[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”] 35th Avenue Site North Birmingham, Alabama Source: ATSDR North Birmingham Air Site Fact Sheet
By Kaley Beins
It has been well established that low wealth and minority communities are subject to greater risk of industrial pollution. The factories and manufacturing plants that pollute these neighborhoods drop the market value of homes, making them more affordable for lower income families. However, these families rarely have the money necessary to fight the legal and political battles with the plants over the ubiquitous industrial pollution that puts their community at risk. North Birmingham, a predominantly black community with a median household income that is over 50% lower than Alabama’s average, has been trying to address ongoing soil and air pollution from the surrounding factories for over 10 years.
[/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]Source: EPA TRI Chemical Release Fact Sheet North Birmingham, AL
Walter Coke, a subsidiary of Walter Energy that produces coke for furnaces and foundries, has a plant in North Birmingham that pollutes the surrounding neighborhood. Studies from the EPA and ATSDR have found high levels of arsenic, lead, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the soil and particulate matter in the air. Children are at risk from playing in their own backyards and studying in their schools, asthma patients may have heightened reactions, and the likelihood of cancer in the area is elevated.
EPA’s recommendation? Wash children’s hands when they come inside. Eat a balanced diet to dilute potential lead poisoning. Limit time outside if the air pollution seems problematic. Hope that you don’t get cancer.
Currently CHEJ Science Director Stephen Lester and Science Intern Neggin Assadi are reviewing the soil pollution data and studying the connection between the Walter Coke pollutants and the elevated toxin levels in the soil of neighborhood yards. The ATSDR is also reviewing soil samples from 2012 to 2015 for another study, while maintaining that both the air and soil quality have improved as a result of past clean up efforts.
But the residents of North Birmingham shouldn’t have to wait for yet another ATSDR study. As Mr. Chester Wallace, President of the North Birmingham Community Coalition puts it, “The air quality’s not good for the people in the neighborhood, and we hope that the polluters can find a way to right that.”
According to the Obama Administration, concerns over the environment are irrelevant to one’s diet. This comes as secretary Vilsack of the Department of Agriculture and secretary Burwell of Health and Human Services decide not to include a section regarding sustainability in the soon-to-be-released dietary guidelines, despite a recommendation from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) earlier this year.
The DGAC made the recommendation to include sustainable diets due to pressure from multiple environmental and public health groups and the realization that American diets have an enormous impact on environmental outcomes. According to the DGAC, sustainability must be addressed in order to ensure that future generations of Americans have access to healthy food.
The inclusion of sustainability into the dietary guidelines would have been a step in the right direction in linking the food on our tables to the health of the land, people, communities, and systems that produced it. The DGAC ultimately concluded that, “a diet higher in plant-based foods…and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current U.S. diet.”
The news that these sustainability recommendations will not be included in actual guidelines comes despite overwhelming support expressed in the almost 29,000 public comments on the DGAC’s report.
This is only a recent example of the federal government’s failure to create a more socially and environmentally just food system. As Michael Pollan discusses in his recent call for a National Food Policy, the federal government addresses the issues surrounding food and agriculture in a “piecemeal” fashion. “Diet-related chronic disease, food safety, marketing to children, labor conditions, wages for farm and food-chain workers, immigration, water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and support for farmers…are overseen by eight different federal agencies,” writes Pollan. The recent decision to excise sustainability from the dietary guidelines is the perfect example of this. It is hard to imagine creating sustainable food systems, if our dietary recommendations do not link the food we eat to issues such as climate change and the contamination of rural communities.
Is it really beyond the scope of U.S. dietary guidelines to mention that consuming great amounts of meat leads to greater greenhouse gas emissions than a plant-based diet, especially as the effects of climate change are increasingly realized? Is it also wrong to recommend purchasing foods that are produced locally, organically, and by farm workers paid a living wage, leading to not only healthier planet, but healthier communities as well. It appears that health of U.S. consumers and communities stand to benefit from better awareness of the implications of their dietary choices.
Today some parts of the U.S. celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day to honor the history and culture of indigenous people in the Americas, while recognizing and protesting the extreme violence that these people faced from Columbus and other Europeans. Yet simple recognition of past wrongs does little for the many Native American tribes, nations, and people who still face intense socioeconomic and health disparities. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Native Americans may face higher risks of obesity and that heart disease is the leading cause of death in Native Americans in the U.S. This has been attributed in part to the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the accompanying food rations of flour and lard. These rations led to fried food becoming “cultural foods” for many Native Americans, thereby institutionalizing poor nutrition and health problems. Additionally, many areas where Native Americans currently live are food deserts, or places where the population is low-income and has to travel more than 10 miles to a grocery store.
One such food desert includes Robeson and Hoke counties in rural Southeastern North Carolina. These counties are home to the Lumbee Tribe, the 55,000 descendants of the Cheraw Tribe that migrated from southern Virginia to the Carolinas in the early 1700s. Although recognized by North Carolina and the United States Congress as being “Indian,” the Lumbee are not officially federally recognized as a tribe and therefore are ineligible for any federal benefits. As they continue to fight for federal recognition, the Lumbee have worked among themselves and their own government to maintain their heritage and address problems within their communities. One problem they face is a lack of nutrition, which has caused high levels of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac problems among the Lumbee.
North Carolina’s most recent Health and Human Services budget allots $1.24 million of a federal Preventative Health Services Block Grant to the Physical Activity and Nutrition Program, yet it is unclear how effective such programs will be as almost 20% of North Carolinians do not have access to healthy foods and produce. As Mac Legerton, co-founder of the Center for Community Action in Lumberton (CAC), puts it, “Southeastern North Carolina is host to 4 counties of persistent poverty including Robeson and Hoke County and poverty is one of the major determinants of people’s health…While there are limited state and national resources, most communities are going to primarily have to rely on building sustainable economies from the ground up.” The CAC focuses on what it calls “the 5 E’s of sustainability: education, economy, environment, equity, and energy.” Part of their sustainability work includes “creat[/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][ing] a food system that focused on poverty reduction and alleviation and bas[ing] it on support for limited resource farmers.” In an effort to work with grassroots organizations and limited resource farmers, Mac works with Hoke County’s Hawkeye Indian Cultural Center (HICC).
The HICC works to “strengthen families, unite people through cultural enrichment and enhance the self-sufficiency of underserved and distressed communities, particularly among Native Americans in Hoke and surrounding counties.” I had the opportunity to speak with Gwen Locklear, cofounder and current Vice-Chairman of the HICC about her work, especially the HICC’s 2-acre organic farm and their Sustainable Lifeways Initiative . Gwen’s family has been connected to the HICC land for over 100 years; in the late 1800’s her grandparents were sharecroppers on what is now the organic farm. Recognizing the discrimination and racial tension in the schools as well as the other problems their community faced, Gwen and other leaders of the Hoke County Native American community created the nonprofit HICC in 1997 to “provide services to the local Indian people and manage services at the regional, state and national level.” As Gwen puts it, “Sometimes, when you go and advocate on a board it doesn’t change things, so we thought we’d do it ourselves and apply for our own funding.”
On their 2-acre organic farm, Hawkeye Indian Cultural Center grows seasonal produce, which they sell to locals and distribute to soup kitchens and food banks. Gwen explains this generosity in two ways: “We educate people on how to eat healthy; we want to lift them up out of health issues that their grandparents might have today,” and “We not only serve Native Americans; we serve all groups. We just want to do what we can…that’s what we’re about: helping others.”
In addition to their work supporting the low-income communities of Hoke County, one of the HICC’s most impactful programs specifically targets the Lumbee in all of Southeastern North Carolina. The Sustainable Lifeways Initiative uses the grant money from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families and Administration for Native Americans to address health issues, promote economic growth, and continue cultural education programs. Gwen explains, “We wanted to do some positive things in the communities for our kids; we wanted to develop a place of hope…our own place we can be in fellowship together.” The health portion of this project is about the health of the whole person. “Going back to where we came from was basically going back to the earth,” Gwen says.
As the North Carolina Legislature struggles to address issues of poverty, health, and nutrition, this small farm and cultural center in rural Hoke County works tirelessly to support its people. Gwen emphasizes the mission of the Sustainable Lifeways Initiative and the Hawkeye Community Center. It “teach[es] you to be a survivor and be sustainable in life itself. It includes education, and it includes you as a human being.”
For more information about Hawkeye Indian Cultural Center please click here.
The Center for Community Action in Lumberton is “one of the oldest multiracial social justice organizations in the entire South and has been engaged in environmental justice for over 30 years.” For more information about the Center for Community Action or about Mac’s new work regarding eco-ministry please contact him at mac_cca@bellsouth.net or at 910-736-5573.
Between long hours, low pay and hazardous working conditions, farmworkers – many of whom are from minority and low-income communities – bear incredible health costs in order to sustain our country’s food supply. Pesticide exposure is one of the main occupational hazards of farm work, with both short-term health effects that can lead to lost days of work and school and hefty medical bills, and increased long-term risks of cancer and neurological problems. The EPA states that agricultural workers report between 1800 and 3000 pesticide exposure limits annually. It has been 22 years since the EPA last updated their agricultural Worker Protection Standard, and so the recently enacted changes, which more stringently protect farmworker health, are a welcome development, but are they enough?
The changes increase the frequency of pesticide handling training from every five years to a more robust annual requirement, which will include information about take-home exposures from dirty clothing and boots. They also establish “buffer zones” to protect workers from over-exposure to fumes and sprays. The regulations also set an age limit of eighteen for the handling and mixing of pesticides. Previously, there were no restrictions on children’s exposure to pesticides. The Farmworker Association of Florida wrote that the protections “bring farmworkers more in parity with health and safety regulations already covering workers in most other professions in the United States.”
The regulations have been met with praise but also criticism from advocacy groups. While age limits and training requirements have been celebrated, many have commented that the new rules do not require workers to undergo routine medical monitoring for pesticide exposures, a protective measure that is required in both California and Washington.
Some advocates have also identified language barriers in communicating about the risks of pesticides, which typically have warning labels in English. “More than 80 percent of workers in the “salad bowls” of Salinas, Calif. or Yuma, Ariz., are Hispanic,” NPR reported in 2013. A further step for protecting worker safety would be to require making bilingual information available for pesticide products, which the recently updated regulations do not require. While advocacy group Farmworker Justice celebrated the regulations, Virginia Ruiz, the group’s director of occupational and environmental health, also stated in 2013 that “without bilingual labeling, today’s Spanish-speaking agricultural workforce is at great risk for pesticide exposure.”
Another pitfall of the regulations rests at the intersection of environmental justice and our nation’s debate over immigration reform. Paola Betchart of the Worker Justice Center of New York stated in an interview with North Country Public Radio that many farmworker illnesses go unreported because of the undocumented status of workers, who are fearful they will be deported if they seek medical attention. Justice for our nation’s farmworkers will require us to address much more than just pesticide exposure levels, but the new regulations are certainly a positive – and long-awaited – first step.
Learn more about farmworker exposures to pesticides here.
“Exposure to toxic environmental chemicals during pregnancy and breastfeeding is ubiquitous and is a threat to healthy human reproduction.”
That’s a pretty direct and bold statement. It is also a statement that outlines the stance of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) in a report recently published in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Suffice it to say it is not sugar coated.
Thereport, titled “International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics opinion on reproductive health impacts of exposure to toxic environmental chemicals”and authored by experts from the US, UK and Canada, makes a strong argument that prenatal exposures to toxic chemicals in the environment such as pesticides, plastics and metals are strongly related to health problems that develop throughout the lifespan of affected individuals. This means that problems like fertility issues, stillbirths, miscarriages, cancer, and attention problems are all strongly associated with exposure to unwanted chemicals during gestation and early child development.
This information is nothing new – the literature on the topic of cumulative chemical exposures during childhood development is comprehensive. But it is a new and powerful statement coming from an organization that is the leading global voice of reproductive health professionals in over 125 countries/territories.
Gian Carlo Di Renzo, leading author of the report, put it quite eloquently: “We are drowning our world in untested and unsafe chemicals and the price we are paying in terms of our reproductive health is of serious concern”. These chemicals account for tremendous losses. According to the report, ambient and household air pollution results in at least 7 million deaths a year, costs of pesticide poisoning in the Sub-Saharan region are estimated to be $66 billion, costs attributable to exposure to only a select few endocrine-disrupting chemicals was conservatively estimated to be on average €157 billion per year… the statistics go on an on.
FIGO takes a strong stance against toxic chemicals, offering health professionals four recommendations: “advocate for policies to prevent exposure to toxic environmental chemicals, work to ensure a healthy food system for all, make environmental health part of health care, and champion environmental justice.” These suggestions are in line with CHEJ’s mission and vision, and we congratulate FIGO for developing and actively pursuing this policy stance
As Hurricane Joaquin moves up the East Coast , governors have declared states of emergency. While meteorologists say the storm’s path is difficult to predict, many states fear infrastructural damage, especially as they continue to address the destruction from Hurricane Sandy three years later.
Hurricane Sandy caused $50 billion worth of economic damage in New York and New Jersey and damaged or completely destroyed at least 650,000 homes. However, as much damage as Sandy wreaked, its effects on low income and otherwise marginalized communities were even more severe.
In November 2012 New Jersey Governor and current Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie reported that the total damages in New Jersey added up to $36.8 billion. The state received $6.9 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assist in recovery. Yet a January 2014 report by the Fair Share Housing Center found that the funds were distributed in ways that discriminated against Latinos and African Americans. The report asserted that documents they accessed during their legal dispute with the New Jersey government show that claims filed by Latino and African American applicants were rejected at higher rates than claims filed by whites. Governor Christie has disputed this allegation, calling the Fair Share Housing center a “hack group” making “outrageously false” statements.
In addition to criticizing the rejection rates, organizations have also claimed the Christie administration has failed to allocate sufficient funds for renters and has unfairly prioritized counties without enough consideration of damages. The Fair Share Housing Center report found that Latinos and African Americans affected by Sandy were more likely to be renters than owners. Linda Steele, president of the Atlantic City NAACP, further highlighted the problem, explaining that renters were dependent on the property owners’ participation in order to get funds to rebuild. This means that if owners did not pursue claims, renters lost their homes. However, according to an analysis by New Jersey’s The Star-Ledger, $2 million, almost half of the money that had been allotted at that time, was distributed to landlords in Essex County. Lisa Ryan, a spokesperson for New Jersey’s Department of Community Affairs, stated, “Not only are we allocating considerable funds to rental housing, we are doing so at a greater ratio than the damage assessment indicates.”
This contention over inequity of fund allotment in combination with a lack of timeliness in governmental response prompted New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney to introduce a “Sandy Bill of Rights” in February 2014. It sought to address issues from governmental opacity to a lack of accurate information for Spanish-speakers filing claims. Although the bill passed 34-0 in the Senate and 72-0 in the Assembly, Christie offered a conditional veto of the bill in May 2014. Despite previous bi-partisan support for the bill, Republicans were loath to challenge the veto.
As of March 2015, FEMA has decided to reopen over 140,000 homeowner claims, and in April a FEMA and congressional task force met to address issues with the administration of Hurricane Sandy relief. As we approach the 3-year anniversary of Hurricane Sandy, we hope that FEMA and the congressional committee will maintain their focus on ensuring equitable distribution of funds.
Over the past few days Hurricane Joaquin has caused some of the worst flooding in South Carolina’s history. As the state begins to address the damage, they will hopefully look at the situation in New Jersey and work to eliminate aid disparities.
[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]Hurricane Joaquin flooding in Columbia, North Carolina photo credit: Sean Rayford for NY Daily News
Yucca Mountain in Nevada is a sacred, tribal mountain where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is trying to bury 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. While the mountain lies in the desert, 100 miles north of Las Vegas, it is covered in waterways that lead into streams and rivers used for tribal traditions and rituals that eventually lead to traditional American Indian springs in Death Valley.
So far Americans have spent over thirty years and $15 billion in tax dollars on determining whether a waste site at Yucca Mountain would be safe. Problems arose as the Department of Energy (DOE), the agency responsible for studies, learned more about how surface water on the mountain flowed downwards feeding other waterways. Titanium drip shields were engineered to help with the problem of corrosion. Those shields along with over 220 other technical challenges, is why many Nevada communities, scientists, and lawyers believe the license application should be disqualified.
This area of Nevada is no stranger to the threat of nuclear waste. The DOEs Nevada Test Site has been detonating nuclear (and non) bombs in Nevada for over sixty years. In 2006, plans were announced to conduct Divine Strake, a test of a bomb made with 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel. The government claimed that there would be no adverse health effects for the low-income, native communities that were nearby to the test site. Even though according to the agency’s director, the test would send a “mushroom cloud over Las Vegas”. Local tribes sued claiming that the test would “inject fallout-tainted dust into the air”. In 2007, the DOE cancelled the detonation. Once again, these communities are at risk to losing their health with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.
This August, the NRC released an environmental impact report saying that groundwater can be contaminated by small amounts of radioactive particles. They claim that the contamination is a “small fraction” of increase from normal background radiation. Richard Miller, who was an expert witness in the Divine Strake lawsuit, says, “The first thing they’re doing is trying to tie particulate exposure with background radiation. They’re apples and oranges, actually apples and toxic oranges. These can wind up inside you, and that’s a (cancer) risk increase”. The report claims there will only be “negligible increase” in health risks.
Surrounding the waterways fed by Yucca Mountain, are Native Tribes, most of which are low-income communities. The people of Newe Sogobia, say that the DOE cannot prove ownership of Yucca Mountain and that under established United States Treaties, the waste site should be disqualified because it is not owned Bureau of Land Management. The Tribe says the site will result in “destruction of their property, and impair their treaty reserved rights to use their land and life giving water. They believe that lifestyle differences, including “longstanding religious practices, tribal laws, customs, and traditions” make the Tribe more susceptible to increased exposure. The Native Tribes and communities that surround Yucca Mountain have already been exposed to enough risk from radioactive testing throughout the last 60 years. Completion of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Site will increase that exposure at the cost of people and the environment.
The EPA is making news lately. Unfortunately, it’s not for protecting the environment or victims of pollution. Activist groups, low income residents of communities plagued by toxins, and journalists are all taking the EPA to task because they charge that through inaction, it is aiding environmental racism.
In July, Earthjustice and five other groups sued the EPA for its failure to investigate civil rights complaints. These non-profits say that the EPA is letting states “off the hook” when they grant permits to companies that pollute in communities of color. “It is unacceptable that the racial composition of a community continues to be a critical factor in predicting exposure to toxic contamination,” Earthjustice attorney Marianne Engelman Lado said. “Justice has been delayed for too long. While EPA sits on these complaints, facilities continue to pollute and communities living in proximity to these facilities are deprived of their rights.”
In August, six other organizations filed an “intent to sue” against the EPA for failing to update its regulations on mining waste. (They are the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Responsible Drilling Alliance, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and West Virginia Surface Owners Rights Organization.)
The groups are calling on the EPA to update its mining waste disposal rules, which they say should have been revised more than a quarter century ago. The activists believe that an influx of mining wastes from fracking has greatly exacerbated environmental problems.
“These are not your mom and pop wells of the 1980s, and their waste can no longer be ignored and listed as being non-hazardous,” said Teresa Mills of CHEJ’s Ohio field office. “For the agency to keep calling millions of gallons/tons of hazardous material as non-toxic is mind-boggling. The free ride for the oil and gas industry must end now.”
Over the last few months the Center for Public Integrity has released an investigative series on the EPA’s record on civil rights complaints. The Center found that EPA officials rejected 95 percent of the hundreds of civil rights complaints it has received. Keep in mind this is the EPA office specifically charged with investigating complaints of discrimination filed against state and local agencies that get EPA funds and, when seeing evidence of injustice, making things right. It’s a shocking dereliction of duty. And it’s one that leaves low income communities of color, rural people and indigenous people–often the victim of the most egregious polluters–increasingly vulnerable.
In September, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Civil Rights announced that it will more aggressively evaluate recipients of EPA funding to ensure their compliance with federal civil-rights laws. A draft Strategic Plan was released recently. The five-year plan commits the agency for the first time to conduct targeted compliance reviews. The plan seems to be a response to the Center for Public Integrity’s investigative series.
What can ordinary people do to recall the Office of Civil Rights to its mission? The Center for Health, Environment and Justice is circulating an online petition targeting EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. More than one thousand people have already signed. It’s one way to express some outrage and insist that Black Lives that are downwind of pollution Matter.
On August 3rd , 2015, president Obama and the EPA announced the finalization of the Clean Power Plan, which sets a first ever national limit on carbon pollution emitted by the electric power sector. Before then, electric plants, which contribute 31 percent total carbon emissions in the U.S., had the freedom to emit as much pollution as they pleased. Not only does the plan aim to help the United States step down from being one of the largest contributors to climate change, it allows at risk communities to step up and interact with the state government to change polluted air conditions.
It’s not uncommon to hear of low-income minorities living in higher polluted conditions compared to more affluent white neighborhoods. It is a problem long known where a 20 yearlong study from 1987 to 2007 by the United Church of Christ found that 56 percent and 30 percent of people of color and low socioeconomic live in commercially hazardous host neighborhoods (i.e. where these facilities and neighborhoods are very close, overlapping one another within a 3 kilometer area) and non-host neighborhoods, respectively. To show how high the disparages are, a study published by the University of Minnesota found that nationally, minorities are on average exposed to 38 percent higher levels of NO2, a contributor to asthma and heart attacks, than white communities. With increased exposure to harmful chemicals chances of developing health problems, such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, and lung disease increases as well.
The Clean Power Plan has the potential to significantly reduce these harmful emissions across the nation and possibly give communities who are at most risk of facing air pollution the much needed attention they deserve. The CPP requires States to demonstrate how they involved communities in decisions while creating a plan to meet CO2 emission standards, which can make it easier for some people to provide input on what strategies may benefit or harm their neighborhoods. With the CPP in full effect, the plan claims asthma in children is expected to be slashed by as much as 70 percent or 90,000 less attacks, prevent 3,600 premature deaths, and eliminate CO2 emissions by 32 percent by 2030.
The CPP prioritizes early investment in energy efficient projects in low income communities. The plan hopes this will speed up the process in switching to greener energy sources, thereby cutting carbon emissions quicker. When states submit their plans, they are required to show how they are engaged with the vulnerable communities. States are given flexibility when choosing a plan; one such option would be to increase efficiency at power plants, generating more power with less pollution. Adopting natural gas generation over coal could be another route to cleaner air, where carbon emissions are as half as much versus coal. The cleanest choice, however, is increasing electricity that originated from greener sources such as wind or solar power, in which there are virtually no carbon emissions.
The Clean Power Plan was drafted with ideas and comments from 4 million people concerned about the air. The plan has the potential to progress further by incorporating involvement from communities nationwide and could provide Americans with clean energy and clean air for the future. To learn more about the exciting changes taking place, click on this link for a fact sheet published by the White House.
[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]Greenbelt Movement in Africa
I just spent the last three days in St. Louis, Missouri with the group, Just Moms STL to help them develop a plan to put pressure on the elected representatives with the power and ability to help move families away from a horrible situation and clean up the burning radioactive dumpsite. This Superfund site and emergency situation has been ignored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for decades. In brief the recent study done by the State Attorney General’s office said they community could experience in 3 to 6 months a Chernobyl like event exploding and releasing radioactive wastes throughout the area.
The leaders are women with children, jobs, homes to care for that are leading this fight. But then most of the groups CHEJ works with are led by women 80% at our last count. Yet there is so little recognition of the women in the environmental moment, a frustration that I’ve felt for decades. Yes, my friend and fellow Goldman Prize winner rightfully received recognition but she’s the exception and her work, which continues today is critical to addressing climate change.
Returning home from my work with Just Moms STL, checking my e-mails I came across the article that was written by Tracy Mann from Earth Island. It’s worth a read because it says everything I would have said. Strange it came when it did, fate maybe. Below is an excerpt but the entire article is worth the read.
“In fact, women organizing to protect natural resources and develop community resilience is not a new phenomenon. In the 1970s a group of peasant women in the India threw their arms around trees to prevent the destruction of forests in Northern India in an action that came to be known as the Chipko, or Treehugger Movement. Led by Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai, the Kenya-based Green Belt Movement mobilized rural women to plant trees to restore plundered forests, generate income and serve as an engine of empowerment. In the 1980s, American Lois Gibbs led the famous Love Canal protest in upstate New York to expose and rectify the toxic waste dump over which her town had been constructed. Her years-long struggle inspired her to organize women and people of color around the common interest of climate justice. Canada’s Tzeporah Berman has been on the frontlines of community-based movements against environmental threats since the 1990s when she was in the forefront of the Clayoquot Sound protests against the unconscionable clearcutting of temperate rainforest in Western Canada. More recently she has led acts of civil disobedience against the transnational pipeline and tar sands expansion.
The women mobilizing for September 29 may not yet be known as leaders or heroes, but the Global Women’s Climate Justice Day of Action is one more potent opportunity to tell their stories. It’s an opportunity for global women to join hands, just as my mother and sister and I did 45 years ago, and take their rightful place at the front of the parade, as essential catalysts to solutions to our greatest of all challenges.”
To read the full article click here: There Can Be No Meaningful Action on Climate Change Without Women[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
