Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Category: Backyard Talk

CHEJ Blog

Categories
Backyard Talk

Busting Stereotypes: Outdoor Afro

Earlier this month, the Heinz Foundation honored 5 remarkable people who reflect the accomplishments and spirit the late U.S. Senator John Heinz. These awards recognize the extraordinary contributions of individuals in the areas of greatest importance to the late senator.
The Environmental Award went to Rue Mapp, founder and CEO of the nonprofit organization Outdoor Afro, who was recognized for inspiring African Americans to reconnect with nature and for championing diversity in conservation leadership.
Started as a blog in 2009, Outdoor Afro has grown into a national network with more than 35,000 participants and nearly 80 volunteer leaders in 30 states around the country. Outdoor Afro has become the nation’s leading, cutting edge network that celebrates and inspires African American connections and leadership in nature. As stated on their website, “We help people take better care of themselves, our communities, and our planet!” Outdoor Afro connects thousands of people to outdoor experiences and is changing the face of conservation.
Developing African American leaders in the fields of conservation and outdoor activity and management is a key component of Outdoor Afro’s programming. Leadership training summits are held annually, with attendees learning about conservation efforts and how to advocate for natural resources; the health benefits of nature; trip planning; leave-no-trace principles; proper clothing and gear; and community organizing approaches. Once trained, leaders volunteer to organize local “meet ups” in their home regions for local outdoor excursions, as well as larger destination trips to national parks and historical sites.
Mapp acknowledges that historical racism has undermined the connection black people have with nature through race-related crimes frequently executed in local woodlands and Jim Crow laws that barred African Americans from using public outdoor facilities such as beaches and pools.
Outdoor Afro’s mission is to overcome these narratives and use nature as a vehicle to help black communities address the violence in their past and present. As an example, the group has organized “healing hikes” that provide opportunities for people to find solace in nature.
As part of her work challenging traditional conservation organizations to be more inclusive, Rue Mapp consults with the outdoor industry, environmental nonprofits, and the national park system, as well as national and state administrations, and has been instrumental in helping shape national leaders’ understanding of how federal public land policies affect people of color.
Outdoor Afro has inspired Black people from all walks of life to step up and become leaders in the outdoors and in the community. Their volunteer leaders plan, scout and lead nearly a thousand events annually, connecting Black people all across the U.S. with positive and meaningful experiences in the outdoors. As described on their website, these activities not only help participants learn new skills and discover hidden gems in their cities, but they also carve out a unique space in which participants are able to embrace the joy of the outdoors.
For more about the Heinz awards see http://www.heinzawards.net/2019-recipients/

Categories
Backyard Talk

The Halls of Capitol Hill

by Liz Goodiel, CHEJ Science & Tech Fellow
Capitol Hill is a busy epicenter of political movement and policy change. The halls of its buildings are flooded with congress men and women, staffers and schedulers hustling from one meeting to the next. Every few years, citizens across the country elect a representative that will fight for their constituency’s concerns. That man or woman will daily attend numerous meetings, conferences, debates, and state site visits all in an attempt to fight for their constituency’s concerns. To an outsider, Capitol Hill and all it beholds is something of a complex systematic mystery. Its infrastructure enables citizens to hold faith that their concerns are heard and being fought for. 
Over the last few weeks, members of CHEJ have met with dozens of Congress staff members, both within the Senate and the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike. From meeting to meeting, we entered the decorated conference rooms, sat in the neatly organized plush leather chairs, and discussed the intentions of our visit in a punctual 30 minutes. Our meetings were always with an office staffer, given that most Congressmen have extremely busy schedules. For most appointments, the script was similar. We introduced our work, specifically with Superfund, discussed our connections with their constituency, presented the problem and introduced a potential policy solution. The experiences and responses we received, however, could not have been more different.
In most meetings, the staffer came prepared with a business card, a note pad, and a few questions to ask throughout the meeting. Some individuals were highly engaged and gave positive feedback about our efforts. They were encouraged that their Congressman would support or in the least look at any materials we provided. All could not concretely speak on behalf of their representative; however, some staffers gave hope and optimism in working on a solution to a problem impacting most of their voter base. 
Most notable were the few meetings in which the staffer did not engage in conversation, ask any questions, or even open their notebooks. Their eyes glazed over in partial interest of our meeting and left with no intentions to follow up. Why were these particular meetings most noteworthy? We went into each meeting discussing a real problem that many of their constituency were facing. However, because of party alignment and committee membership, certain policy concerns were not even worth discussing with the representative. Although we did not experience many of these meetings, it was interesting to compare the staffers’ levels of involvement in our conversation over a substantial health issue. 
At the same time, I have been given the opportunity to speak with a handful of community leaders from varying states across the country (including Alabama, North Carolina, Texas and West Virginia) that are tirelessly fighting for the health and safety of their communities within the Superfund program. These leaders have fought for years for the cleanup of their communities and for the health and safety of the neighbors. They have stood in the streets educating their community members on the problem that is plaguing their residents and have consistently reached out to their political leaders for support. 
Having the opportunity to meet with a handful of the staff responsible for influencing our policy change was a very rewarding experience. It was exciting to experience a partial view of the mystery system that is our legislative body. However, it is still very hard to have a completely optimistic opinion on the outcome of our meetings. Although many staff members were open to understanding our work and sincerely interested in deliberating the matter with their Congressman, those meetings were clouded by the tough meetings from party members with no enthusiasm to experiment outside of party lines. After meeting with the community members from across the country, and hearing how policy change could absolve some of their most serious concerns, it is discouraging to see how political lines could run so deep that it prevents conversation and change. 

Categories
Backyard Talk

How About Some PFAS with your Pizza?

By: Sharon Franklin
pizza
Kristina Marusic, of Environmental Health News reported on October 9, 2019  about the dangerous PFAS chemicals that show up in the bodies of people who eat takeout, fast food, and pizza are often at higher levels than in people who regularly cook at home.  This is according to a new study, which is the first to link certain foods and PFAS exposures in Americans and adds to the mounting evidence that food packaging, (i.e. grease resistant boxes, pizzas and popcorn) is a major source of exposure to the toxics in people.  PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) refers to a class of more than 5,000 chemicals that are used to make everything from food packaging and cook wear to furniture, carpets and clothing grease-, stain-, and water-repellent.  They’re sometimes called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down naturally.  These chemicals can accumulate in the body and have been linked to many health issues, including cancer, thyroid disease, low birth weight and decreased fertility.
 
Dr. Laurel Schaider, who co-authored the study PFAS in drinking water (STEEP)  says “We all know eating more fresh foods and more home-cooked meals is good for our health for many reasons,” and “I think our study adds further evidence to support that.  She and her co-authors analyzed data collected between 2003 and 2014 from 10,106 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that tracks health and nutritional trends in the United States.  Dr. Schaider also stated that “We found that every 100 calories of food purchased at a grocery store and prepared at home instead of at a restaurant was associated with 0.3 to 0.5 percent lower levels of PFAS in our bodies”.
Dr. Schaider concluded, while eating at home was associated with lower levels of PFAS than eating out overall, eating fast food and pizza were most strongly linked with higher levels of PFAS in people.  “We know we’re exposed to PFAS from many different sources, “but our findings indicate that food consumption is an important pathway of exposure.”  Ultimately, we need better regulations to keep harmful chemicals from getting into our food and products in the first place.”
Photo Credit: Jacob Styburski/flickr

Categories
Backyard Talk News Archive

We are All on the Titanic & Can See the Iceberg Ahead

We are All on the Titanic
Editors note:  Peter Montague wrote this years ago and thought it was more relevant today than ever.
Environmental injustice arises when people of color and/or people of below-average income are (a) unfairly burdened with bad environments, or (b) unfairly denied good environments, or (c) harmed because vulnerabilities leave them especially prone to injury from “normal” or “average” circumstances.
Having been active in the Environmental Justice (EJ) movement for the last decade (and supplying it with information for the past 30 years), I’ve come to believe that the EJ frame is now too narrow. New information about environmental threats has changed the picture very substantially. We are all on the Titanic and we can see the iceberg ahead. On this voyage there are no lifeboats. A plutocratic oligarchy has seized the bridge and taken command of the wheelhouse. Instead of steering a true course to safety and prosperity for all, they are busily stuffing their pockets while they debate what we can all see looming ahead — isn’t it really just a patch of fog? Is it worth the trouble and expense to try to turn the ship? Shouldn’t we count on the invisible hand to steer us true?
The EJ movement originally demanded to move from steerage up to first class. But 30 years later the situation has changed; we can now see that such a move isn’t going to provide a full measure of justice for anyone. As we draw closer to the iceberg, in the ensuing panic people of color and the poor will be ignored and forgotten — perhaps jettisoned overboard. But justice continues to be the central demand of any strategy that can turn the ship. The EJ perspective is now crucial not only to people of color and of low income — it has become crucial for us all. Our national pledge of allegiance, “…with liberty and justice for all,” now means we must all demand environmental justice for everyone, remove the oligarchs from the wheelhouse, and turn the ship before it is too late.
We must not dilute the demands of people of color or people with low income. But today we can aim to build a broad, inclusive movement for change by recognizing that their legitimate demand for justice pertains now to a majority constituency — all those who are marginalized, disrespected, ignored, abused, hurt, and harmed. In sum, a call for environmental justice can now speak to the vast majority of Americans, whose environmental, social and economic needs are no longer being met.  –Peter Montague
 
 

Categories
Backyard Talk

Youth Climate Leader Sends Powerful Message: How Dare You!

On September 20th more than 4 million people around the world took to the streets to join the global climate strike movement. People of all ages from across the globe came together to share a message: The planet is in a climate emergency, and we will not sit by and do nothing. A recap of many of these strikes was put together by the Earth Day Network: “Change is coming, whether they like it or not:” Youth climate strikes break records worldwide
On Saturday September 21st, the United Nations hosted its first-ever Youth Climate Summit in New York City bringing together hundreds of youth climate leaders from around the world to discuss climate solutions for the future. The Earth Day Network prepared a summary of this event and included several notable quotes. “Change rarely happens from the top down,” climate activist Bruno Rodriguez said at the summit. “It happens when millions of people demand change.”  Youth student climate leader Greta Thunberg from Sweden said, “Together and united, we are unstoppable. This is what people power looks like. We will rise to the challenge.”
The Summit was part of a weekend of events leading up to the U.N. Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit on Monday September 23rd. The summit was a call to action in the face of the worsening climate crisis. On its website, the UN defined climate change as the “defining issue of our time and now is the defining moment to do something about it.”
Leaders from 65 counties attended the summit and more than 100 business leaders were there. The UN prepared a summary of the commitments and actions taken by the attendees. In closing the meeting, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, said “You have delivered a boost in momentum, cooperation and ambition. But we have a long way to go.”
Youth leaders urged action not more promises.
Perhaps the most powerful statement at the summit was delivered by youth activist Greta Thunberg.
  “The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now, is where we draw the line.”
Listen to Greta’s full statement here.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Superfund Reinvestment Act – Making Polluters Pay for Pollution

By Liz Goodiel, CHEJ Science and Tech Fellow
Take a moment and imagine your dream home. Maybe your dream home is set on a beautiful ocean front with large windows that overlook the rolling waves and the pink summer sunsets. Perhaps your dream home is located in the mountains, surrounded on all sides with towering trees where you can step outside and instantly breathe in the fresh pine. Or maybe your dream home is right where it is now, filled with family, laughter and memories. Wherever your dream home is, you worked hard for it. You managed the home repairs, paid the bills, supported the family, and you made a house a home. 
 
Now take a moment to imagine that an uninvited visitor came and damaged that home. The house that you worked so hard for is now broken, the windows are shattered, the front lawn is destroyed, and your house now has a gaping hole that you didn’t ask for. What is even more unfair is now that outsider isn’t even going to pay to repair your home. He is going to drive away, with the rubble in his rearview mirror, and leave you to clean it up. This visitor damaged your property, so why isn’t he going to be the one to pay for the repairs? Why has he left you standing there to figure out how to fix what is broken? You’re left with your checkbook in one hand and a hammer in the other, forced to undertake the repairs that will take a lot of time, money and hard work. 
 
Across the United States, nearly 53 million Americans are overwhelmed by contamination and health concerning pollution in their own communities created by corporations and facilities. To combat this problem, the Superfund program was created in 1980 to manage the cleanup of the most toxic waste sites where the responsible party was not identified or went out of business. Throughout the course of the program’s history, Superfund has received its funding in two different ways. The first is through budget appropriations the Environmental Protection Agency receives yearly based on the federal budget sourced by American tax dollars. The second source of funding was through polluter taxes, also known as the Polluter Pays Fees. Polluter Pays Fees were taxes enforced on companies that produced chemicals, oil, or other hazardous waste. These fees were designed to make polluters monetarily responsible for the cleanup of any damage they created in the process of production.
 
The Superfund tax fees ended in 1995, relieving polluters of the responsibility to pay for the cleanup of contaminated sites. The sole success of the Superfund program currently relies on the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget which is currently at its smallest in two decades. Polluters are not required to pay for the damage they have created and, in effect, American’s have been forced to compensate for this loss in the form of tax dollars. In the last two decades, American tax dollars have paid for more than $21 billion in Superfund site cleanup. Polluters have torn down the “dream home” and walked away, leaving the residents behind to pay for the mess they didn’t ask for nor create.
 
In July of 2019, Representative Earl Blumunaer of Oregon proposed the Superfund Reinvestment Act (H.R. 4088) to bring the cleanup burden back to polluters. Sponsors of the bill include Representatives Gerry Connolly (VA), Jerry McNerney (CA), Terri Sewell (AL), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Matt Cartwright (PA) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.). The proposed bill will require polluting companies to pay an excise tax of 0.12 percent on the amount of a company’s modified environmental tax taxable income that exceeds $3,735,000. In other words, for a company that makes over $3,735 million in net income, each additional profit will be taxed at a rate of 0.12 percent. For example, if a company that makes an additional $10,000 over the $3,735 million threshold, its taxable amount will be equivalent to the cost of one cheese pizza ($12.00). If a company does not meet the threshold of $3,735 million, it is not required to pay any additional tax. 
 
Currently, polluters escape billions of dollars in cleanup costs for damages they created. With Representative Blumenaur’s proposed legislation, the cleanup burden will be transferred from American taxpayers back to the parties responsible for pollution. Polluters are the ones responsible for creating unhealthy hazardous sites, why are they not the ones responsible for cleaning it up?

Categories
Backyard Talk

When You Find Out Your Castle Is Contaminated… What Do You Do? 

By Sharon Franklin
Elizabeth Gribkoff of the Vermont Digger recently reported in her article Years after discovery, PFOA looms over Bennington residents, that individuals such as Sandy Sumner and his wife who live in North Bennington, Vermont have their lives permanently altered by contamination from the former ChemFab plant, a Teflon coating plant. The Sumners use to have a large vegetable patch in front of their house, but they are now afraid to eat anything grown on their property because the soil and groundwater is contaminated with chemicals that are very harmful.  When the plant was operational, Sumner and neighbors complained to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the factory management about the acrid emissions from the smokestacks.  Sumner states “My wife and I, we were constantly sick,” “We couldn’t keep our windows and doors open. We got headaches, migraines, sore throats, nosebleeds.”  When the plant closed in 2002, the Sumners found out from the state that their drinking water well was contaminated with 580 parts per trillion of Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA — more than 29 times higher than the Vermont drinking water standard.
blog 1
In April, 2019 the state of Vermont reached a final agreement with Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, the current owner of the ChemFab factory.   As stated in the agreement “Under this final settlement, … Saint-Gobain will directly fund a significant portion of the waterline extensions and be responsible for long-term monitoring, the drilling of replacement wells, and the long-term operation and maintenance of in-home treatment systems. Waterline work in the East Side of the Town of Bennington is estimated at $20 to $25 million. Pending final budget approval, the State has agreed to commit $4.7 million to extend waterlines to the maximum extent feasible.”
blog 2
In the Fall of 2018, Water-line extensions were completed at roughly 200 houses on the western side of the contaminated area, including the Sumners’ home.  Construction on the second phase of water line extensions in Bennington has begun, but many homes won’t be connected until 2020.  However, the Bennington residents like the Sumners impacted by perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination are still dealing with potential long-term health impacts, costs of water bills and resignation that their properties will be indefinitely contaminated.
Some good news for the Sumners came on August 27, 2019.  The lawsuit he and his wife with eight other residents filed against Saint-Gobain, seeking to make the company pay for property damages and long-term medical monitoring for PFOA-related illnesses, took a step forward, when a federal judge allowed the case to advance as a class action.  
Sandy Sumner says “We’re not happy to be involved in the class action.”. “It’s stressful. But I wouldn’t shy away from it — it’s too important.”   He hopes the lawsuit will help pressure chemical companies to prevent contamination like this from occurring. “Because they’re not going to do it on their own,”.
blog 3
Jim Sullivan, one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against St. Gobain Performance Plastics,  says “The airborne PFOA contamination in Bennington differs from, say, an industrial spill, where the focus is on cleaning up a particular site,  “But in this case, the contaminated site is right here, we’re living on it,” he said. “And everybody who’s had their property contaminated is living on the contaminated site.”
Sitting in the living room of his home, Sumner said the impact of the PFOA contamination on the property value remains a “question mark.” As the house is his family’s nest egg, he hopes they can get a good price for it when they eventually go to sell it. “At the same time, anyone who wants to buy this house, I would make damn sure that they knew that even though those flower beds are beautiful, that the soil and groundwater is contaminated”. “And, it will be while you’re living here.”
Photos by: Mike Dougherty/VTDigger
 

Categories
Backyard Talk

Veto Ohio Senate Bill 33

If you live in a state with any type of oil, gas, pipeline, PAY ATTENTION! In fact, if we start seeing bills like the one before the Ohio legislature it doesn’t even have to be an oil/gas producing state.  The Ohio bill lists 73 different “Critical Infrastructures”. 
Below you will see a letter to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine from citizens of Ohio asking for him to veto SB 33 if it comes to his desk.  The letter will help you understand what is going on in many states.  
To Ohio Governor Mike DeWine:
The undersigned environmental justice, racial justice, civil justice, criminal justice, and other civil society groups and individuals urge you to veto Ohio Senate Bill 33 (SB 33). The bill would undermine and silence already marginalized voices. SB 33 is an unnecessary proposal that creates new draconian penalties for conduct already covered by existing criminal statutes and could have dire unintended consequences. SB 33 is part of a national trend of so-called “critical infrastructure” legislation promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) that is intended to neutralize citizen activism around oil and gas infrastructures. We urge you to oppose SB 33.
 
Critical infrastructure bills disproportionately affect some of the most underrepresented communities, criminalizing their right to protest. These bills target many already marginalized voices, in reaction to some of the most high-profile protests in recent history. Communities of color, low-wealth communities and our Native American population are most affected by unchecked environmental pollution; family farms have the most to lose by unfair land-grabs for large infrastructure projects. These communities have a right to peacefully resist environmentally unsafe and unjust policies and unchecked corporate abuse.
SB 33 is purportedly designed to protect critical infrastructure, but the definition of “critical infrastructure” is overly broad and would cover large swaths of the state in urban, suburban, and rural areas, creating the unintended consequence of ensnaring many in Ohio’s already overburdened criminal justice system.
Additionally, the bill does not distinguish between criminal damages of one dollar or a million dollars. At a time when many people, including lawmakers, have recognized the deleterious effects that mass incarceration has had on society and have attempted to rectify laws that have criminalized certain conduct or imposed unreasonable penalties, SB 33 is a giant step backwards. By creating a whole new class of nonviolent offenders who could serve serious prison time, it is antithetical to criminal justice reform.
Environmental advocacy, including civil disobedience, does not threaten physical infrastructure or safety. It threatens profits. Critical infrastructure bills are based on model legislation crafted by corporate interests to establish special protections for some private industries engaged in controversial practices that attract opposition and protest. These bills, including SB 33, are rooted in governments hostile attitudes toward environmental justice advocacy because it threatens the profits of these corporations. Whenever states enact legislation based on these hostile attitudes towards particular political speech, it has a chilling effect that will be felt widely.
We urge you to veto SB 33 if and when it comes across your desk. From a criminal justice reform perspective, this bill is damaging, as it creates new steep penalties for conduct that is already covered under existing criminal law. These new steep penalties and special protections for so-called critical infrastructure are rooted in animus towards anti-pipeline protesters. It is inappropriate for states to seek to legislate in order to penalize individuals for their First Amendment-protected points of view.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Changing the Traditional Understanding of How Chemicals Affect Our Health

The way scientists think about how chemicals cause their toxic effects is changing. Recent scientific research tells us that the traditional notion of how chemicals act is being replaced by a better understanding of the actual features of exposures to environmental chemicals. These features include the timing and vulnerability of exposures, exposures to mixtures, effects at low doses and genetic alterations called epigenetics.
Traditional thinking tells us that how much of a chemical you are exposed to (the dose) determines the effect. This principle assumes that chemicals act by overwhelming the body’s defenses at high doses. We’re learning now that this principle is not always accurate and its place in evaluating risks needs to be reconsidered. What we now know is that some chemicals cause their adverse effects at low exposure levels that are not predicted by classic toxicology.
Recent research has shown that environmental chemicals like dioxin or bisphenol A can alter genetic make-up, dramatically in some cases.  These changes are so powerful that they can alter the genetic material in eggs and sperm and pass along new traits in a single generation, essentially by-passing evolution.
It wasn’t too long ago that scientists believed that the DNA in our cells was set for life, that our genes would be passed on from one generation to the next, and that it would take generations to change our genetic makeup. That’s no longer the case.
This new field – called epigenetics – is perhaps the fastest growing field in toxicology and it’s changing the way we think about chemical exposures and the risks they pose. Epigenetics is the study of changes in DNA expression (the process of converting the instructions in DNA into a final product, such as blue eyes or brown hair) that are independent of the DNA sequence itself.
What researchers are learning is that the “packaging” of the DNA is just as important as a person’s genetic make-up in determining a person’s observable traits, such as blue eyes, or their susceptibility to diseases such as adult on-set diabetes, or to the development of lupus.
The environment is a critical factor in the control of these packaging processes. We may be born with our genes, but epigenetics changes occur because of environmental influences during development and throughout life. These influences include chemicals in the food we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink, and they appear to contribute to the development of cancer and other diseases.
Epigenetics may explain certain scientific mysteries, such as why certain people develop diseases and others don’t, or why the person who smoked for 30 years never developed lung cancer. There is still much to learn, but an early lesson to take away from this emerging science is that we need to rethink our traditional ideas of how chemicals affect our health.
For more information see
https://www.healthandenvironment.org/environmental-health/social-context/gene-environment-interactions

Categories
Backyard Talk

Reflecting on Community Action, Time Wasters, and Thinking Outside the Box

by Kenia French, CHEJ Communications Intern
As a college student studying environmental science, I find myself constantly inundated with terrifying news about my future. The world’s collapsing if we don’t make sweeping change to the structures of our lives by 2030? Great. We’re posed to lose an obscene amount of Earth’s biodiversity in this century? Fun. The ice caps in Greenland are melting at unprecedented rates after July 2019 went on record as the hottest month ever recorded? Amazing.
It can be really hard to stay motivated in a field where every fight feels like an uphill battle. However, working at CHEJ this past summer opened my eyes to environmental justice, and with that an entirely new perspective on motivation, uphill battles and the impending end of modern society as we know it.
It’s not that the issues we confront at CHEJ are any easier for the soul to process. Charlie Powell and the people of Northern Birmingham have watched friends and family die and have faced every single roadblock imaginable advocating for the right to live in a community that wouldn’t poison them. The people of Minden, West Virginia have suffered for 30 years in a PCB-contaminated town, and only now is the government beginning to take action that may help their situation change. 
Spending my summer working at CHEJ, I was struck everyday by how the work we were doing was having a real, tangible impact on people’s lives. Even more striking is that everything CHEJ has achieved and has helped others to achieve is through grassroots community action.
According to CHEJ, community action is the way: overall, the big institutions that govern our country like stability and not doing work. Even if emission standards exist that are meant to protect communities from toxic pollution and hazardous waste, it doesn’t at all mean that people are actually enforcing these standards. Community action, then, is the way forward in our democracy, a way to get your voice heard and get the law enforcers to pay attention to you and fix your situation in order to shut you up.
CHEJ’s community action philosophy is different from any other that I’ve ever come across, and is defined by two main principles. First, community action must run on a community based approach: in order to be successful, you have to go into a community and understand what their specific issues are and what they want to achieve through community action.
CHEJ’s approach to community action has nuance that I had never considered before. This nuance is that in order for community action to be successful, communities themselves have to be willing to do the legwork and fight for their rights. Lois Gibbs is a realist: she will offer her services to any community that needs help. However, if a community isn’t willing to do the work she knows is necessary to be successful, she’s honest and straightforward and doesn’t waste her time and resources trying to convince them to organize because there are others who would benefit more from her time.
This mindset, that especially when it comes to the environment, time is valuable and should not be wasted, is my biggest takeaway from the summer. It’s what makes CHEJ so effective, because if a bureaucracy is trying to waste Lois’s time, she won’t just sit down and take it, she’ll think of a creative, out of the box solution to get what she wants. More often than not, her solutions work: she’s helped countless communities across the United States to get out of toxic situations.
While Lois and CHEJ’s story is unique, the lessons I’ve learned here have given me a new understanding of how to make things happen in the environmental world. I’ve learned that community action is a powerful tool, but that it’s only going to work if the people involved genuinely want to do the work necessary to see success. If they don’t, don’t waste time trying to convince them of something: move onto a different solution.
I’ve found these lessons immensely comforting as we round the corner into our action deadline for the climate. Yes, it’s an uphill battle, and yes, we need to make revolutionary change to our lifestyles, and no it’s probably not something that can be achieved in a mere decade.
However, we also can’t be afraid to think outside of the box and think of new approaches to the environmental challenges we face, and we can’t be afraid to stray from a conventional approach to change. If people aren’t hearing us, maybe we shouldn’t just yell louder, but we should change the way the message is being delivered.