On October 22, we and millions of Americans watched the final presidential debate, taking in each candidate's plan for oft-discussed issues like health care, the economy, and foreign policy. Toward the end, the moderator posed a question that caught us and many others off guard: She asked the candidates how they would address the disproportionate and harmful impacts of the oil and chemical industries on people of color.
President Trump largely ignored the question. But former Vice President Joe Biden addressed it head on, sharing his own experience growing up near Delaware oil refineries and calling for restrictions on "fenceline emissions" — the pollution levels observed at the boundary of a facility's property, which too often abuts a residential neighborhood.
Many environmental justice advocates celebrated Biden's response, including Mustafa Santiago Ali, the former assistant administrator for environmental justice at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who characterized Biden's response as "historic and transformational, because it puts an even bigger spotlight on the issue — the challenges and impacts, but also the opportunities." Ali is now being considered to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Less than three weeks later, Biden was elected president of the United States, making it possible for him to turn his campaign promises into action. Biden's Plan to Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economic Opportunity declares that environmental justice is core to his climate plan.
He pledges to:
Biden's plans to transition to clean energy and tackle the climate emergency reiterate his commitment to environmental justice.
These proposals reflect priorities championed by environmental justice leaders and included in the Environmental Justice for All Act, introduced this summer by Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Tammy Duckworth (Ill.).
However, some advocates remain skeptical about whether Biden will deliver.
The administration is inheriting a "gutted and booby-trapped" EPA after Trump's full-on attack on scientific integrity and regulatory safeguards over the last four years. Under Trump, the EPA rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations and delayed action on many others.
The agency limited the number of federal infrastructure projects subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); delayed and weakened the Obama-era Chemical Disaster Rule, which requires industrial plants to notify local communities of dangerous chemicals being stored onsite; proposed the misleadingly titled "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" rule, which will effectively knock the best science out of EPA's regulatory decision-making process; and more. The administration also proposed a 71 percent cut in funding for EPA's environmental justice office in its 2021 budget.
The incoming administration will face an uphill battle in its effort to undo the ill effects of Trump's assault — let alone establish stronger regulations and create new environmental justice bodies.
One encouraging aspect of Biden's plan is its inclusion of "cumulative impacts" — a term long championed by environmental justice advocates. Cumulative impacts analysis recognizes that the whole of environmental and social stressors is greater than the sum of their parts.
One common approach for assessing cumulative impacts is through environmental justice screening tools. EPA's current "EJSCREEN" tool maps 11 separate environmental indicators with demographic data, but it does not account for the cumulative impacts of pollution. Biden wants to add critical climate indicators to his proposed Climate and Economic Justice Screening tool, as well as more accurately quantify synergistic effects and use the tool to identify "disadvantaged" or "overburdened" communities.
It is critical that Biden deliver on his commitment to consult affected communities in this process. Heavily polluted neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland, and Newark, New Jersey, may have similar demographic and economic makeups, but community members may have different perspectives about being defined as "disadvantaged."
Furthermore, criteria that applies to one community may not apply to another, and the quality of data varies by state, making it difficult to compare communities across regions. For example, New Jersey policymakers worked with environmental justice advocates to define the phrase "overburdened community" when drafting a recent environmental justice bill. The definition was determined with community input and based on the demographic makeup of the state and target locales. New York is engaged in a similar community-led consultation process to identify "disadvantaged communities" under its landmark Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The Biden administration would also be wise to look to leaders in California who developed CalEnviroScreen, a screening tool developed with environmental and public health indicators relevant to the state and with input from affected communities.
Genuine community involvement across a wide swath of environmental decision-making is critical if Biden is to deliver on his commitment to promote environmental justice.
Statutes such as NEPA; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund); and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) already require some degree of community involvement.
During the Trump years (and too often before that), those requirements were honored largely in the breach. Communities were notified about decisions that had been made elsewhere, without their input and often prioritizing the needs of others. So-called community engagement happened in name only — in locations and formats that were not accessible to many in affected communities.
Changing these practices to achieve real and meaningful community involvement at the earliest stages of environmental decisionmaking — when the problems are defined, and the alternatives are identified — would indeed be a major step forward. By ensuring that community voices and aspirations help shape the contours of environmental decisions, Biden could make environmental justice a real element of regulatory decisions.
Doing so would ensure better decision-making overall because it would draw attention to the distribution of costs and benefits across communities, not merely to their magnitude. Involving frontline communities in a meaningful way will increase the likelihood of fair treatment.
Moreover, many overburdened communities have their own visions of what environmental justice means for them. Making sure they can claim their seat at the table will mean that their aspirations for their waterfronts, renewable energy generation, and integrating job creation into sustainability efforts are part of the national conversation about how to respond to the grave challenges we face.
Whether Biden is able to secure environmental justice while restoring the nation's devastated administrative infrastructure remains to be seen. What is clear is that environmental justice advocates are a force to be reckoned with, and Biden's plan is a huge milestone on a long road to undo a legacy of environmental injustice.
Showing 2,819 results
Darya Minovi, Rebecca Bratspies | December 9, 2020
On October 22, millions of Americans watched the final presidential debate, taking in each candidate's plan for oft-discussed issues like health care, the economy, and foreign policy. Toward the end, the moderator asked the candidates how they would address the disproportionate and harmful impacts of the oil and chemical industries on people of color. President Trump largely ignored the question. But former Vice President Joe Biden addressed it head on, sharing his own experience growing up near oil refineries and calling for restrictions on "fenceline emissions" -- the pollution levels observed at the boundary of a facility's property, which too often abuts a residential neighborhood. Less than three weeks later, Biden was elected president of the United States, making it possible for him to turn his campaign promises into action.
Laurie Ristino | December 8, 2020
At long last, we’ve reached “safe harbor” day, when states must resolve election-related disputes. Under federal law, Congress must count votes from states that meet today’s deadline. Donald Trump is essentially out of time to steal a second term; our democracy, it appears, will survive, at least for now. The last four years have been an urgent call to action to reclaim our democracy, to fix it, to reimagine it. The good news is we can use the tools of democracy to do so. The Center for Progressive Reform is launching Policy for a Just America, a major new initiative to repair and reimagine government. We’re developing a series of policy recommendations and other resources to advance justice and equity and create a sustainable future. We’re also using advocacy and media engagement tools to inform the public about the urgent need for reform and how to achieve it across all levels of government.
William Funk | December 7, 2020
Everyone who has studied what agencies in fact have done have concluded that agencies have largely failed in complying with varying retrospective review requirements. What is to be done? The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a proposed answer: absent a retrospective review within a designated period, sunset the regulation.
Daniel Farber | November 20, 2020
It's clear that EPA has a central role to play in climate policy, but EPA does not stand alone. Other agencies also have important roles to play. Fortunately, the Biden transition team seems to have come to this realization.
Amy Sinden, James Goodwin | November 18, 2020
After taking their oaths of office in January, newly minted President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris will face a number of daunting challenges: the ongoing pandemic and economic downturn; structural racial and ethnic injustice; widening economic inequality; inadequate access to affordable health care; and climate change. And Congress, facing the prospect of divided control, is unlikely to respond with robust legislative solutions that the American people expect and deserve. The good news is that Biden and Harris will be able to meet these challenges head on by revitalizing governance and making effective use of the federal regulatory system. Better still, they can do so in a way that delivers justice and equity for all Americans.
David Flores | November 4, 2020
With the climate and COVID crises at the fore, state and local environmental regulation and decision-making in has taken on greater weight in Virginia. As CPR Policy Analyst Katlyn Schmitt points out in a new paper, there is still some low-hanging fruit to be picked before Virginians can be equitably served by and participate in the Commonwealth’s environmental decision-making process.
Laurie Ristino | November 4, 2020
CPR is committed to meaningful public participation in all of America’s democratic institutions. We believe such participation is essential for ensuring more just and effective policies, but also for imbuing those policies with legitimacy and public confidence. Public participation is critical to empowering all Americans to have their say in our centuries-long project of forming a more perfect union.
Matthew Freeman | October 30, 2020
After 17 years with CPR, media consultant Matt Freeman signs off.
James Goodwin | October 29, 2020
This week, I’m posting a new web article documenting the arbitrariness and subjectivity that cost-benefit analysis injects into regulatory decision-making, the latest installment in CPR’s Beyond 12866 initiative. Specifically, the piece explains how cost-benefit analysis deploys a wide variety of methodological techniques that can be clumsy, unscientific, ethically dubious, and, too often, downright absurd.