“E.P.A. Plans to Close All Environmental Justice Offices” (NYT):
An internal memo directs the closure of offices designed to ease the heavy pollution faced by poor and minority communities.
Mr. Zeldin’s move effectively ends three decades of work at the E.P.A. to try to ease the pollution that burdens poor and minority communities, which are frequently located near highways, power plants, industrial plants and other polluting facilities. Studies have shown that people who live in those communities have higher rates of asthma, heart disease and other health problems, compared with the national average.
Last month, Mr. Zeldin placed 168 employees who work on environmental justice on leave, but this week a federal judge forced him to rehire dozens of them after finding that the action had no legal basis. Several E.P.A. employees said they were bracing for many of those people to again be eliminated, as the agency and others prepared for widespread reductions in force.
As president, Mr. Biden emphasized the need to address the unequal burden that people of color carry from exposure to environmental hazards. He created the White House Office of Environmental Justice and directed federal agencies to deliver 40 percent of the benefits of environmental programs to marginalized communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution. The E.P.A.’s Office of Environmental Justice, which was created by the Clinton administration, significantly expanded under Mr. Biden.
The Trump administration has now erased all of that.
The EPA spends $11 billion every year. Apparently, roughly 40 percent of that has been going to government-identified “marginalized communities” (there are experts assigned to determine which communities have been marginalized?). There are hundreds of EPA employees, at least, working on “environmental justice”. Yet the New York Times journalist couldn’t find any evidence to cite regarding Americans of color (e.g., a lavishly paid Chinese-American school superintendent in the Boston exurbs who claims to be “a person of color”) experiencing any benefit as a consequence of this huge effort.
Is there any evidence that Americans are experiencing more environmental justice as a result of 10+ years of government effort in this direction? If one aspect of the environment is not being crowded, I would think that urban Americans have experienced less environmental now that low-skill migrants have been dumped into their neighborhoods (never into the neighborhoods of the elite advocates for open borders).
Who woulda thunk da pauvre am liviling in der cr4ppy neighborhood. and if they be leavin, we bring in some somalimolians ans subsidicey the rent twice ovah. Dats ways itza still duh Pieces of Crap bein suffered to liove in das creappy ‘murican slums ‘muricans cant afford. Damn lazy ‘muricans.
first post!
We have an overwhelming number of federal and state government agencies. Once one is established, they become nearly impossible to dissolve — often, the only way to eliminate them is through renaming.
Regarding the judge who mandated the rehiring of those who were let go, why don’t judges intervene in the same way when public companies lay off employees? Why do they have authority over federal and state workers but not public company employees?
I’m also puzzled by the judge’s order to rehire the laid-off employees ordered by Trump. When Reagan fired air traffic controllers [1], no judge intervened. Likewise, when Clinton downsized the government [2], there was no judicial interference either. So why are judges stepping in now?
[1] https://millercenter.org/reagan-vs-air-traffic-controllers
[2] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-buyout-program-for-federal-employees
Is there any evidence that Americans are experiencing more environmental justice as a result of 10+ years of government effort in this direction? No.
Toucan, don’t you have rental properties in Santa Monica? Have you not lived or visited there long? I used to work and live in the area and the Santa Monica mountains are an almost constant and ever present gauge of air quality. If the mountains appear green(rare), the air is clear, the more beige they appear, the worse the air. It’s a pretty remarkable contrast.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp/com/cip/wilmington-carson-west-long-beach
Here’s one area that’s ripe for improvement. I don’t know if there are data yet to show an improvement, but it seems they are monitoring the air quality, which is how we’d know if their efforts are working, unlike the Trump(covid), and republican(guns) administrations who’s strategy is to not study or count things and therefore pronounce no problems! It sits downwind of the adjacent ports of LA and Long Beach plus a confluence of freeways, industrial zoning(refineries, manufacturing, etc.), ship and trucking exhaust from the largest combined shipping port operations in the US by a factor of about 3. If you really want to know the answer to your question, it’s probably a good place to start. I know that the port truckers have been bitching about the burden of ever stricter emissions regulations for at least a decade now, and they’re also working to reduce emissions from ships at port, which you might imagine come from “more free” countries whom don’t burden themselves about such things as bad air quality(our largest shipping trading partner, China for example). This area is not too far from the Robinson helicopter factory, but I’m guessing none of the companies executives live there, preferring instead to live in Palos Verdes, which enjoys elevated ocean views and breezes absent the industrial haze.
For some additional perspective to those who are skeptical of California’s air quality endeavors, or the ability of a few cars or ships to pollute in a practical way, I lived in LA in the 70’s-80’s and the smog is very significantly improved today, despite a 2x increase in vehicle registrations today compared to then. As for shipping operations, one can observes the smog in the port of Vancouver, a comparatively small city/port, to understand how the emissions from just a few tiny ships is actually very significant when observed from a good vantage point(in the hills above the port) with your own eyes.
I’ve lived all over the US and can appreciate how most of the country never experiences bad air quality in places where it doesn’t accumulate or you just can’t see it, and therefore can’t appreciate it, but it’s a very real thing you can see with your eyes and feel burning in your lungs(LA in the 70’s-80’s). You can still experience it today in many places such as China, Mexico and India if you’re the type who can’t believe until you’ve seen it.
Senorp, how does this relate to the topic of this post? Do you imply that port of Vancouver was on purpose built in the area where people of color live and now that Trump is going to add Canada as 51st state “Biden” administration’s “environmental “justice”” initiative retroactively positively impacted people of color living in Vancouver?
? I live in Vancouver. We haven’t had any smog here in decades. All due to the easiest problem to solve – vehicle emissions.
Perplexed – Vancouver is an example of shipping emissions causing smog that is easily observed, for the Americans who discount the existence of(and need to address) smog because they’ve never experienced it. Indeed, many shipping ports are located in lower income areas, which are disproportionately populated by people of color, such as the specific area in LA that I provided a link for. That’s how it relates to the post.
Randall – I most certainly observed the shipping pollution settle into the bay adjacent Vancouver with my own eyes, circa a decade ago, late summer time frame. Perhaps I was witness to a rare event and set of conditions, but it was very striking and memorable to me as a Los Angeles resident familiar with pollution, but who did not expect to see it in the more vast and pristine area of Vancouver. You could literally see it originating from the exhaust stacks of the ships at port. I hope it’s improved since then.
Senorp, nobody builds ports in low income areas. Real estate around ports and large factories is cheaper, and it is either farming land or anther business district or gets populated by lower income families and singles who can afford it better. Everyone on limited budgets makes tradeoffs. Having “environmental justice” bureaucrats who, as Philip noticed, have done nothing except appropriating taxpayer funds (this is America, unlike Stalin they can not order people to leave or provide services for free although they tried with failed Faucism), is stealing and adds to existing and creates new misallocations and resulting inequalities.
perplexed – and who gets to decide the degree of socialization of risk and privatization of profits? At the very least, for your magical “free market” panacea to be rational, we would need to measure and inform folks who are “choosing” to live in polluted areas, what the level of pollution and health risk is, yes? That way, they’re at least making informed, “free,” decisions and not “being forced” to live in cheaper areas which are polluted by industry–who are the ones actually in a position to understand(and hide/withhold) what pollutants they are dumping into the local environments/neighborhoods to benefit their shareholders. Sure, some factories aren’t purposely built in poor areas, and the housing evolves around them, but who’s to say what the level of pollution is, or that it won’t increase significantly over time? Don’t free markets rely on transparency and good faith? Are individuals now required to have multiple Phd’s and millions in lab equipment suitable to analyze the air and water, etc. wherever they might live, or choose to live? Isn’t your free market application to pollution and housing a bit irrational in terms of the massive David v. Goliath imbalance in terms of responsibility and resources? Especially given the long history of bad faith demonstrated by industry with respect to pollution and environmental damage. In many cases, the extent of the bad faith and damage done takes decades to come to light due to profit motivated obfuscation or the convenient, often leveraged, lack of sufficient data and science, by which time, the socialized risk is monumental and irreversible and there can, conveniently, be no prescribed “free-market” remedy. In other words, do a bunch of pollution and profit taking while claiming ignorance, and then shut it down only when and if the science(funded by whom in your free market world?) reveals the harm decades later.
Senorp, how governmental bureaucracy helps in this matter? There is no single private owner of everything, and you can decide between opinions of different stakeholders. Governmental bureaucracy has terrible track record of fixing anything, countries where government owns or controls industries are the ones with highest pollution. Nobody controls government bureaucracy. Even if assume they actually were going to do something good and not just get a lifetime sinecure with no competition, their desire will be gone in few years of office politics and associating themselves with their new bureaucratic entity which interests are take precedence above all and are detached from what is actually happening in real life. You are ranting against possible oligopolies, and want to replace them with single monopoly?
perplexed – The pollution in Los Angeles is drastically improved today compared to the 70’s. Private industry was never going to do that on its own. CA led the way in mandating and regulating vehicle emissions. How about leaded gas, were the oil companies going to do that on their own? Asbestos? How’d that private industry, Boeing self-regulation work out for the 347 people who died in 737-max crashes before being grounded by the FAA?
Senorp, US has had big government since late 1910th. US government was bigger under FDR in 1930th then now. LA smog an big government coexisted for better part of 20th century. What changed since 1970th is technology, under public demand. Leaded fuel used to be more expensive then unleaded fuel now. Government still making it more expensive and more dangerous for environment,by mandating ethanol mix-ins. This makes engines more vulnerable and require more frequent car replacements. It also costs more fuel to produce ethanol from crops, and raises crop prices. By the way, not in CA, but in other states leaded fuel remains legal, but it is virtually impossible to find as nobody wants to buy it. And CA fuel is twice as expensive as in other states. Boeing – bad example. It is an oligopoly, really a monopolist in civilian jet production, selected by US government as procurement survivor for US military after USSR collapse and protected from market forces by US government that sells Boeing jets around the world, which caused Being civilian engineering collapse and restructuring int component assembly for plane manufacturing. Hope that military part of it is still OK, as it is selected to produce our next air-domination fighter. It does not matter what FAA did or said after the fact – nobody sane would fly or buy affected jets after the issue came out.
@Senorpablo, you are right — government regulations have forced big corporations to provide us with cleaner air, water, and safer skies. But when will government regulations hold Big Government accountable for not delivering better education (we rank among the lowest compared to other countries), for over spending (every government project runs massively over budget and takes far longer than expected, if it ever gets completed), and better welfare programs (which often turn into lifetime handouts with no strings attached or accountability)?
You trust the government to improve our lives and hold millionaires and billionaires accountable, yet you overlook its repeated failures and actions — no matter how long they persist or how controversial they are, even when half the country disagrees. Why the double standard?