Category: Homepage

“To each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” 

– Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion

You’ve just had your first meeting. Turnout was very good, spirit was high, and it looks as if your organization has a good plan. Naturally, your opposition will now just roll over and die, right?

Wrong! Isaac Newton’s law is only partly correct when applied to organizing: The opposition’s reaction can be overwhelming and unpredictable. When you develop both long-term strategies and short-term tactics for your group, you must try to calculate how the other side will react. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to being “blind-sided.”

Remember this general point: the men and women who represent government or industry and on whom you are pressing your case have probably thought about action/reaction too. In fact, if you are dealing with, for example, a company’s “Community Relations” representative, you can bet that they have received extensive training studying your psychology and your reactions. That individual’s job is to get the most for the company while giving in as little as possible to you. They often think they’ve seen it all; after all, they’ve probably done similar things in other communities – and they really believe you are all probably just a bunch of hysterical amateurs. As long as you keep reminding yourselves of the “rep’s” attitude, you can turn this smugness to your advantage.

With that in mind, here are some typical “reactions” you’re likely to meet:

1. Raising side issues

You want to talk about ground contamination. They respond by complaining about government regulations. The best “side issues” for them to get into are things that you know and they know they have no control over. 

Your response: stay on point.

2. Agreeing to something easy

Typically, they will look to give you something easy, like a promise that “we’ll take that under consideration,” or set up a study or advisory committee to look into it, or a promise to give you some information.

Demand action or a definite, conditional promise (i.e. “We’ll do ‘X’ if you can get so-and-so to do ‘Y’”).

3. Divide and conquer

As you may already have discovered, any citizen who decides to challenge people in authority is labeled a “radical.” They may try to call you or your group “socialist,” “woke,” or whatever; they know that this causes splits in the group. 

Other “divide and conquer” tactics include offering one faction a concession to entice them to “sell out.” They may also set out several inadequate choices and tell you, “You decide who should get the benefit of the limited resources we have to deal with this problem,” or they may match two citizens’ groups against each other, saying that one community will get the dump and it’s “up to you to choose.” 

Watch out for attempts to split your group by pitting one neighborhood against another, one race against the other, or one income group against the other. The best way to avoid “divide and conquer” tactics is to discuss very openly in advance and to be united, while being aware of differences between individuals and groups.

4. Symbolic satisfaction

Public officials know how to smile, nod, and use body language and words to give the impression of agreement, when in reality they have no intention of conceding. People can then leave thinking they’ve accomplished something, until, in later discussion of the overall picture, they realize they got nothing. 

Get agreements in writing on the spot so that everyone knows exactly what has been accomplished.

5. No money

How many times have you heard, “Sorry we just don’t have the money to deal with your very worthy problem.” As Cesar Chavez said, “Don’t tell us what you can’t do; tell us what you can do.” 

To tackle this one, analyze the budget and prepare alternatives in advance.

6. There’s something wrong with you

In this category there are a hundred little put-downs and insults that they will use to try and shake your confidence, split the group, and justify turning you down. Some examples are:

• “You don’t have all the information we have” (and if you did, either you’d agree with us or, if you didn’t agree, you just didn’t understand it).
• “You’re unreasonable and therefore we can’t continue this discussion. Come back when you’ve calmed down” (which means, when you’re ready to give in).
• “You’re too emotional. How dare you raise your voice or have any feeling for the issue that brought you here” (targets don’t like to talk to people who have a genuine personal stake in the issue).
• “Who does your organization really represent?” (The routine slap in the face. “You’re nothing but a bunch of radical crazies”).

7. If we do this for you, we’ll have to do it for everybody

Maybe so but so what? In this case, ask who else has requested it or who else needs it.

8. I’m only one vote, or I can’t make this decision alone

This may be true, but again, so what? Here you can ask, “Then what will you do?” or “Who is your superior?”

9. We need more information

Sometimes this is a simple stall. Your opponent is most successful with this excuse when he or she not only gets you to believe it, but also gets you to go running around collecting more information. 

Things You Can Do To Deal With “Reaction”

Discuss action/reaction among leaders in particular and with the membership as a whole if possible.

Carefully plan any encounter (meeting, action, etc.) you have with officials from the other side. If you’re planning a general meeting, invite the guest to show up one hour after the meeting starts so that everyone in your group can be clear about what the organization wants. If the guest shows up early, (as they often do, deliberately) don’t let him/her in until the appointed time.

Role play and practice the meeting or negotiation. This can be especially effective if either someone in your group knows the guest or if this is not the first time you’ve met.

Have a clear list of what you want.

Post a list of the things you want on large paper so everyone can see.

Summarize what was accomplished at the end of the meeting.

There is a growing array of groups, agencies, and experts that offer their help to groups dealing with toxics and waste issues. Often this help is sincerely offered, gratefully received and truly helpful. Sometimes it’s not.

Too much help, or the wrong kind, can be toxic to grassroots groups. CHEJ believes almost any “helper” can really help IF your group is aware of its own needs, is clear about the helper’s agenda, and stays in control of the relationship between the “helper” and you, the “helpee.”

TYPES OF HELPERS

Helpers you are likely to find knocking at your door include:

• State, regional or national groups who say they identify with your cause and offer activities on your issues (protests, canvassing, news events).
• Potential allies who want to form coalitions with you.
• Lawyers who offer to represent you.
• Technical experts or labs who offer to sell or donate their services.
• Businesses wanting to market products or services related to your fight (e.g. water filter or bottled water dealers, vitamin sellers).
• Writers or film makers who think they can get your story sold to major media outlets.

ANY OF THESE PEOPLE COULD BE USEFUL IF…

• You have an overall plan for your group.
• What they offer fits into that plan.
• You ask the hard questions and insist on concrete, specific answers.
• You make a clear agreement with the helper.
• You follow a simple rule: MAKE SURE you come out of any relationship in better shape than when you went into it.

PRNCIPLES FOR RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LOCAL AND NATIONAL GROUPS

1.  Recognize the right and necessity of each participant to survive and grow.

2.  Acknowledge that it is possible to work together in ways which are based on mutual respect.

3.  For this to happen, local groups need to stand up for their rights and control their own fights.

4. National groups need to be honest about their needs and what they want from local groups.

5.  Since the basis of our Movement is people power, we need to keep our eyes on the prize…will this (whatever you’re considering working with another group on) bring more people into active participation?

6.  One important measure of national and other coalitional activities needs to be: WILL THIS BUILD LOCAL STRENGTH?

7.  Complaints and criticism are important and should be offered directly and with caring.

8.  Bad mouthing is toxic.

9.  To respect differences, we must first recognize them and then struggle around them but not paper them over.

QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT HELPERS

1.  Who approached whom first? Did you ask for help or did the helper offer?

2.  What is the helper’s agenda? What does the helper want from the deal?

3.  What do you have to gain from being helped? What will it cost? Will being associated with the helper be a plus or a minus? Will the benefits outweigh the costs? Does the “help” fit into your plan? Can you do without the help?

4.  Who controls the relationship?

5.  Where has the helper provided this sort of help before?

6.  Who’s paying for the help?

QUESTION # 1: WHO APPROACHED WHOM?

Did you ask for help, or did the helper solicit you? It’s common for a group that gets its first major media coverage to then be approached by other organizations, lawyers, technical experts, lab services, water filter dealers and radical political groups who offer to “help.” At Love Canal, Lois Gibbs had to contend with helpers who didn’t even bother to make an offer – they just parachuted in, did their thing and left her to mend the damage. It’s often better to let other groups or individuals make the first move. That way, you can control the relationship right from the start. Not everyone who comes to you unsolicited is bad – just remember, check out the helper before you accept the help.

QUESTION # 2: WHAT DOES THE HELPER GET OUT OF THIS? WHAT’S THE HELPER’S AGENDA?

Everyone has an agenda. Some helpers are sincerely altruistic. Others want to rip you off. Some are funded to provide the services they offer. Others want your money. Always ask helpers what they expect to gain. For instance, what does CHEJ want? We want to help you win locally and link you with other groups to build a movement for environmental justice. As you may know, we were founded as a result of Lois’s struggle at Love Canal and her determination to help local groups FIGHT BACK. For a long time, we did this without getting paid. Now, in addition to member support, we get funding from foundations that helps pay for our work and our salaries.

QUESTION # 3: WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO GAIN?

What exactly does the helper have to offer? How much will it cost? Will you benefit by being associated with the “helper”? Will the benefits outweigh the costs – for example, what if the helper is linked to another cause or institution that might embarrass you? How does the help fit into your plan? Can you do what you need to do, get what you need to get, without them?

QUESTION # 4: WHO CONTROLS THE RELATIONSHIP?

Here’s where we see a lot of problems: where the helper, in return for the help, starts to run the group. Examples: the lawyer who diverts the group’s energy from organizing to working on the case (from which the lawyer stands to make big bucks); the national organization that gets you working on their national issues, taking time and energy away from your local fight; the “helper” with little understanding of what your community is all about, who starts dictating strategy and tactics; or the helpers who play off one leader of the group against another, in order to manipulate the group into following their agenda.

QUESTION #5: WHERE HAS THE HELPER DONE THIS BEFORE?

What were the results?  Ask for references. To be doubly sure, you can check with us to see if we know folks who have worked with that helper. For example, there are lots of characters running around who claim they helped out at Love Canal or take credit for other big toxics fights. Some really did help. Some were no help at all. Some simply happened to show up one day. Others are simply lying. You’ll never know unless you check out their references.

QUESTION #6: IF THE HELP IS BEING OFFERED AT NO CASH COST TO YOU, HOW IS THE HELP BEING FUNDED?

This is a good question people ask us all the time. The answer is CHEJ is supported by you, our members, and mostly private foundations. We take no government money and no money from corporate polluters. Some groups fund their help by canvassing your community door-to-door. This could be a big help to your community group – or it could leave the community drained of money when you try to do your own fundraising. Other organizations get grants to support their help and may want to use your story to get more foundation support. There may not be anything wrong with that provided they tell a true story and aren’t in direct competition with your own fundraising plans. In addition to membership support that’s how CHEJ funds itself.

THERE IS – NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH

We all need a helping hand from time to time. Most of us were brought up on the old saying about not biting the hand that feeds you. But we’ve learned that while you’re taking the food from the one hand, you should watch to make sure the other hand isn’t picking your pocket.The principles for relationships between local and national groups were written by the late Tom Sampson, Oakland, CA.

For over four decades, the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) has empowered everyday people to fight toxic pollution and environmental injustice. Founded by Lois Gibbs after the Love Canal crisis, CHEJ has led countless grassroots victories to protect public health—especially that of children and low-income communities.

One of its most impactful efforts? The PVC-Free Campaign.

The Problem with PVC

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), often called “the poison plastic,” is found in everything from school supplies to shower curtains. It’s not just the plastic itself that’s dangerous—it’s the toxic additives like phthalates, lead, and cadmium, which can leach out and harm children’s health. Even worse, producing and disposing of PVC creates dioxins, among the most toxic substances known, disproportionately impacting communities near vinyl plants.

Realizing PVC’s widespread use and hidden danger, CHEJ launched a campaign to educate the public, push for safer products, and hold companies accountable.

Grassroots Power Starts in Schools

The campaign began with a focus on schools, where vinyl was found in backpacks, lunchboxes, and flooring. Mike Schade led the charge by developing CHEJ’s “Back-to-School Guide to PVC-Free School Supplies”, which helped thousands of parents choose safer products. School districts began phasing out PVC, sparking a wider consumer movement.

Thanks to this awareness, retailers started offering non-toxic alternatives. What began as a classroom safety initiative grew into a nationwide push for PVC-free living. Schools and PTAs began making purchasing changes. Parents swapped out vinyl products for safer alternatives. The campaign sparked consumer awareness and retailer demand for safer materials.

Creative Tactics, Real Wins

CHEJ’s strength has always been grassroots organizing with a creative twist. From giant inflatable ducks outside Target stores to educational rallies and shareholder pressure campaigns, the movement forced major retailers to listen.

These tactics paid off:

• Microsoft (2005): Eliminated PVC in packaging, removing over 360,000 pounds of it in just months.
• Wal-Mart (2005): Announced phaseout of PVC in packaging for store-brand products.
• Target (2007): Committed to remove PVC from baby products, lunchboxes, shower curtains, and packaging.
• Sears/Kmart (2007): Pledged a phase-out and began labeling PVC-free items.
• Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Permanente, Lego, Gerber, and Toyota also joined in.

By 2009, Congress banned key phthalates in children’s toys—cementing a cultural shift that CHEJ helped create.

Lasting Legacy

The PVC-Free campaign changed more than products—it changed minds. Parents, teachers, students, and activists now demand transparency in materials. Many learned how to organize, advocate, and win—skills they carry into other fights for clean air, safe water, and toxin-free homes.

Today, phrases like “PVC-free” and “phthalate-free” are common in marketing. Safer materials are the norm in many stores and classrooms. And most importantly, millions of children are safer thanks to CHEJ’s leadership.

A Blueprint for Future Victories

The campaign’s success proves that grassroots power works. By blending science, storytelling, and smart activism, CHEJ moved mountains—and major corporations. Their fight against the poison plastic stands as a template for future campaigns to make our world healthier and more just.

Sometime it’s good to reflect on how you got to where you are today. Here’s a short version of how CHEJ got to where we are today.

It all started in 1978, in Niagara Falls, New York. Lois Gibbs was struggling to raise a family, which included two children suffering from a number of rare illnesses. Soon she realized they weren’t the only ones suffering. Nearly every family in the Love Canal neighborhood was facing its own medical nightmare.

Lois discovered that her home, and those of her neighbors, sat amongst 20,000 tons of toxic chemicals. In response to this shocking news, Lois stepped up to lead her neighbors in the battle to protect their families from the hazardous waste in their backyards.

Lois and her neighbors developed strategies to educate and organize their community, assess the impact of the toxic waste on their health, and challenge corporate and government disposal policies. After a three-year fight, Lois’ leadership led to the relocation of 833 Love Canal households.

Through this experience, Lois realized that no local, state, or national organization existed to provide communities with the strategic advice, guidance, and technical assistance necessary to win such a batt le.

To ensure that no other community would have to face a toxic health threat alone, Lois founded the Citizen’s Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste (CCHW) on April 6, 1981. CCHW became known as the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) in 1997 and in January 2017, we joined People’s Action Institute (PA I), as one of their projects.

The core of CHEJ’s mission is, and always has been, to prevent harm to human health. This is achieved by providing technical and organizing support to individuals and communities facing toxic hazards.

Today, CHEJ continues to harness the power of grassroots organizing to help communities protect their health – as Lois did many years ago. On average, CHEJ receives hundreds of requests for assistance each year. Over the past 44 years, CHEJ’s work has touched over 15,000 individuals and groups.

At CHEJ, we believe that everyone has a right to a clean and healthy environment; and together, we can create one powerful voice in favor of protecting our health and the environment, and promoting economic justice.

Don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you are having trouble dealing a with an environmental health problem.

By Leila Waid.

Environmental restoration does not need to be complex. You don’t need to have a bioengineering or chemistry degree to be involved in or even understand this topic of environmental justice. In fact, simple solutions that can be scaled nationally or internationally are just as important because they provide a method that is easy to replicate and implement.

Justdiggit is an example of an organization utilizing a simple restoration technique to help transform thousands of acres of dry, degraded land into a biodiverse haven.

Justdiggit collaborates with local communities in Sub-Saharan African countries to dig bunds to help conserve rainwater and re-green the environment. The method used is simple. Farmers and local stakeholders dig half-circles – which have been branded as “Earth smiles” by the organization (because if you look at them from a bird’s eye view, they look like smiles) – to help capture water in areas where the land is no longer able to soak up the water on its own. Seeds are then added to the dug half-circles, and they are covered with tree branches to help deter animals from eating the seeds. From there, Mother Nature takes over. The newly transformed land is able to capture water, and magic happens. Greenery and biodiversity come back to previously inhospitable lands. Here is a video LINK to a video showcasing just how easy this process is from beginning to end.

Although the technique promoted by Justdiggit is easy to follow and replicate, it still requires considerable physical labor and time to set up. Thus, environmental sustainability programs such as this cannot succeed without buy-in from the community. A peer-reviewed article published in E3S Web of Conferences researched how Justdiggit utilized community involvement to ensure the program’s success. The organization hosted community events, known as the “Raindance Project,” which included dance and music festivities. These events had the effect of bringing the community together and provided Justdiggit with a venue to educate the public about the project and promote buy-in.

Along with the Raindance Project, the Justdiggit project also used a variety of community engagement tools to ensure the program’s success. For example, they hosted community workshops where community members could attend to ask questions, provide feedback, and strengthen collaborative decision-making. They also identified individuals who could act as ambassadors and champions of the program to help unify the communities and disseminate the program’s message. To ensure program success, Justdiggit also utilized the power of social media to help spread the message about its mission.

The effects of this environmental sustainability initiative are many-fold. Because the program partnered with the locals where the re-greening efforts were being undertaken, this approach helped the local economy because community members were hired for the implementation of the program and helped dig the “earth smiles.” Once the re-greening efforts were realized, the local communities were also able to enjoy new farming opportunities and a greater biodiversity.

Along with the economic benefits, re-greening also has climate change mitigation and adaptation benefits. Increased greenery has a cooling effect on the area, which is essential during an intense heatwave. The greenery also provides a new source of carbon uptake, which, in turn, helps slow climate change.

The program has been so successful that its effects can even be seen from space. The screenshot below, taken from a Planet.com article, showcases how much the landscape has changed in just over four years.

By Sharon Franklin.

Amnesty International issued a report in April 2025 which addressed economic and climate injustice and the inter-connectiveness of the growing impact of severe weather events. Additionally, according to another report by First Street. Climate, the Sixth “C” of Credit , it is expected to increase home foreclosures.  The report was released following the latest tornadoes that swept through Missouri and Kentucky, leaving at least 25 people dead and scores injured.  Uninsured damage from flooding, as well as the depreciation of home values and rising insurance premiums from increasingly destructive climate disasters is still being calculated.  These climate events could lead to as much as $1.2 billion in credit losses in 2025, and estimates that mortgages on about 19,000 properties could be repossessed or foreclosed due to climate risk.

Key Points of the Climate, the Sixth “C” of Credit Report:

• Climate Driven Credit Losses Could Cost Banks Billions.
• Insurance Industry Bearing and Shifting Burden.
• Flood Risk Highlights Systemic Fragility.
• Household Absorbing Increased Climate Risk.  
• Floods Are the Leading Driver of Foreclosure Among Perils.
• Wind and Wildfire Damages are Insured, but Rising Premiums Drive Indirect Foreclosure Risk.   
• Macroeconomic Conditions Compound Climate Pressures. 
• Historical Climate Impacts Have Resulted in Hidden Credit Losses. 
• Escalating Flood Risks and Climate Drive Macroeconomic Changes Drive Future Foreclosures. 

As many of Americans already know the insurance industry is gradually shifting the costs of climate disasters onto homeowners, causing the financial stability of borrowers and the performance of their mortgages to be increasingly at risk.  In the most severe cases, this escalating burden can ultimately lead to foreclosure.

Why It Matters?  Studies have concluded that global warming and extreme natural disasters has immediate consequences on housing when it comes to home insurance and rebuilding destroyed properties.

What To Know   If 2025 turn out to be a particularly natural disaster year. Lenders could lose up to $1.2 billion this year.  It is estimated that Florida, Louisiana, and California alone are projected to account for 53 percent of all climate-related mortgage losses in 2025.  The main culprit would likely be flooding, and according to the report, foreclosures spike 40 percent among damaged homes following flood events.  Dr. Jeremy Porter, Head of Climate Implications Research, First Street Foundation stated “Flooding leads to higher foreclosure rates because many properties are uninsured, especially those outside FEMA’s [the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s] Special Flood Hazard Areas”.

Resources for Blog:

• The 12th National Risk Assessment  Property Prices in Peril
  https://assets.riskfactor.com/media/The%2012th%20National%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf
• Disasters Will Escalate Foreclosures and Create Systemic Financial Risk in Mortgage Markets, Study Climate, the Sixth “C” of Credit  
  https://firststreet.org/research-library/climate-the-sixth-c-of-credit  and   https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/climate-risk-foreclosures-report-first-street/
• Economic and Climate Injustice in Amnesty International’s 2025 Annual Report
  https://unipd-centrodirittiumani.it/en/news/economic-and-climate-injustice-in-amnesty-internationals-2025-annual-report
• US Housing Market Warned of Mortgage Rate Hikes, Foreclosures
  https://www.newsweek.com/us-housing-market-warned-mortgage-rate-hikes-foreclosures-2074671
• Climate Disasters Are Raising The Risk Of US Home Repossessions, Warns Research Group
  https://www.ft.com/content/c1d1ee7f-f34a-490d-bbd6-95b895ffd33e
• Tornadoes, storms kill more than 30: See photos from Kentucky, Missouri, other states https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/05/17/tornadoes-st-louis-kentucky-indiana/83691932007/

By Juliet Porter.

In 2025, about half of the U.S. population, or 156.1 million Americans, were proven to reside in communities with unhealthy levels of air pollution, marking a significant increase from 2024 (EcoWatch). This warning came from the American Lung Association’s State of the Air report, emphasizing the growing urgency of addressing air quality in American communities (ALA). Although air pollution is often invisible and therefore often overlooked, its effects are very real, impacting physical health, environmental stability, and community well-being. In this blog, we’ll explore the disproportionate burden of air pollution, the power of community-led monitoring, and the importance of supporting grassroots environmental justice.

As you may imagine, air pollution doesn’t impact everyone equally. Through an environmental justice lens, it becomes clear that low-income communities and communities of color bear the brunt of pollution due to their proximity to industrial sites and a lack of adequate regulatory enforcement (ShunWaste). These communities are often overlooked, yet they face the highest health risks. Long-term exposure to polluted air is linked to serious conditions like lung cancer, asthma, cardiovascular disease, and even early death. Even short-term exposure can trigger harmful effects, including hospital visits due to respiratory flare-ups and worsening allergies.

One of the most powerful tools in the fight for environmental justice is community-led air quality monitoring. When residents lead monitoring efforts, they take control of the narrative, gathering data that empowers them to advocate for meaningful change. Alarmingly, over 50 million Americans live in areas without air quality monitoring infrastructure (EcoWatch), making grassroots efforts even more critical.

A leading example of community monitoring is the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), which recently launched the B.E.A.S.T.—the BREDL Environmental Air Sampling Trailer. This mobile unit is equipped with advanced air monitoring tools and travels across the Southeast to collect and share real-time pollution data. By putting scientific tools in the hands of the people, BREDL, funded by a grant from the EPA, is helping communities document local air quality and use that information to hold polluters accountable.

Despite the promise of community-led monitoring, there are significant barriers. In states like Louisiana, recent legislation, such as the Community Air Monitoring Reliability Act, has made it increasingly difficult for grassroots groups to monitor air quality, threatening them with fines and legal complications (AP News). At the federal level, proposed rollbacks to greenhouse gas regulations by the EPA could further erode national protections (Reuters). These developments are especially troubling in light of ongoing budget cuts to the EPA, which jeopardize not only enforcement but also the funding and support that make projects like BREDL’s B.E.A.S.T possible. Without robust federal support and environmental oversight, innovative community-led initiatives like the B.E.A.S.T., which empower residents with real-time data to hold polluters accountable, could become obsolete. This convergence of weakened policy, limited resources, and increasing pollution events paints a troubling picture for the future of environmental justice.

The Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) plays a vital role in advocating for and empowering community efforts. By providing resources, training, and organizing support, CHEJ helps local groups respond to pollution threats and resistance to anti-environmental policies. Moving forward, CHEJ will continue to amplify the voices of frontline communities and the  need for community-led action in addressing the harmful effects of breathing polluted air.

To ensure that every person in this country can breathe clean air, we must uplift community-led air quality monitoring and challenge policies that silence grassroots action. Environmental non-profits like CHEJ are uniquely positioned to bridge science, policy, and community engagement, paving the way for healthier, more just communities. Together, we can envision a future where clean air is not a privilege, but a guaranteed right.

The Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) has a long history of championing environmental health, from its roots in the Love Canal fight to national campaigns against toxic chemicals. From the beginning, CHEJ focused on everyday threats to children’s health – including dangerous cleaning chemicals in schools and toxic plastics in consumer products. For young people passionate about environmental justice, CHEJ’s story shows how community activism can spur big changes. Two signature initiatives – the Green Cleaning and PVC-Free campaigns – stand out for their hopeful victories in reducing pollution and protecting vulnerable communities.

Green Cleaning Campaign: Safer Schools for Healthy Kids

CHEJ’s Green Cleaning campaign set out to make schools healthier by replacing harsh chemical cleaners with non-toxic alternatives. This effort grew in the early 2000s alongside CHEJ’s Green Flag Schools Program, which began in 2002 as a framework for students to lead environmental improvements in their schools. Students and parents learned that “clean” doesn’t have to mean dousing classrooms in industrial chemicals. In fact, CHEJ emphasized that many conventional cleaners (with strong fragrances and antibacterial agents) can do more harm than good, contributing to asthma and other health problems. By working with schools and daycare centers across the country, CHEJ helped introduce green cleaning – using products designed to eliminate hazardous ingredients – so that classrooms could be kept sanitary without putting kids and staff at risk. As awareness grew, green cleaning products became widely available and even cost-saving for schools, debunking the myth that safer cleaners are ineffective or expensive.

The Green Cleaning campaign achieved several inspiring victories. CHEJ provided resources and training to help school districts switch to certified green products, improving indoor air quality for students. Some forward-thinking states and cities adopted policies to require safer cleaning in schools – for example, in 2005 New York City passed an “environmentally preferable purchasing” law with CHEJ’s support, setting standards for energy efficiency and green cleaning products in all city agencies. This law also mandated phasing out certain toxic materials and was hailed as a huge victory for children’s health. By proving that schools can clean effectively without toxic chemicals, the campaign reduced countless daily exposures for children. It also empowered custodial workers (often in disadvantaged communities) with safer working conditions. CHEJ even took the fight to corporate giants: in 2009, activists with CHEJ’s “Disney Go Green” campaign rallied at Walt Disney’s shareholder meeting to urge the company to adopt a comprehensive green cleaning policy. Under public pressure, Disney did begin introducing greener cleaning practices, showing that even the “Magic Kingdom” could clean up its act for the sake of kids, families, and employees ecochildsplay.com. The Green Cleaning campaign not only made schools less toxic but also demonstrated the power of grassroots advocacy – from PTA groups to student Green Teams – in driving institutions to protect health.

PVC-Free Campaign: Tackling “The Poison Plastic”

Around the same time, CHEJ launched its PVC-Free campaign to eliminate another hidden danger in schools and homes: polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC), dubbed the “poison plastic.” In the early 2000s, CHEJ identified PVC – commonly found in school supplies like binders, lunchboxes, and art materials – as a significant health risk for children. PVC contains toxic additives (like phthalates and lead) that can leach out and cause cancers or hormone disruption. Mike Schade of CHEJ led a nationwide PVC-Free Schools initiative to raise awareness among parents, teachers, and school administrators about these dangers and to promote safer alternatives. Much like the green cleaning effort, this program combined education and advocacy to empower communities to take action. CHEJ offered free guides and tools – for instance, Back-to-School Guides to PVC-Free School Supplies – helping families and schools identify PVC items and replace them with PVC-free options. Students and parents were encouraged to ask questions: Where is PVC hiding in our school? Often the answers ranged from flooring and carpeting to playground equipment and even cleaning supplies. By shining a light on this “invisible” threat, the PVC-Free campaign motivated many communities to demand change.

The PVC-Free campaign scored remarkable victories that ripple far beyond individual schools. CHEJ helped build a large grassroots network of concerned parents, educators, and health advocates united in phasing out PVC. Through consumer pressure and corporate engagement, this network successfully pushed several major companies to reduce or eliminate PVC in their products. In fact, some of the world’s biggest corporations responded to the movement – companies like Wal-Mart, Nike, Apple, Microsoft, Target, Sears, and Kmart all adopted policies to phase out PVC, recognizing the hazards of its lifecycle. This represents a huge shift in the market, driven by people power and persistent campaigning. On the policy front, CHEJ and coalition partners convinced New York City to include PVC in its purchasing reforms: the city set a deadline to halt buying materials that create dioxin (one of the most toxic chemicals) when burned, effectively aiming to phase out PVC in city schools and agencies. This proactive stance – reducing PVC to prevent dioxin pollution – was a pioneering step that protected not only students but also fenceline communities near waste incinerators. Thanks to the PVC-Free campaign, today many students attend schools that have eliminated PVC materials, and parents are far more aware of toxic plastics in everyday products. The campaign even inspired individuals to make safer choices at home, proving that awareness can lead to healthier habits. Perhaps most importantly, this initiative showed marginalized communities that their voice matters: CHEJ’s work on PVC, like all its projects, focused on protecting vulnerable neighborhoods disproportionately burdened by pollution. By replacing “poison plastic” with safer materials, the PVC-Free campaign contributed to a broader environmental health movement that demands industry accountability and justice for all communities.

Empowerment and Environmental Health

Looking back at CHEJ’s Green Cleaning and PVC-Free campaigns, it’s clear that real progress is possible when people unite for change. These initiatives were historically significant in shifting how schools and corporations think about chemicals. Decades ago, few imagined that a school district would question its cleaning supplies or a retail giant would drop a type of plastic – but grassroots advocacy made the unthinkable a reality. Each victory, from a toxic-free classroom to a Fortune 500 company’s policy change, has helped protect children and other vulnerable groups from harm. Moreover, the campaigns have left a legacy of hope and empowerment. They trained a generation of young environmental leaders – from students who led Green Flag audits to parents who organized PVC-free school drives – demonstrating that anyone can have a voice in creating a healthier world. In the larger environmental health movement, CHEJ’s work has been a catalyst, proving that community-led efforts can influence policy and corporate practices on a national scale chej.org. For today’s young environmental justice advocates, the story of these campaigns is an inspiring reminder: when ordinary people band together to demand healthier products and practices, even the mightiest institutions will listen. The journey isn’t over, but the Green Cleaning and PVC-Free campaigns show that step by step, we are building a safer, more just environment for all. chej.org

Sources: The Center for Health, Environment & Justice archives and publications; Environmental Law Institute; EcoChild’s Play blog; New York City Council records; CHEJ Everyone’s Backyard newsletters.

By Leila Waid.

Without water, there is no life. It is a human right to have access to safe drinking water, free from harmful chemicals. However, not everyone gets access to the same safe drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA), signed into law in 1974, helped bridge some of the inequities around drinking water by setting standards regarding water quality.

However, many chemicals are not being enforced by SWDA. Environmental justice advocates worry that certain communities are being harmed more than others by these unregulated chemicals than others. A study published in the Environmental Health Perspectives quantified these socioeconomic disparities regarding four unregulated classes of chemicals: Dioxane, HCFC, 1,1-dichloroethane, and PFAS.

The researchers conducted a national and US-territories analysis to find whether specific communities were more impacted by these harmful chemicals than others. Alarmingly, of the 4,815 public water systems included in the study, dioxane was found in 22% of the samples, HCFC in 5.8%, 1,1-dichloroethane in 4.7%, and PFAS in 4%. The concentration of these chemicals was also not equal throughout the entire country or all populations. Instead, the study found that Hispanic residents were more likely to be exposed to these unregulated chemicals. Public water systems that didn’t have any of the unregulated contaminants had a 13% Hispanic population. Meanwhile, public water systems that did have unregulated contaminants had a 17% Hispanic population. The researchers estimate that “a 1 standard deviation increase in the percentage of Hispanic residents (15.5 percentage points) was associated with a 5 percentage point increase in the likelihood of target contaminant detection.”

The study also found that residents living in urban areas are more likely to have unregulated contaminants in their water, at 71% versus 56%. The study also included public water systems in U.S. territories and Tribal areas and found that they also had disproportionately higher levels of unregulated chemicals.

How will these unequal exposures impact the health of the communities exposed to this contaminated water?

PFAS has become one of the most studied chemicals in the literature due to its status as a forever chemical. New studies are being published rapidly about the health effects of PFAS. For example, researchers are currently studying how PFAS may disrupt circadian rhythms and impact sleep cycles. As for dioxane, the Environmental Protection Agency has classified this chemical as a “likely human carcinogen.” 1,1-DCA also poses health risks, as it can affect the function of the nervous system.

Water is a necessity for all life on earth. And no human being should ever have to worry that the water they are drinking contains harmful chemicals that are not even being regulated at the national level. Thus, we must constantly advocate for regulations that will fully protect our drinking water sources.

By Sharon Franklin.

As climate change drastically increases the frequency and severity of wildfires, utility companies say they’re facing growing risk for payouts that could bankrupt them or require massive rate hikes on customers.  Across the West, electrical utilities are pushing state lawmakers to grant them legal immunity or limit damage payouts if their equipment sparks a blaze.  State legislators in at least eight states over the past few years have passed legislation or have proposed legislation, that would require the utility companies to follow plans to limit their risks of causing a fire.  In exchange, lawmakers would give utilities protection from lawsuits that could expose them to billions of dollars in damage claims   

What Are Wildfire Victims Saying?  Wildfire victims say these bills don’t do enough to protect residents from dangerous electrical infrastructure issues.

What Are Energy Consumer Advocates Saying?  Michele Beck, Utah Office of Consumer Services, who advocates for Utah energy customers, says it’s difficult to protect electrical customers and wildfire victims at the same time. “The costs for ratepayers are substantial, and it’s reasonable to try and find a balance between these extremely high jury awards  “I admit, it’s a devastating loss for people who are impacted [by wildfires], but somebody is also paying on the other side.” 

In Oregon, consumer advocates are similarly torn.  Bob Jenks, Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board, stated “It is a difficult place to be, having utilities close to bankruptcy and unable to make investments that are necessary to provide service,” “At the same time, the principle that customers shouldn’t be bailing out utilities for bad practices is a critical standard.”

How Are Utility Companies Responding: Shawn Taylor, Wyoming Rural Electric Association, said “We’re only one wildfire away from bankruptcy,” “Even if we avoid bankruptcy, we’d have huge rate increases to cover the cost of a lawsuit.  He and other industry leaders argue that power companies should be granted relief if they take actions to limit their risk, becauseutilities are also facing soaring insurance premiums due to the increasing magnitude of claims they would face if they caused a fire.He cites examples to support their claim, stating that Pacific Gas and Electric Company declared bankruptcy in 2019 because of the $30 billion liability from a series of wildfires caused by its equipment, and Oregon, PacifiCorp is facing billions of dollars in damage claims due to its role in the state’s 2020 Labor Day fires. As reported by the Oregon Capitol Chronicle, PacifiCorp has been a key player backing immunity liability bills in five states.  

How Are Insurance Companies Responding:   Insurers are saying their own customers could pay the price if lawmakers protect utilities.  Greg Van Horssen, State Farm Insurance, testified before the Montana House Judiciary Committee in February, 2025, stating “If we have a problem with recovering costs for burnt-down houses in Montana, from an insurance company’s perspective, we only have one option, and that’s to raise the rate of homeowners’ insurance.” “When you push in one side of the balloon, it comes out somewhere else,”

Brandon Vick, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, a trade group noted that more and more residents in fire-prone areas are going without insurance coverage, leaving them with no recourse if they can’t seek damages from a utility. “Utilities are rightfully concerned that they’re gonna do something that causes a catastrophic wildfire.”  He went on to say “The question we’ve been posing is, who should be responsible when that ultimately happens? [These bills] are really pushing that liability onto the people who can least afford it.”

Resources for this Blog

https://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20250423-as-wildfires-intensify-utilities-want-liability-protections-but-then-who-pays

https://stateline.org/2025/04/22/as-wildfires-intensify-utilities-want-liability-protections-but-then-who-pays/wildfires intensify, utilities want liability protections. But then who pays? • Stateline

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/power-grid/outage-management/as-wildfires-intensify-utilities-want-liability-protections-but-then-who-pays/

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/03/31/pacificorp-involved-in-bills-in-oregon-western-states-limiting-utility-wildfire-liability-damages/

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/04/16/proposal-to-impose-penalties-on-private-utilities-delaying-wildfire-lawsuits-quietly-moves-forward/