effects, thereby causing birth defects leading to infant mortality. At the same time, infants directly exposed to these toxic chemicals face a greater consequence as their immune system have not been fully developed. Families with lower socioeconomic status tend to reside in these communities with higher exposures to toxic chemicals, thereby causing the infant mortality rate gap.
Many of the causes of infant mortality are created by the environment, and environmental injustice plays a huge role in affecting specific communities with lower socioeconomic status. Thus, there is a large racial gap of infant mortality rates as children’s health are more likely to be affected by the negative effects, such as air pollution and toxic chemicals. This issue requires more attention in order for the inequality to be eliminated completely. As a result of environmental injustice, many infant lives are lost without the chance to enjoy their full life.
By: Shaina Smith, Community Organizing Intern
The reality of environmental inequality is that industry polluters target low-wealth and minority communities disproportionately. A 2018 study found that Black and Latino people are typically exposed to 56% and 63% more air pollution than is caused by their consumption, but that white people are exposed to 17% less than they cause.
This exposure weakens the immune system over time, and people with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular diseases are more likely to have a severe case of coronavirus.
A recent Harvard study found that higher levels of pollution particles known as PM 2.5 are linked to higher coronavirus death rates. An increase of just one microgram per cubic meter results in a 10% increase in coronavirus cases, and 15% increases in death. A separate study of air quality found overlap between areas of high coronavirus mortality rate with high levels of air pollution. The EPA standard for PM 2.5 is 12 micrograms per cubic meter annual average, and the WHO standard is 10. However, some places in New York have annual PM levels above either standard, which may have contributed to the coronavirus hotspot earlier in the year.
A preliminary study in Italy detected Sars-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) on PM 10, which is the same thing as PM 2.5, but slightly larger. This means that air pollution is not only a direct pathway to transmission of coronavirus, but can even travel further in the air, increasing the risk for anyone living in areas of high contamination.
CDC data shows Black and Latino people are three times as likely to become infected with coronavirus than white people, and twice as likely to die.
These communities on the frontlines of pollution were already facing a health crisis, the coronavirus pandemic makes it more deadly.
To control a second wave the government needs to seriously consider the findings of these recent studies and impose harsher penalties and regulations on industrial polluters. In doing so this means taking on the root cause of why Black and Brown people suffer the most from this pandemic: systemic racism embedded in environmental, economic, and political aspects of life.
Photo by: Jason Wambsgans / Chicago Tribune/TNS via Getty Images
By Paolo Padova, Science Intern
Last week the presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, released his climate and energy plan. Biden’s plan puts an emphasis on environmental justice and its intersection with racial inequality. The plan commits to creating a new Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice to hold contaminating corporations accountable. Building on the EPA’s EJSCREEN tool, Biden will “create a data-driven Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool to identify communities threatened by the cumulative impacts of the multiple stresses of climate change, economic and racial inequality, and multi-source environmental pollution.” The plan includes several aggressive targets such as achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035. Biden also set a goal for disadvantaged communities to receive 40 percent of all clean energy and infrastructure benefits he was proposing.
The plan is clearly an attempt to appeal to younger and more progressive voters who have, thus far, been a challenge for Biden. Many progressives have been uneasy about a Biden presidency because of his refusal to adopt a range of progressive priorities such as medicare for all, defunding the police, and the legalization of marijuana. His record on issues like criminal justice has drawn significant criticism from the left. Some view a Biden presidency as “harm reduction” while others are even less optimistic. Nonetheless, the appeal seems to be working, at least with some. Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, a prominent environmentalist called the plan “visionary.” In response to the plan Sunrise Movement executive director, Varshini Prakash said “It’s no secret that we’ve been critical of Vice President Biden’s plans and commitments in the past. Today, he’s responded to many of those criticisms.” This progressive shift in Biden’s environmental policy is a direct result of the progressive voters who have conditioned their vote on policy concessions from the former vice-president.
Biden’s plan also makes several references to Native American communities. Elizabeth Kronk Warner, the dean of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah and a citizen of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, said she was pleasantly surprised by Mr. Biden’s plan.
On the other hand, some have been critical of the fact that the plan does not include the use of a carbon tax, which many see as the most effective and socially equitable way to decrease carbon emissions. This may be a result of an effort to altogether avoid the word ‘tax’ out of fear of alienating moderate voters. Trump’s allies have been quick to attack the plan, depicting it as a threat to jobs in the energy sector and some have attempted to link the plan with the significantly more progressive Green New Deal. According to Trump, Biden’s “agenda is the most extreme platform of any major party nominee, by far, in American history.” While Biden’s plan is less progressive than the Green New Deal and Biden has not fully endorsed the Green New Deal, his plan does follow a similar strategy of emphasizing how aggressive climate action could create jobs. Specifically, the plan presents itself as a response to the economic crisis brought on by COVID-19. Biden foresees one million new jobs will be created making electric vehicles and charging stations and perhaps millions more union jobs could come from building greener infrastructure.
Photo Credit: Matt Slocum/AP
By Jenna Clark, Communications Intern
This week, Congress is in recess. Most Representatives and Senators will return home to districts in turmoil. After many states reopened, Covid-19 rates skyrocketed in much of the south, west, and Midwest. On Wednesday, the United States reported 67,300 new cases. On the same day, we accomplished a remarkable feat: 3.5 million confirmed cases.
Despite the shattered records, in cases, in single day death statistics, and the growing number of hospitals facing- again, shortages in personal medical equipment and beds, Americans are today, somehow, still locked in a debate about masks. Perhaps it’s because our President until very recently refused to wear a mask in public, and because his administration is openly distancing itself from the CDC. Increasing research supports the airborne spread of Covid-19 particles. It shouldn’t need to be said, but I’ll say it: wear a mask. 
Many people in this country desperately need assistance. In tandem with an unprecedented health emergency: 138,000 deaths and rising, we face a once in a century economic disaster. As of this week, between 32 and 33 million people in the country are either receiving unemployment benefits or have applied to do so. While the national unemployment rate decreased from April to June, it’s hard to conceive that this upturn will continue as many states face massive waves of Covid-19. After re-opening, some states are re-enforcing shut down measures.
President Trump and other leaders argued that we must open up the country to stave off economic disaster. Thousands of lives have been and will continue to be lost due to their ignorance, a tragedy unlike this country has seen. Their focus on re-opening against all scientific recommendations may also prove to be economically short sighted. By ignoring science and scientists, the Trump Administration is actually creating the economic disaster that they feared. Now we may face a much larger and much more long–term economic problem. As our country continues to be crippled by the virus, those short-term unemployed may become so permanently. It is our government’s responsibility to help.
In March, Congress passed the CARES Act: a $2 trillion relief package. However, much of the funding allocated for local governments hasn’t reached them. Where local governments did receive aid, funds are running out, but the need isn’t. Increased unemployment benefits are set to end in most states on July 25, just over a week away. While Democrats passed a $3 trillion relief package through the House in June, it never reached the debate floor in the Senate. Senate Republicans are working on their own bill, which they expect to release “as early as next week.” However, the $1 trillion maximum that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell identified is below acceptable for House Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Senators must pass another Covid-19 relief act, and soon. In todays’ era of politics, bipartisanship isn’t trendy. Unfortunately, our government no longer has the privilege to infight. They must work together and create an agreement that both Democrats and Republicans can get behind. Fighting this virus and its economic toll shouldn’t be a partisan issue.
During this recess, constituencies across the country have an opportunity to hold their Senators accountable. Remember, our governmental officials are elected by us, for us. Our needs and our wills are their responsibility. They have power because we give it to them: we can just as easily take it away.
So this week, call your representatives. Send emails. Hold them accountable for our well-being. Let them know that they have to take action, they have to pass a new Covid-19 relief act.
For more information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj6pizO84js&t=53s
By Hamsavardhini “Anu” Thirunarayanan, Intern
This past Sunday, July 5, Dominion Energy and Duke Energy declared that they would cancel their planned Atlantic Coast Pipeline, despite the $3.4 billion investment and just 20 days after securing a 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court vote allowing them to build the pipeline below the Appalachian Trail. Fierce opposition from communities across North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia are overjoyed by this victory.
The next day, federal judge James Boasberg ordered the closure and emptying of the Dakota Access Pipeline pending an environmental review, which is a generally unprecedented resolution for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in their lengthy struggle against the oil project. Later that Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused the Trump administration’s emergency bid to allow the Keystone XL pipeline development to move forward while environmental concerns similar to the Dakota Access Pipeline are being resolved.
Environmental organizations all across the country are ecstatic. Kelly Martin, the director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuel campaign stated “A new era upon us—one for clean energy, and one where the risks of fossil fuel infrastructure are increasingly exposed.” “The era of multibillion dollar investment in fossil fuel infrastructure is over,” said Jan Hasselman of the environmental group Earthjustice and attorney for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
There are two main reasons for such optimism:
- The energy industry is grappling with the economic downturns of COVID-19, which has aggravated the already decreasing demand for oil and gas. Falling oil prices make the financial case for new pipelines even more complicated.
- The government has made a grave error by speeding through the National Environmental Policy Act process, neglecting the thorough environmental analysis for many of the current pipelines as mandated by law. This could allow for more litigation wins against other pipeline projects that communities are actively renouncing.
We could very well be witnessing the moment in time that marks the downturn of the oil industry. However, it is important to note that the fight is far from over. The Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipeline operations have only been halted, and they could easily be allowed to continue after the environmental review process is officially complete. Also, though the Keystone XL pipeline development has been halted, other pipelines that were under “Nationwide Permit 12” have been allowed to continue by the U.S. Supreme Court. This decision is overturning the cancellation ruled by a lower court federal judge Brian Morris. In addition, Energy Transfer (Dakota Access’s pipeline owner) refuses to accept the court demand. Instead, it’s continuing to schedule oil transport with its customers for August. Above all, even if the overall Republican administration is dealt a large blow with the cancellation of all new pipelines, there is no guarantee that oil will become a thing of the past—after all, Biden is also a top recipient of the oil & gas industry (though he has pledged to not reissue the Keystone permit if elected).
Despite grandiose statements made by various figures of large environmental organizations, to gain a true victory in this fight for their land and lives, there is much more to come for which the Sioux Nation needs to be prepared. For now though, hopefully these communities are taking a moment to rejoice their wins.
Photo by: Michael Nigro/Pacific Press, via LightRocket, via Getty Images
By: Julie Silverman, Summer Communications Intern
The recent killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Trayvon Martin, and far too many other Black Americans have brought racial injustices to light in all spheres of life, specifically in terms of police brutality. However, racial disparities, specifically involving Black individuals have continued to pervade society in a multitude of ways including spheres of education, pollution, health care, housing, and the impacts of climate change.
Toxic waste dump sites and factories have been known to disproportionately impact minority and low-income communities, specifically Black ones, skyrocketing the risks for certain cancers and illnesses.
Air pollution from industrial facilities and highways surrounding Black communities have also burdened them with higher incidences of asthma, risks to overall health and other respiratory illnesses.
Climate change and increasing temperatures have a disproportionate impact on those who cannot afford air conditioning in their homes and live in extremely hot places. Black individuals and families often live in these regions.
Black mothers also tend to have dramatically decreased access to medical care and oftentimes receive unequal levels of treatment when receiving care.
The compounding inequities that Black Americans continue to face are unacceptable. The combination of the disproportionate impact of air pollution, climate change, pollution and unequal health coverage greatly risks the health and wellbeing of Black Americans. Studies discussed in a recent New York Times article have shown that these impacts have posed extremely large risks specifically on Black mothers, which can lead to an increased likelihood of having premature, underweight, and stillborn babies. In other words, infants are being largely impacted by racial injustices involving the color of their skin before they are even born.
In order to truly comprehend racial injustices faced by Black Americans, we must be sure to understand how the many different spheres of life are involved. The process for racial justice is one that cannot be done immediately, but one that is being largely progressed by the work of many activists and community leaders.
Photo by: Eye for Ebony on Unsplash
Categories
CDC – Where are you?
As the country moves to reopening this summer, with some states moving more quickly and others more deliberately, one thing seems clear, people are not paying attention to details and to the rules of living with a pandemic. Where are the masks and where is the social distancing? And where is the Centers for Disease Control or CDC? This is the agency that was born to step up and be front and center during a pandemic like we are now experiencing. This is their time to shine, to lead by example and to guide public behavior and response to the worst infectious disease event that most peel people alive today have ever experienced.
As we move into reopening the country, where is CDC’s voice guiding the decisions made by politicians and leaders? Where is CDC’s voice reminding us to wear masks, telling us how important they are in protecting the wearer and the potential spread of the virus from asymptomatic carriers and in fighting Covid-19.
Where is CDC’s voice reminding us why it’s important to wear masks and in what places and circumstances, they are critical; and in providing information and data on how effective they are and what kind to wear.
Where is CDC’s voice reminding us why it’s important to maintain social distancing as we travel out of our home to interact with people?
Where is CDC’s voice educating us about the primary means of transmission of this deadly virus which is by airborne transport, not just through sneezing or coughing, but also through singing, shouting and even just talking, especially in confined spaces.
Where is CDC’s voice reminding us how much this virus is transferred from person-to person, and from surfaces and by direct contact.
Where is CDC’s voice reminding us why testing is so important, not just to determine if you have the virus (not the disease!), but to identify asymptomatic people who don’t think they have the virus when they do and to then to isolate that person and to trace and isolate others who might have been exposed to contain the spread of the virus and the disease.
Where is CDC’s voice taking the lead in providing a rationale and clear vision of how we can all return to living with a viable highly transmittable virus and disease during a pandemic?
We miss you CDC and we need you. The prospects of a successful of reopening without your voice are not good.
It’s time to come out of the shadows, or the closet or wherever you have been the past few months. We need your knowledge, your experience and your ability to separate the many confusing messages coming from every which place.
It’s not too late to make your presence felt. We really need you.
By: Sophie Weinberg, Intern
Money is the driving force behind many industries in the United States, and those that pollute are no exception. It is a common perception that those industries, such as coal mining, are vital to the economy, when in reality pollution that results from those industries is detrimental to economic success. Particularly, the burden of disease that comes from pollution has an immense price tag. Despite the real reason, the costs of these diseases are not typically attributed to pollution and are instead lumped in with general health expenditures. Beyond the direct costs of caring for patients who are battling life-threatening pollution-related diseases, there are also the indirect costs of decreased productivity associated with those employees missing work which then lowers the GDP of a country. This loss of GDP is estimated at $53 billion in higher income countries. That is an incredible sum of money that could be used in a wide variety of programs to build up vulnerable communities. Currently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the EPA has decided to not enforce environmental regulations in order to give polluting industries an economic break. This decision will not only add more pollution to the air, but more people will suffer the effects of coronavirus as it is a respiratory illness. The economy will ultimately become more damaged as all industry remains closed to respond to the large amount of sick people.
Beyond the cost of disease, governments also must contribute large sums of money to mitigate environmental threats that could have been prevented originally. The Michigan government, for example, settled on setting aside $97 million in order to replace corroding lead pipes in Flint, when the decision to switch water sources in the first place would only save the city about $5 million. That estimate does not include the nearly $400 million lost to the city in social costs, since so many children will suffer for the rest of their lives due to lead exposure.
Despite public belief about rolling back environmental protections in order to boost the economy, the enormous economic benefits of environmental regulations and sustainable technology are rarely discussed. Renewable energy, for example, creates jobs and also utilizes resources already found in the United States. This boosts the economy by bringing in revenue rather than relying on fuel imports. Regardless of these positives, society is not willing to uproot their livelihood to make changes, even if those changes are for the good of everyone involved. Overall, the price of sustainability may seem high at first glance but will always be worth it in the end when the environment is protected, human health is promoted, and the economy is thriving.
By: Kara Hoisington
In 2019, data of all police killings in the country compiled by Mapping Police Violence, black Americans were nearly three times more likely to die from police than white Americans. The recent murder of George Floyd finally sparked the flame for Congress to address this form of systematic racism police departments impose. Democratic lawmakers in Congress introduced legislation to address the excessive abuse of power used by police officers and make it easier to identify, track, and prosecute police misconduct.
Civil rights activists have been pushing this agenda for decades. If it took our country this long to wake up and see the light – how long will it take to address systematic racism in environmental policies?
On June 4th 2020, President Trump signed in an executive order allowing emergency authorities to circumvent environmental review of major projects. This could fast-track the approval of major highways, pipelines, oil and gas projects, and other polluting industries which disproportionately affect people of color. Erasing requirements in environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Policy Act, Trump’s order blocks such communities from fighting back against unwanted projects.
If police brutality doesn’t kill people of color, toxic pollution will. This executive order bars communities first amendment rights to speak up and say no! Here at the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice we serve to amplify your communities voice past the thick wall of pollution.
Written by Kara Hoisington, CHEJ Summer Intern.