Category: Homepage

By Gregory Kolen.

Environmental justice action has become increasingly visible in recent years as the effects of climate change and environmental degradation have taken center stage. As more attention is given to these issues, media coverage of environmental justice actions can play an important role in shaping public opinion and sentiment towards these causes. In this blog post, we’ll explore how media attention affects perceptions and sentiments surrounding environmental justice action, both positively and negatively. We’ll also discuss the implications for activists who are looking to raise awareness about their cause through media coverage.

First, it’s important to understand the power of media coverage when it comes to environmental justice. Media outlets have the power to spread information that can shape public opinion and generate attention for a particular cause. When news outlets report on environmental justice actions in an unbiased way, they can help create a more educated and informed public discourse. This is especially true when stories feature individuals affected by environmental degradation or injustice, as this helps bring human faces and stories to complex issues. On the other hand, if media coverage is biased or sensationalized, it can lead to negative perceptions about environmental justice activists and their causes.

Therefore, those who are looking to raise awareness about environmental justice through the media must be aware of how their message will be received by their audience. It is important to ensure that any media coverage of environmental justice action is accurate and portrays activists in a positive light. This can help create a more informed public discourse on the issue and make it easier for people to support the cause.

Finally, it’s important to remember that media coverage alone won’t be enough to bring about meaningful change when it comes to environmental justice issues. Activists must continue to use other strategies such as lobbying, grassroots organizing, and direct action to push for real-world policy changes. Media attention can certainly raise awareness about these causes, but ultimately it will take concerted political efforts from all levels of government in order to bring about true progress on these issues. Therefore, environmental justice activists must continue to use all the strategies at their disposal in order to bring about meaningful change.

In conclusion, media coverage can play an important role in shaping public opinion when it comes to environmental justice issues. It is therefore important for activists to be mindful of how their message will be received by their audience. At the same time, they should also not rely on media attention as a stand-alone strategy but rather use it alongside other tactics such as lobbying and direct action in order to achieve real-world progress. By doing so, they can help bring attention and support to causes that deserve both recognition and action.

By Gregory Kolen II.

When it comes to non-profit communications, visuals can go a long way in increasing engagement. Good visuals provide potential supporters with an easy way of understanding the importance and urgency of the cause they are being asked to support. It also helps them see how their contributions are making a difference.

The most effective visuals for non-profits include images or videos of the people directly impacted by environmental injustices, as well as pictures that show what progress has been made due to donations. Additionally, data visualizations are very helpful in displaying facts and statistics about the issue at hand. This helps people understand the scope and scale of the problem more clearly. When used together, these types of visuals can help create an emotional connection with potential supporters to demonstrate how their donation can help make a change.

Finally, it’s important for non-profits to be transparent with their visuals. It is essential that the visuals accurately portray what the organization is doing and why they need funding. This helps create trust between potential supporters and the organization, which will ultimately lead to more action and engagement.

Good visuals are an essential part of any action driven fundraising strategy, so make sure you take the time to find creative and impactful visuals for your organization!

References:

Environmental Justice Foundation. (2020). Visuals Matter: How Visuals Help In Non-Profit Fundraising. Retrieved from https://www.ejfoundation.org/visuals-matter-how-visuals-help-in-nonprofit-fundraising/

Mangione, T. (2018). 5 Reasons Why Images Are Essential For Non Profit Online Fundraising Campaigns. Retrieved from https://www.newzealandwebdesigner.com/images-essential-nonprofit-online-fundraising/

Sherwood, L. (2017). Visuals & Non Profit Fundraising: A Picture Tells a Thousand Words. Retrieved from https://www.everyaction.com/blog/visuals-nonprofit-fundraising/

Visual Storytelling for Nonprofits: The Power of Visual Content to Connect with Supporters and Raise Money. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.classy.org/blog/visual-storytelling-for-nonprofits/#1:_Know_Your_Audience_and_Choose_the_Right_Visuals.

Weil, S., & Philipp, E. (2015). Introduction to Data Visualization for Nonprofit Organizations. Retrieved from https://opentextbc

By Stephen Lester.

How many times have we heard the same refrain from government leaders and scientists involved in community wide exposures such as the recent train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. This incident resulted in vinyl chloride gas being intentionally burned which sent hydrogen chloride, the toxic gas, phosgene, and dioxins/furans into the air. Health officials later stated that “there’s no cause for alarm, we have everything under control.”

If only this were true. Instead, hundreds of people who were evacuated remain frustrated by the lack of answers to their questions about health effects and accountability. This frustration is driven by how government leaders and scientists evaluate health risks and by the many uncertainties about what is known about the short- and long-term health effects associated with exposure to vinyl chloride or other chemicals. Scientists can estimate risks and give their opinions, but we simply don’t know what’s going to happen to the health of the people who were exposed to vinyl chloride in the aftermath of this accident. Yet this is exactly what people want to know – what’s going to happen to their health or to the health of their children because of the accident?

Here’s what we do know. We know that vinyl chloride is a human carcinogen and that it damages the liver and central nervous system; over 1,500 people living within a 1-mile by 2-mile area of the accident were evacuated; that Norfolk Southern opted to release and burn the vinyl chloride from all five derailed tankers releasing deadly fumes into the air to prevent a potentially disastrous explosion (see photo); that the state acted swiftly in evacuating the homes immediately surrounding the site of the accident; that 38 of the 150 cars being pulled by the train derailed; about 20 rail cars were carrying hazardous materials including five with vinyl chloride; other chemicals included butyl acrylate, ethyl hexyl acrylate and ethylene glycol mono-butyl ether. We also know that several days after the accident, most people are back in their homes with assurances from the local authorities that everything is fine. 

This is not surprising because government has repeatedly responded the same way in similar situations. But what was the scientific basis for this decision? According to EPA, air samples taken immediately after the accident and the intentional burn did not identify any substances at concentrations of concern. However, it’s hard to have much confidence in this testing because the tests did not include vinyl chloride and dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals ever conceived and the primary by-product of the burning of vinyl chloride. You can’t find a problem if you don’t test for the obvious chemicals you would expect to find in the air.

It’s no surprise then that several residents have filed suit against Norfolk Southern seeking a medical monitoring program for anyone living within a 30-mile radius of the derailment to determine who was affected by the toxic chemicals released by the accident and the subsequent burning of the vinyl chloride gas. They want medical screening for early detection of life-threatening medical conditions linked to vinyl chloride. This is a reasonable response to the many scientific uncertainties that exist in understanding what will happen to the health of people exposed to toxic chemicals like vinyl chloride.

If government leaders and scientists involved in East Palestine acknowledge the scientific uncertainties and honestly admit how little is known about chemical exposures and health outcomes, there may be a more satisfying resolution. A resolution that might include practical steps forward may be setting up medical screening for early detection of medical conditions linked to vinyl chloride.

However, if decision makers continue to protect the companies responsible for area-wide chemical exposures such as what occurred in East Palestine, this scenario will continue to play out as it has since the days of Love Canal more than 40 years ago. Isn’t it time we publicly acknowledge what we don’t know about exposures to toxic chemicals and stop deluding ourselves that using risk estimates that define “acceptable” exposures is the best way to manage exposures to toxic chemicals? There is no acceptable exposure if you’re the one being exposed. 

By Jose Aguayo.

Artificial turf fields have become the norm when it comes to athletic fields. They are everywhere here in northern Virginia and a reported 11,000 fields are in use in the entire country. I, myself, was just playing in one this past weekend (despite the freezing cold). However, there are lingering questions about the safety of these fields given that several studies have found elevated levels of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and toxic metals like lead present in them.

As someone who enjoys playing soccer, these turf fields are extremely convenient because they are available year-round, they provide a smooth and reliable surface to play on, and they don’t require much maintenance. Yet I am conflicted about playing in them, not just because of the myriad of toxic substances found in them, but because of the conflicting information we get from supposedly trusted sources.

As far back as 2007, concerns were raised from contaminants in artificial turf – specifically lead in an artificial turf field in New Jersey. Then, the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) noted that the field posed a public health hazard and recommended that the field be closed. Not long after, however, the Consumer Protection and Safety Commission (CPSC) released an analysis of synthetic turf and concluded these fields are “OK to Install, OK to Play On” and that they are safe for young children.

Since then, there have been other studies that have found several different toxic substances in these turf fields. The problem is that there seem to be no standardized way of determining if the toxic chemicals in these fields are readily available to enter your system or if they are contained within the turf pellets and synthetic fibers. Research seems to point to wear and tear as the cause for some of these chemicals as it can likely migrate from the field to the users more easily, but it is not quite conclusive. The other problem is that there little to no research into the health effects of sustained exposure to artificial turf in humans.

In an attempt to clear the uncertainty around the health risks of artificial turf, a federal multiagency research plan was started in 2016. This research consists of two parts. Part 1 characterized the chemicals present in tire crumb rubber and was released in 2019. Unsurprisingly, it found several toxic chemicals present but suggested these chemicals have little to no routes of exposure to humans. Part 2 is still to be released and will fully explore possible human exposures to the chemicals found in the tire crumb rubber material. It will also include the results of a biomonitoring study being conducted by CDC/ATSDR to investigate potential exposure to constituents in tire crumb rubber.

After all this, at least until part 2 of the multiagency study is released, we are left with more questions than answers. Until then, I’d advise caution. It’s probably a good idea to choose natural grass fields whenever possible, like in the warmer months, and playing in artificial turf ones when there is no other alternative. A cautious approach is always best when dealing with toxics.

By Hunter Marion.

In 2015, a group of 21 young people ranging from 8-19 in age filed a lawsuit against the federal government for violating their rights to a safe climate as argued under the “public trust doctrine.” This collection of plaintiffs was represented by the environmental legal firm, Our Children’s Trust, and contained several activists from the youth-focused environmental group, Earth Guardians. Juliana v. the United States became a high-profile, youth-led, legal battle to correct the political mess that contributed to roughly 50-years’ worth of climate change (several of the young plaintiffs even cited it as directly damaging their ways of life).

Although promising, the case was kicked around the court system, eventually getting stuck in legal limbo with the U.S. Supreme Court currently debating on whether to accept it for oral argument. If accepted, this case (and others) could potentially lay the groundwork for novel legal actions to prosecute against entities that contributed to climate change. It could also lead to more thorough punishment of gas and oil companies, set precedent for other environmental lawsuits, and possibly guarantee a constant right to a clean and stable environment.

Some legal scholars have criticized that the points brought up in Juliana were too weak, had too many sources of damage, or could not be given proper resolution within the judicial context. However, many judges involved in reviewing the case pointed out considerable evidence to the contrary. Critics also protest that even if the U.S. Supreme Court were to accept the case, it would not have the power to enact these changes because it is not the rule-making body of government. But this criticism also falls flat when one recognizes that the U.S. Supreme Court has a record of judicial activism or “legislating from the bench” (creating or interpreting their own new laws or constitutional rights without the need for the legislature to create them first), see Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Roe v. Wade (1973), or Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). To put it bluntly, the courts can find the necessary points, damages, and resolutions if they want to.

The key takeaway from Juliana vs. United States is that for those seeking environmental justice, the courts are not a guaranteed pathway to restitution. Even if you or your group brings solid, compelling evidence or has a resounding reputation, that may not be enough to overcome the federal government’s reluctance to address its responsibility (or even culpability) in environmental degradation, climate driven or otherwise. While this approach creates another pressure point on those responsible for climate change, we at CHEJ would put more faith in a grassroots-based, multi-government level-focused strategy that gives us a seat at the table rather than relying upon a team of lawyers and government officials to do it for us.

If you would like to learn more about the case, you can watch the documentary Youth v. Gov now available on Netflix.

By Sharon Franklin.

Emily Beament published an article on January 16, 2023, on The Ecologist, a news and analysis website that focuses on environmental, social and economic justice, about a study by Stuart Jenkins. The University of Oxford researcher’s study was on why we need a polluter pays policy. Jenkins said the world dramatically needs to scale-up geological carbon storage and that making fossil fuel firms pay to clean up carbon could help curb climate change.

The study posits that requiring fossil fuel companies to pay for cleaning up their carbon emissions could help curb dangerous global warming at a relatively affordable cost. Its argument is centered around what is already happening in other industries, such as plastic packaging and electrical goods, and in the water sector. This approach holds producers responsible for the waste generated by the products they sell.

Can the World Afford this Approach to Make Polluters Pay?  

Jenkins’ study describes it as a “carbon takeback obligation” and it would help overcome the energy trilemma – the choice between energy security, affordability, and environmental sustainability. He also stated, “Unfortunately when governments are forced to choose, they often forgo that latter obligation” (e.g., environmental sustainability). According to his study, “A carbon takeback obligation provides a simple and predictable regulation ensuring the fossil fuel industry cleans up after its activities and products without government subsidies.” To opponents to this approach who might ask, “But at what cost?” Jenkin’s response is, “It does add to the cost of fossil fuel production, and so it’s not an incentive to continue production by any means.” 

And What About Energy Demands? 

Dr. Hugh Helferty, a former employee at ExxonMobil North America, added to this argument: “It makes sense that the producer and consumer should pay rather than the taxpayer should pay, and that puts the drive to reduce costs in the right place.” He later issued a warning that “a lot of the reaction to current very high fossil fuel prices has been to increase supply not to reduce demand.”

So, What’s Next?  

Professor Myles Allen, from the University of Oxford, also stated that “ending fossil fuel use was going to be hard. We need to start a conversation about how we redirect this colossal amount of money that is currently simply being injected into what we call fossil fuel rents to addressing the climate problem.” Professor Allen went on to state that implementing the obligation could reduce and ultimately prevent further global warming from fossil fuels at an affordable cost.  

This is relative to conventional solutions, because the world spent ~$13 trillion in energy costs last year, mostly on fossil fuels and with a substantial fraction going into “rents” or profits, taxes and royalties.  By 2050, the global economy is expected to double, and the net costs would be less than half of last year’s energy costs as a proportion of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP).