Skip to content

Request for Proposals: NJEJA Strategic Plan

The New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA) is seeking a consultant to guide the organization’s Executive Committee, Steering Committee, General Body, partners and staff through the development of a 3-year strategic plan.

Request for Proposals

Strategic Planning Consulting Services

* Scope of Work:

The New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA) is seeking a consultant to guide the organization’s Executive Committee, Steering Committee, General Body, partners and staff through the development of a 3-year strategic plan.

* Background:

The New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA) is an alliance of 33 NewJersey-based organizations and individuals committed to working together to createhealthy, sustainable and just communities by eliminating environmental injustices in low income and communities of color. With a statewide reach, NJEJA supports and works with communities through local, state, and national policy development, targeted campaigns and organizing, education, advocacy, training and technical assistance focused on critical environmental justice issues. The organization is socially and geographicallydiverse, an important asset that permits acknowledgement of unique perspectives.

* Contract Schedule and Duration:

* RFP Issued: 10/23/14 by 12 a.m. EST

* Questions Due: 11/05/14 by 5 p.m. EST

* Questions and Responses Posted: 11/14/14 by 5 p.m. EST

* Proposals Due: 11/24/14 by 5 p.m. EST

* Proposals Evaluated: 12/05/14 by 5 p.m. EST

* Interviews: 12/10/14

* Consultant Selected: 12/15/14 by 5 p.m. EST

* Contract Awarded: 12/19/14 by 5 p.m. EST

* Strategic Planning Begins: 01/05/15

* Strategic Plan Due: 09/14/15 by 5 p.m. EST

* Budget: The fixed price contract will be paid upon NJEJA acceptance of each deliverable.

* Proposal Submission:

Proposals should be emailed to director@
njeja.org

Acknowledgement of proposal submission will be given within 1 business day. NJEJA may request bidding consultants to appear for an interview. Related expenses associated with the proposal submission or consultant selection are the responsibility of the bidder.

Proposal Format

* Background:

Provide a brief profile of the bidding organization and it’s experience providingsimilar services. Include the contact information for no more than 3 references for those services. Links to illustrative examples of work would be helpful.

Make special note of experience aligned with NJEJA’s mission, decision-making by consensus, planning and facilitation of stakeholder meetings, key stakeholder interviews, web surveys, and other experience the bidder deems relevant.

* Executive Summary:

Provide a brief summary of the proposal.

* WorkPlan:

Describe the services provided and a timeline, including the participation of NJEJA, partners, and community.

* Staffing Plan:

Identify the project manager and any individuals or sub consultants who will work on this project, including their respective roles. Submit a resume for each person identified.

* Budget:

For each task identify the expected hours of work, the hourly rates for each teammember working on the task, the task cost, and total project cost.

* Selection Process:

NJEJA reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to reissue the RFP, and to waive any technicality or irregularity in the proposals received. The final decision rests with NJEJA.

* Final Deliverables:

Deliverables include, but shall not be limited to, a 3-year Strategic Plan that is aligned with the organization’s mission. Areas of consideration are as follows.

Areas of Consideration

* Goals, Objectives, and Tasks

* Community Needs

* Services Provided

* Priorities

* Outputs and Outcomes

* Partnerships

* Campaigns

* Training

* Funding

* For Further Information Contact: director@njeja.org

Please note that no questions will be accepted or answered verbally. All questions and answers will be posted to the NJEJA website by 11/14/14 by 5 p.m. EST.

* Additional Information:

NJEJA reserves the right to modify or cancel the RFP or contract award at any time before the execution of the contract.

‘Environmental Racism’ And The Fight For Green Space In The South Bronx

ThinkProgress, Oct. 9, 2014

BY ARI PHILLIPS

SOUTH BRONX, NEW YORK — An undeveloped area couched between a waste transfer station and a FedEx shipping facility with the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge passing overhead is just about as wild of a place as exists in New York City. It’s the site Mychal Johnson, an environmental activist in the South Bronx, wants to turn into a waterfront park. There are other designs on the space, however, namely the new headquarters for FreshDirect, an online grocery delivery service, which would bring a massive warehouse and over 1,000 diesel trucks, plus a fueling station, to the site.

“When you have a space like this that’s undeveloped, don’t put a 500,000-square-foot warehouse on it,” said Johnson, a founding member of South Bronx Unite (SBU), a local environmental justice group, as he looked out over a wind-strewn parcel of land along the South Bronx waterfront in New York City in late September.

Johnson, 50, spends most of his time fighting this proposal. A real estate agent and former South Bronx Community Board member, he founded SBU over two years ago when FreshDirect initially announced it would relocate. In September, he was one of 37 civil delegates — only four of whom were from the U.S. — to attend the United Nations Climate Change summit for his work in environmental justice. Members of SBU were featured prominently at the front of last month’s historic climate march through Midtown Manhattan.

The crime and the drugs; this is not the South Bronx of the past.

“The crime and the drugs; this is not the South Bronx of the past,” said Johnson, his frosty gray goatee bobbing as he talked. “A lot has changed and improved for residents since those hard times. Now why do we have to wait for those higher income earners to get here before we create something that can really benefit the community.”

Johnson was referring to other recent urban renewal projects in New York City that feature green space, such as the High Line Park in Lower West Side, Manhattan or the Brooklyn Bridge Park. These parks are a valuable asset to the communities they inhabit. They entice businesses, improve quality of life for residents, and offer tangible environmental benefits, including storm surge buffers in the case of another Sandy-like storm.

The South Bronx waterfront, which borders Randall’s Island, is lined, in part, with a 5000-ton-per-day waste transfer station, a power plant, and the New York Post and Wall Street Journal printing and distribution centers. Because of its industrial past, the area already has some of the highest asthma rates in the country, and rates of death from asthma are approximately three times the national average. It also suffers from elevated obesity rates and is an acknowledged food desert.

At the same time, the South Bronx has gone through two rezonings in the last 20 years to reform the area from being strictly industrial to more residential, mixed-income, and mixed-use. There is only one real park in the vicinity, according to Johnson, St. Mary’s, and several supposed parks that are all covered in asphalt. There is no shortage of basketball hoops; they simply blend into the dense urban landscape with little of the relief one expects from a recreational space.

So they want to move 1,000 diesel trucks to an area already suffering a health crisis?

“So they want to move 1,000 diesel trucks to an area already suffering a health crisis?” said Johnson. “Where else would that be OK? There’s some environmental racism going on here.”

As of 2010, the South Bronx represented the poorest congressional district in the country, according to a Center For American Progress breakdown, with 256,544, or 38 percent, of its residents living below the poverty line. Since then it has been redistricted and is now part of New York’s 15th Congressional District. The median household income for the district is $25,801according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The median household income for the nearby 12th District, which stitches together the east side of Manhattan with parts of Brooklyn and Queens, has a median income of $91,628. It includes the current Long Island City-headquarters of FreshDirect.

Even as the relocation process pushes forward, with New York offering FreshDirect $140 million in subsidies to stay in the state rather than move to New Jersey, Johnson remains positive that his grassroots actions are making a difference.

“They called it a done deal in February of 2012, but they haven’t put a shovel in the ground yet,” he said. Johnson said that he thinks it’s always possible to win when people come together and fight for something that’s not only affecting their lives but also their neighbor’s lives. He viewed his role at the U.N. Climate Summit as one illustrating a microcosm of how local issues, mostly in communities of lower economic status and of color, add up to create the global climate crisis.

“I feel that the issue of environmental justice is the local effect of what grows into climate justice and global warming,” he said.

While South Bronx Unite is opposing to the FreshDirect relocation, the group is proposing a plan that creates something the community doesn’t have: waterfront access and space. The Mott Haven-Port Morris Waterfront Plan calls for a green ribbon of seven sites that would open up green space while also mitigating storm surges that threaten the community. Johnson worries that another major storm could cause a local electricity substation to fail and leave vulnerable people without power in many of the area’s large public housing edifices. The waterfront exists in flood zones 1 and 2 according to FEMA maps, and flooded substantially during SuperStorm Sandy. Johnson said the proposal is being considered by the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation as a priority project.

FreshDirect is leasing a 28-acre parcel of the nearly 100-acre South Bronx waterfront industrial site owned by the New York State Department of Transportation. The company did not perform a new Environmental Impact Statement for this site, instead basing their traffic projections and pollution numbers on a 1993 study done for a previously proposed rail-to-truck offloading station.

“They based their Environmental Impact Statement on 21-year-old data,” said Johnson. “This community changes every year, and rezoning has taken place twice since then. This wasn’t taken into account with the EIS.”

Johnson also said that Particulate Matter 2.5, or fine particulate matter, which can cause premature death and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system, wasn’t part of the EIS. These particles can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles react in the air, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA established PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the first time in 1997, four years after the EIS was performed. According to the EPA, diesel trucks emit 0.202 grams-per-mile of PM 2.5, compared to 0.044 grams-per-mile for standard gasoline vehicles.

Williamsburg Is An Example Of What Not To Do

In a cautionary tale of how rezoning and redevelopment can work against the environmental justice issues of a community, look across the East River to Williamsburg in Brooklyn, said Eddie Bautista, Executive Director of NYC Environmental Justice Alliance (NYCEJA). While he said South Bronx Unite is waging the good fight, NYCEJA believes industrial waterfronts are a key component and necessary sector for the communities they work with. In Williamsburg, the Latino population dropped 20 percent in the decade leading up to 2010, from 60 to 40 percent, and that was during the recession years. Bautista attributed this change to rezoning that led to widespread gentrification and displacement in the name of real estate speculation.

“Home and property owners tend to be the ones that are most anti-manufacturing zoning,” said Bautista. “Williamsburg is an example of what not to do. If the interest is to improve local environmental quality, I presume you want to do that for the people that live there, not just clean-up for other people of higher income and resources.”

In the case of the South Bronx Waterfront, there are a number of competing concerns. NYCEJA supports smaller manufacturers mostly, like auto shops and metal fabricators. FreshDirect and FedEx are different. As far as the waste transfer station, Bautista said that his organization encourages the city to export waste using rail or marine export rather than trucks, as that’s more environmentally sound, “but that’s small comfort to those who live in and around that community.”

He also said that larger companies tend to be the ones that win tax subsidies and environmental concessions, as has clearly been the case with FreshDirect. While Bautista highlighted the benefit that relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs can bring to lower class communities, he does not want this to be interpreted as being soft on pollution prevention or other environmental justice issues.

We champion mixed-use waterfronts — with manufacturing, open space, and residential — and as a society we need to make sure they are all compatible.

“Part of the problem is that people still cleave to the dated paradigm of pitting environmental justice against economic development,” he said. “I wholeheartedly refute that paradigm. We need to protect the environment and we also need a place where people can work. We champion mixed-use waterfronts — with manufacturing, open space, and residential — and as a society we need to make sure they are all compatible.”

NYCEJA isn’t a part of the formal campaign against FreshDirect and didn’t speak directly to whether or not the relocation should be permitted.

Monxo Lopez, a cartographer with New York City and Geographic Information System teacher, said that many local business owners are unhappy with the FreshDirect project because it unfairly uses public money to give preference to outside companies. Lopez has worked with Johnson at SBU for over two years on a volunteer basis.

“FreshDirect is not obligated in any way to provide a single job to anyone in the Bronx, it’s all just promises,” said Lopez, who has lived in the South Bronx for a decade. “So we’d rather see local business owners being supported.”

Lopez’s greater concern about the relocation plan stems from climate change and how bigger storm surges will impact the waterfront property. He said climate change shouldn’t be a “byproduct of plans, but the first consideration,” and that plans must take into account “the geographic reality” of the area.

If Lopez had his way, the area would be covered with “light construction” that acts to protect the community from more flooding. “Rather than have water come all the way to the residential area, the landscape should be used in a way that employs recreational levees to somehow protect the area,” he said. Lopez said that SBU has helped bring the struggles of the local community to the forefront, and demonstrated that the health crisis the community faces is man-made.

“So there are human solutions to those problems,” he said. “And that starts with an accountable and responsible government.”

FreshDirect Rotten On Labor, But Still City-Approved

FreshDirect sees its move to the South Bronx as a job creating opportunity for a community in need, however, the company has a stained record when it comes to labor. The company has received multiple accusations of underpaying workers and has faced at least nine unfair labor claims with the city, state, and federal agencies. According to Welcome2theBronx, a Bronx-based blog, FreshDirect’s subsidy application revealed that these discrimination claims included “unfair labor practices and claims of discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, age, disability, religion, and gender.”

Earlier this year FreshDirect drivers filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the company is violating federal and state law by withholding more than $23 million in overtime wages and tips per year from drivers.

“A FreshDirect warehouse worker working full time for a year makes a touch under $20,000,” reported the New York Times in 2012 when FreshDirect first proposed the move. “Thanks to city, state, and Bronx subsidies, FreshDirect will be paid about $130,000 per job to create 1,000 more of these jobs.”

The deal was approved by the administration of former New York City major Michael Bloomberg. Current Mayor Bill de Blasio spoke out against the relocation during his campaign but has yet to address the issue.

“We have to take subsidies away from big companies like FreshDirect. Give them to small businesses in the forms of loans,” de Blasio said in September of last year. Johnson said his group is yet to hear back from de Blasio, even though they had over 400 South Bronx residents email or phone his office requesting a response.

“If you’re truly a progressive and you come from the grassroots, and most of your staff comes from grassroots and labor, then you should understand or at least give us respect for a call back,” said Johnson. “Let’s at least talk about what’s wrong with this community and what’s been going on for decades.”

De Blasio’s office did not respond for comment on this article, however, emails obtained by the New York Post this month found that FreshDirect’s direct lobbying efforts led the de Blasio administration to drop his campaign promise to end the firm’s city subsidies. The company’s decision to give unionized employees — about half of its workforce — a 20 percent raise over the next three years apparently led Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen to agree to stop pushing back against the project. Mayoral spokesman Wiley Norvell also said City Hall doesn’t have the leverage to stop the project.

FreshDirect declined to be interviewed for this article, but provided a written statement. Launched in 2002, FreshDirect now operates in five states. The company said that after 12 years in Queens, they need to relocate in order to continue to grow the business and better serve customers. They say the move will create about 1,000 new jobs, many of which will go to Bronx residents, and that working with Bronx-based vendors has yielded over $16 million for local businesses.

“The new facility is being designed to be an efficient and environmentally friendly operation,” said the company. Operations are currently divided into three locations, and consolidation in the Bronx will significantly reduce overall carbon footprint, according to the statement. Additionally, deliveries from the new site will make immediate use of the Bruckner expressway, allowing most of the vehicles to bypass the closest residential neighborhoods.

“We are committed to continuing to identify steps that we can take to minimize our impact on the environment — from food sourcing to packaging to our fleet,” wrote FreshDirect. “We chose this site in the Bronx because of its convenience for our nearly 2,500 employees, nearly 20 percent of whom live in the Bronx, as well as the excellent transportation access.”

FreshDirect has promised to have an all-electric trucking fleet within five years of moving to the Bronx, but that is also a non-binding gesture. After Superstorm Sandy, the company replaced many of its trucks with similar diesel versions, leaving community members skeptical.

On The Waterfront

Even with the backlash raised by SBU and other community groups, the new FreshDirect facility is still supported by many. A lawsuit seeking to halt the project was recently dismissed and the state’s economic development agency has voted to approve the project’s financing.

FreshDirect will be a good neighbor to the people of this borough.

“FreshDirect will be a good neighbor to the people of this borough, and we look forward to their relocation,” John DeSio, communications director for the Office of the Bronx Borough President, said. Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. is a longtime supporter of the relocation, and has openly disagreed with Johnson. In June 2013, Johnson accused Diaz of booting him from the borough’s Community Board 1 for his open disapproval of the deal.

With Johnson no longer on the board, Desio said that “it is worth noting that Bronx Community Board 1, where the project is located, overwhelmingly supports the project.”

DeSio said that with the relocation to the Bronx, Governor Andrew Cuomo and former Mayor Bloomberg saw an opportunity to utilize an “unused parcel of industrial land” to preserve 2,000 existing jobs in the city while creating 1,000 new jobs in the Bronx. He also said FreshDirect has already addressed many of the criticisms that were made when they announced their move through hiring initiatives for local residents, adding service to the entire borough, efforts to expand services to those who receive government assistance to buy food, and the new contract with unionized workers.

The borough has plans for housing, commercial space, and parks along sections of the Bronx waterfront — just not in the area around the Bronx Kill waterfront where FreshDirect is proposing to relocate. DeSio mentioned the Special Harlem River Waterfront District, a mile or so up the west side of the borough’s waterfront. In announcing the plan, Diaz said it would lead to development similar to the Brooklyn Bridge Park.

The proposed site of the FreshDirect facility is part of the Harlem River Yards, land that is owned by the New York State Department of Transportation, but leased for 99 years to Harlem River Yard Ventures (HRYV), part of the Galesi Group. The area is a key component of a long-term goal of bringing more railroad freight service to the area to reduce regional traffic congestion on all the bridges and highways. This intermodal freight transport has not yet occurred and FreshDirect’s relocation is another indicator that the realtor has other priorities.

Johnson is not the only one proposing a large project with such local emphasis. The South Bronx Greenway is part of a city-led initiative to create links between the waterfront and Bronx residents. This 2006 initiative includes the Randall’s Island Connector — a pedestrian and bike pathway leading from the South Bronx to the 400-plus acres of recreational facilities on nearby Randall’s Island. Launched in December 2013, the project is on track to be completed early next year according to the New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC).

“The Randall’s Island Connector will provide South Bronx residents and visitors with new opportunities on the waterfront and bring them closer to the many amenities offered on Randall’s Island,” said EDC spokesman Ian Fried in a statement earlier this summer.

The bridge is located several blocks from any subway stations in an area controlled by HRYV along the Bronx Krill waterway. After much consternation over whether HRYV would give up land in their lease for the bridge, they eventually agreed to an easement to allow for its construction.

“There’s no rebuild New York happening here,” said Johnson at the site of the proposed FreshDirect facility. The rush of overhead cars muffled his voice as he spoke. A few blocks away the smell of the waste transfer station wafted into the air.

“We have the largest maritime industrial area in the city. The other supposed working waterfronts have been de-zoned and they’ve started making waterfront parks out of them and increasing quality of life. You create jobs by creating green space because that’s where people go and recreate.”

© 2005-2014 Center for American Progress Action Fund

Research: Pollution Inequality Even Worse Than Income Inequality

Climate Change System Change

I spoke to Boyce about his research and the impact of environmental inequality on politics, education, economics, and the shape of our society.
Lynn Parramore: What does your recent work add to the growing body of research on inequality and pollution?
James K. Boyce: We’ve been working with these data for several years now in a collaborative research project with researchers with University of Michigan, the University of Southern California, and several other institutions, and we’ve done a variety of studies that look, in particular, at patterns of environmental injustice in the U.S. along the lines of disproportionate exposure of people of color and low-income communities.
What’s new is that we developed three different inequality measures and applied these both at the level of individual states and at the level of the 435 congressional districts in order to get a sense of how unequally exposure to industrial air toxins is distributed in these two political jurisdictions. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever done that.
In addition to looking the ratios of exposures of people of color versus whites and of people living below the federal poverty line versus the non-poor, we also developed an environmental version of the Gini coefficient, which basically ranks the population, in this case from the people with the cleanest air to the people with the dirtiest air, and measures how unequally air quality is distributed in the states and congressional districts. That was a new contribution.
LP: What stood out to you in the results?
JKB: One of the real take-home findings is that if you look at how unequally environmental quality is distributed in the U.S., it actually makes inequality of the distribution of income look relatively modest. I wasn’t entirely surprised to find that air quality is distributed even more unequally than income, but I was surprised at the magnitude of the difference. It’s really striking.
Another thing that became clear is that how you look at inequality can have rather dramatic results on which communities stand out as being the most unequal. I was a bit surprised that states and congressional districts that ranked highest in terms of disproportionate exposures of people of color, for example, did not necessarily rank highest in terms of the scale of disparities between the most exposed and the least exposed communities.

So from a methodological standpoint, I think our paper makes an important contribution in two ways. One is in showing that it’s possible to measure inequality in the distribution of environmental quality, much as we measure inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. And the second methodological contribution is to show how different jurisdictions in the U.S. rank in terms of environmental inequality really depends on what specific measures of environmental inequality one is interested in.

If one is primarily interested in disparities in terms of race or ethnicity, then one can directly compare those measures that are relevant. If one is most interested in the extent of divergence between the most polluted and the least polluted communities or states, then a different measure is appropriate to use. Our study shows both that it’s possible to look at these things, and that in doing so we need to be sensitive to the measures we employ.
LP: Do patterns of inequality differ across the country? How can a person of color or a poor person avoid air pollution?
JKB: Avoiding industrial air pollution is difficult, particularly if you’re poor or a member of a racial or ethnic minority. That’s partly because of housing prices. It’s partly because of discrimination in housing and mortgage markets — the phenomenon of red-lining. And it’s also partly because of the tendency for firms to site polluting facilities in relatively low-income and relatively high-minority communities because they expect less political pushback.
Rather than thinking about trying to move somewhere else to escape this, which is an attempt to find an individual solution to the problem, what folks really need to do—and are doing—is to join together with other members of their communities and press the polluters and the regulators to reduce the exposures that result from the activities of industrial facilities near them.
That’s what the environmental justice movement in the U.S. has been trying to do since the 1980s when it really got going. The EJ movement still has much that needs to be done, but it has accomplished a great deal both in terms of raising awareness of disproportionate exposures of people of color and low-income people to environmental hazards, and by pressing policy makers in both the public sector and the private sector to take remedial action.
LP: Three states — Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania – account for 40 percent of congressional districts that appear in your top-10 rankings for inequality in industrial air pollution. What factors are impacting residents in those areas? (See a complete list of U.S. congressional districtsranked according to disparities in industrial air pollution exposure.)
JKB: Those states broadly, corresponding to the old industrial heartland of the country, are places where you both have relatively high levels of industrial air pollution and relatively high disparities between the exposure of minorities and that of whites. And so that makes them particularly problematic places to live in if you happen to be African American or Latino. It makes them areas in which environmental justice activism and enforcement activities should be high on the agenda of environmentalists, community activists, and public officials.
LP: Do you think your study will help activate politicians in those districts to address disparities?
JKB: I would hope so. In terms of the policy relevance of our work, the methods we developed help to provide information about where pollution abatement efforts ought to be concentrated. What are the most important places where we should try to reduce community exposure to industrial air pollution? And insofar as new pollution sources are going to be constructed, where should they be built so as not to exacerbate the disparities that already plague so many communities?
LP: What are some of the most concerning economic effects of industrial air pollution on communities?
JKB: Air pollution has adverse effects on people’s health, and that means that they have to spend more on healthcare and they miss more days of work, either because they themselves are too ill to go to work or because their kids are sick and they have to stay home and take care of them. It also has adverse effects on property values, which vary with the levels of air pollution in the community.
On top of those outcome effects, it also impacts equality of opportunity, particularly for children. Because communities that are heavily burdened with air pollution tend to have higher incidence and greater severity of childhood asthma, the kids miss more days of school, and partly because they’re missing school and perhaps partly because of the neurological impacts of air pollution on their young and developing cognitive function, there is an adverse effect on school performance.
If you believe, as I think most Americans believe, that every kid deserves an equal chance, that equality of opportunity for children is dear to our society for reasons of both equity and efficiency, then the impacts of disproportionate pollution burdens on the children in some communities – the fact that the playing field is tilted against them through no fault of their own – is a troubling feature of our environmental landscape.
LP: You’ve noted that exposure contributes to student achievement gaps. Does this information challenge the assumption that the problems of education lie mostly with schools and teachers?
JKB: Of course it does. What it suggests is that the playing field is not level, and that not all teachers are teaching in the same environment. So even if teachers are equally qualified, and equally hard-working, educational outcomes will differ. A team of researchers led by Manuel Pastor of the University of Southern California looked at variations in school performance in the Los Angeles Unified School District. They controlled for the usual factors, such as parental income and education, class sizes, and teacher salaries, and found that when they plugged in data on variations on air quality, it had a significant adverse effect on school performance. What that implies is that even if one attended to every other educational problem, we’d still see disparities in educational outcomes as long as we have serious disparities in pollution exposure.
LP: How might we confront the environmental disparities you have highlighted?
JKB: Well, I think there are a variety of strategies for doing so. The first step is to measure and map the extent of disparities, so that we have a handle on what the problem really is. Once we’ve got that information, there are a variety of things that individuals and communities can do to try to improve the situation.
One is to press public officials to take steps to redress excessive pollution burdens. Executive Order 12898 issued by President Clinton in 1994, which remains in force, directs all federal agencies to take steps to identify and rectify disproportionate health and environmental impacts resulting from their activities, policies, and programs on minorities and low-income populations. That policy is already on the books at the federal level. Some states have EJ policies, too, and states that don’t have them, ought to have them. Communities can press officials to act on those mandates, both to prevent additional pollution and to reduce existing burdens.
Above and beyond that, communities can directly engage with, and when necessary confront, private sector actors that are creating the pollution.  Most firms are not insensitive to public opinion. In fact, firms may voluntarily take steps to clean up their act, if and when they realize that their communities are aware of what’s going on.
This is why the public’s right to know about environmental hazards is so important. An informed public can press both public officials and private firms to curtail pollution and to reduce environmental disparities.

Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Save 3,500 Lives Per Year: Report

Huffington Post, Sept. 30, 2014
By Kate Sheppard

WASHINGTON –- Save the planet, save lives?

A study released Tuesday says reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants in order to curb global warming also would improve health for Americans. That’s because reducing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide would lead to declines in other pollutants — saving up to 3,500 American lives per year, or an average of nine lives per day. The emissions cuts also would prevent up to 1,000 hospitalizations, according to the study.
The study, by researchers at Harvard, Syracuse and Boston universities, finds that the "co-benefits" of cutting carbon include reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and mercury, which have been linked to respiratory illness, heart attacks and early deaths.
"Addressing carbon pollution can address the other pollutants," Jonathan Buonocore, a professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health and co-author of the study, said in a call with reporters Tuesday.
The study looked at three scenarios for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. One would only require changes at power plants. The second would set a state-based standard and allow reductions to come from throughout the electricity sector. The third would require power plants to make changes up to a certain cost.
The researchers said the second scenario yielded the most co-benefits, reducing greenhouse gas emissions 35 percent from 2005 levels, while cutting sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions 27 percent, and nitrogen oxide emissions 22 percent. That scenario also was the most similar to the draft standard for reducing power plant emission that the Environmental Protection Agency released in June, which calls for a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The EPA’s own estimates of the benefits of its draft rules projected that they would prevent 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths.
The researchers stressed that the policy mechanisms used to reach the reductions were important. "It varies a great deal how you go about doing that," said Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard’s School of Public Health. "It’s not something that’s automatic. Certain policy options will produce a lot more co-benefits for the same tons of CO2."
The study found health benefits across the lower 48 states. Benefits were highest in places where more people are currently exposed to pollutants, and in the places with the worst air quality. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Virginia, Tennessee and Indiana would see the most avoided deaths, the researchers concluded.

TEN WARNINGS ABOUT POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NEW JERSEY

NJ Spotlight, Sept. 22, 2014

By Scott Gurian

According to these reports, now’s the time to act to prevent sea-level rise — and worse

Earlier this summer, the Christie administration took steps to formally withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multistate compact aimed at reducing carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade program. Gov. Chris Christie has previously called the initiative ineffective, “gimmicky” and “a failure,” and he’s said it amounts to nothing more than an unnecessary tax on utility customers. His efforts to withdraw were sharply criticized by environmental groups, who’ve filed a lawsuit forcing the state to go back and accept public comments before officially abandoning the program. Senate

Democrats have taken moves to block the state’s effort to withdraw.

Christie’s public statements on climate change have been mixed over the years. Back in 2010, he told a crowd he was skeptical that humans were responsible for global warming and that “more science” was needed to convince him. The following year, he acknowledged that “climate change is real,” that it was impacting New Jersey, and that “human activity plays a role in these changes."

But then, asked about the potential role of climate change following Sandy, the governor called it an “esoteric discussion,” claimed it’s above his pay grade, and attacked a questioner for being a member of what he called the liberal media.

Environmentalists have also pointed out that discussion of sea-level rise, climate change, and global warming are conspicuously absent from many official state documents pertaining to the Sandy recovery.

Among scientists, however, there’s little doubt about the risks New Jersey faces in the coming decade. From the “don’t say we didn’t warn you” department, here’s a list of 10 significant studies and research papers detailing some of those threats.

1. U.S. National Climate Assessment

Released last spring, this federal report warning about the future effects of climate change across the country includes a section focusing on the expected impacts on New Jersey and the northeastern part of the country. Among the specific concerns it highlights are the region’s aging infrastructure, which could be stressed by continuing severe weather and droughts. The report notes that heat waves in the state are expected to increase in frequency, intensity and duration. In addition, it says that sea level-rise along the coast is expected to exceed the global average due to local land subsidence.

2. Resilience. Preparing NJ for Climate Change: Policy Considerations from the NJ Climate Adaptation Alliance

This paper prepared by a group of policymakers, academics, NGOs, and business leaders from across the state identifies a number of vulnerabilities and issues nearly 50 recommendations for making the state more resilient to climate change in six key areas: agriculture, coastal communities, built infrastructure, natural resources, public health, and water resources. The report calls on New Jersey to incorporate consideration of future climate predictions into long-term planning, budgeting, and decision-making, and it recommends that the state once again pursue opportunities to participate in multistate initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (like RGGI).

3. New Jersey and the Surging Sea

Climate Central’s analysis finds that close to 300,000 New Jersey residents live less than five feet above the high-tide line, and are thus at particular risk of rising sea levels. What’s more, a quarter of these people live in just three zip codes in Atlantic City, Hoboken, and Wildwood.

The study notes that the annual chance of extreme coastal floods in Northern New Jersey has risen by 50 percent over the past hundred years and could reach historically unprecedented levels by the end of this century.

4. Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States

Much of the research for this report — whose cochairs include former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson — was led by Rutgers climate scientist Bob Kopp. Though it provides an assessment of the threats to the entire country, the section focusing on the Northeast does include some sobering predictions for New Jersey. By the year 2100, it says, the state could see dozens of days each year with temperatures soaring above 95 degrees. And those increasingly hot summers could have big impacts on electricity demand, mortality, and labor productivity

5. Assessing the Costs of Climate Change in New Jersey

Among the likely victims of climate change cited in this 2008 paper from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the University of Maryland’s Center for Integrative Environmental Research is New Jersey’s tourism industry, which will be affected by more severe storms, beach erosion, and the threat of regular flooding. By the end of the century, the study notes, Atlantic City is predicted to flood to the current 100-year flood level every one to two years on average. The change in weather patterns could also prove costly to the state’s transportation infrastructure, shipping ports, and agriculture industry.

6. Economic Vulnerability to Climate Change in Coastal New Jersey

This research study authored by a group of Rutgers and CUNY professors drew on interviews conducted with stakeholders in Ocean County both before and after Sandy to highlight a series of economic stresses caused by changing weather patterns. The study brought several unexpected vulnerabilities to light. For example, participants were surprised by how much damage the power grid sustained, and they found themselves unprepared for such long-term outages. In addition, prior to the storm, much of the concern was focused on how elderly and low-income residents would be impacted, but many middle-income homeowners found that they also lacked adequate insurance coverage or savings to repair their damages.

7. State of the Climate: New Jersey 2013

The Rutgers Climate Institute notes in this report that the statewide average temperature in 2012 was the highest in 118 years of recordkeeping and that nine of the 10 warmest calendar years on record have occurred since 1990. At the same time, precipitation has increased, though much of this has come in the form of heavy downfalls and winter storms. Sea levels also continue to rise. These continuing trends will have detrimental impacts on public health, as allergy seasons expand, as well as on coastal fisheries, the report says.

8. Future Sea Level Rise and the New Jersey Coast: Assessing Potential Impacts and Opportunities

A 2005 Princeton University study that looked at flooding and coastal inundation over the next century recommended a gradual withdrawal of development from the most sensitive areas of the coast. The study also warns that sea-level rise could threaten the state’s water supply, since advancing salt water contaminates freshwater resources. In addition, the changing climate could spell trouble for natural wildlife habitats, including the homes of many threatened and endangered species.

9. Building Coastal Resilience: Using Scenario Planning to Address Uncertainty and Change

This report issued by the Regional Plan Association in the aftermath of Sandy considers four possible scenarios of how the future could unfold, based on how officials in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut metropolitan region respond to the threats of climate change. It also includes a thorough explanation of the various sorts of “coastal adaptation strategies” that can be employed, including dunes, bulkheads, levees, building elevation, floodproofing, and strategic retreat from the shoreline.

10. Meeting NJ’s 2020 Greenhouse Gas Limit: NJ’s Global Warming Response Act Recommendations Report

Unlike all the other reports and papers on this list, this one was actually written by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection itself, in 2009 under then-Governor Jon Corzine. It was released pursuant to a law state legislators had passed two years earlier that would have required New Jersey to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020 and 80 percent below 2006 levels by the middle of the century.

“Not only does climate change threaten New Jersey’s shoreline and ecology, but the socioeconomic impacts of climate change stand to be profound and costly,” acting DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello wrote in his cover letter to Corzine. But just a few weeks later, Christie became governor. He closed the DEP’s Office of Climate Change and Energy, eliminating funding for carrying out the Global Warming Response Act.

Copyright 2014 NJ Spotlight

Steal this environmental justice journal

Grist, Sept. 22, 2014

By Brentin Mock

The journal is edited by Sylvia Hood, the sustainability director for Illinois-based Environmental Health Research Associates, and also Kenneth Olden, the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences whose work with environmental justice advocates helped forge a relationship between communities and the federal government. In fact, environmental justice activists were in D.C. for, among other things, a symposium Olden and NIEHS helped convene in February 1994 when the community activists were called to the White House for President Clinton’s signing of a new executive order on environmental justice.
Take advantage of this free content before it goes back behind the paywall.

Nearly 1 million people now live in poverty in N.J., Census says

NJ.com, Sept. 18, 2014

By Carla Astudillo

New Jersey was one of three states that saw both a jump in the number of people living in poverty and the poverty rate in 2013, according to new Census numbers.

The data released on Thursday shows that while the poverty rates in most states has plateaued, New Jersey’s poverty rate actually went up from 10.8 percent in 2012 to 11.4 percent in 2013.

The other two states that posted an increase were New Mexico and Washington.

The announcement comes two days after the Census released a separate report stating that the nationwide poverty rate declined slightly for the first time since 2006.

“It was a surprise to us, and a bit disturbing”, said Melville D. Miller president of Legal Services of New Jersey, who had predicted that the new Census numbers for New Jersey would either remain stagnant or decrease slightly because of decreasing unemployment rates.

Miller said the increase could be due to the fact that even previously unemployed people who have found work may still may remain at the poverty level.

“I resist making any sweeping generalizations,” he added. But, when combined with some of the other economic trends that he said he has observed such as declining wages, the new data is “worrisome.”

The actual number of people living in poverty increased from 934,943 in 2012 to 998,549 in 2013.

There were plenty of signs that poverty rate would increase, including an increase in food stamp participants and a spike in foreclosure rates, said Raymond Castro from New Jersey Policy Perspective.

“It may seem that the national economy is improving. Wall Street and major corporations are certainly doing better,” said Castro. “But, that’s just not trickling down to many New Jerseyans.”

Even as New Jersey’s poverty rate continue to increase, it still remains still well below the national average of 15.8 percent.

The Census also included county numbers which show Cumberland had the highest poverty rate in New Jersey at 20.6%, followed by Hudson (19.7%) and Salem counties (18.4%)

Mirroring the statewide trend, most counties also saw an increase in the number of people living in poverty and the poverty rate.

However, Stephanie Hoopes Halpin, Assistant Research Professor at Rutgers, said that even though Census county data tends to be pretty accurate with a reasonable margin of error, the numbers still need to be put into context, especially in counties with small populations such as Salem and Warren.

“I wouldn’t take them as absolute numbers,” Hoopes Halpin said. “But that it’s an indicator that there’s something worth of investigating.”

In addition, she added, the higher poverty rates in Atlantic and Cape May counties may be due to residents still reeling from the effects of Hurricane Sandy.

Hoopes Halpin also questioned the rates in light of how the government measures poverty across the country. The federal government uses the same benchmarks, developed more than 50 years ago, to measure poverty in every state. The cost of living is not only higher in New Jersey, but it also varies widely among New Jersey’s counties.

The actual number of people living in poverty in New Jersey, therefore, is likely higher than the Census reflects, said Hoopes Halpin. In a study conducted for Rutgers and United Way, Hoopes Halpin said she took into account the varied cost
of living expenses and showed that 38 percent of New Jersey households are struggling to meet basic needs.

“It’s so frustrating to have this archaic number used in the Census,” she said. “I worry that it hides a lot of hardship.”

2013 Poverty Rates in New Jersey

Atlantic County- 18%
Bergen County- 8.2%
Burlington County- 5.7%
Camden County- 15%
Cape May County- 9.4%
Cumberland County- 20.6%
Essex County- 17.8%
Gloucester County- 9.8%
Hudson County- 19.7%
Hunterdon County- 3.3%
Mercer County- 11.8%
Middlesex County- 9.5%
Monmouth County- 7.7%
Morris County- 4.3%
Ocean County- 10.2%
Passaic County-16.6%
Salem County- 18.4%
Somerset County- 5.3%
Sussex County- 5.8%
Union County- 11.5%
Warren County- 9.3%

NAACP analyzes NJ energy policies

The NAACP today released a brief (23 pg.) report explaining good energy policies compared to New Jersey’s official policies.  The report is easy to understand and provides information on policies that New Jersey should adopt.   Excellent work by NAACP’s Jacqui Patterson and her team.  Highly recommended.  Get your copy here:  http://goo.gl/15w9ad
 

Oct. 11 conference: A New Generation of Leaders — Political Engagement of Youth

LWVNJ Color
Engaged and Empowered:
A New Generation of Leaders
When
Saturday October 11, 2014 from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM EDT
Add to Calendar
Cost
Fee (includes lunch): $35
Late Fee (after 9/30): $40
Student Fee: $15

Scholarships are available for students if needed. Email jburns@lwvnj.org for more information.
Where

Brookdale Community College
Warner Student Life Center, Navesink Room
765 Newman Springs Road
Lincroft, NJ 07738

Young Activists Panel
Stacey Faella
Nicole Scott- Harris
Casey Olesko
Giancarlo Tello
Join the League of Women Voters of New Jersey at Brookdale Community College in Lincroft on Saturday, October 11, 2014 as we explore youth political engagement.
This exciting day features David Burstein, a Millennial author and filmmaker, a panel of young activists working in different policy areas to engage and educate their communities, and a number of afternoon workshops on a variety of issues.
Keynote Speaker: David Burstein

  

David Burstein, a Millennial writer, filmmaker, and storyteller will kick off the conference with a discussion on youth political action and engagement. He is the author of Fast Future: How the Millennial Generation is Shaping Our World. The book takes readers inside the largest generation in history to tell how and why they are changing business, technology, culture, and politics. He is the founder of Generation 18, a nonpartisan young voter engagement organization. The organization grew out of the documentary film, 18 in ’08, which David directed and produced about young voters in the 2008 election. David is a frequent speaker and commentator on Millennials, social innovation, and politics. Learn more about David.
Young Activists Panel
Following the keynote address, a panel of young activists working in different policy fields will discuss youth engagement and tell their personal stories of becoming involved. The panelists (pictured at left) are :
  • Stacey Faella, Chair, LWVNJ’s Young People’s Network
  • Nicole Scott-Harris, Newark Organizer, NJ Environmental Justice Alliance
  • Casey Olesko, Vice President of Public and Community Affairs, Planned Parenthood Association of the Mercer Area
  • Giancarlo Tello, New Jersey DREAMer

More information about the panelists is available here.

Lunch: During lunch, participants will learn about the statewide NJ public questions that will appear on the General Election ballot and will have an opportunity to ask questions about the League education study.

 

Afternoon Workshops: After the morning presentations, attendees will have the opportunity to participate in a workshop session of their choosing (you will be asked to make a selection when registering). Full workshop descriptions are available here.

  • Mobilizing Millennials: Engaging the Next Generation for Social Change
  • MissRepresentation of Women and Girls
  • Combatting Climate Change
  • The State of Voting in 2014
  • Current Issues in Immigration

You won’t want to miss the opportunity to learn from these passionate speakers. Register today!


Sponsored By:
Department of Political Science, Brookdale Community College
The Libby Sharpe Memorial Fund

This email was sent to jburns@lwvnj.org by jburns@lwvnj.org |
The League of Women Voters of NJ | 204 West State Street | Trenton | NJ | 08608