This Fall, NJEJA embarked on a cinematic journey with our first-ever Fall Film Series, delving into the crucial intersections between environmental justice and various social justice themes. Together, we explored topics such as the Prison-Industrial Complex, Environmental Racism, and Black Maternal Health. Join us in reflecting on the impactful stories we’ve encountered and the thought-provoking discussions that unfolded.
In October, we launched with a screening of “Beyond Walls,” a compilation of short films which shed light on the resilience of individuals and families directly impacted by the carceral system. In a special post-screening discussion, we were honored by the presence of formerly incarcerated activists Debbie and Mike Africa, who emphasized the intersections between environmental justice and the prison industrial complex. We learned that “one-third of state and federal prisons are located within 3 miles of federal Superfund sites, the most serious contaminated places requiring extensive cleanup.” Another key aspect of the conversation focused on disposability as a common thread between mass incarceration and the disproportionate burdens faced by EJ communities.
From left to right: Cynthia Mellon, Chris Tandazo, Halimah Shabazz, Dr. Nicky Sheats, Debbie Africa, Mike Africa, Jason Ajiake, Melissa Miles
Town Hall: Resolution 50 follows the personal journey of four Camden City high school students who share their experiences as young people of color affected by systems of injustice that ultimately challenge their quality of life. The play depicts the lived experiences of environmental racism in Camden, based on resident stories of living in extreme urban heat, breathing in polluted air, wading through contaminated flood water and gathering concerns about what is to come when climate change accelerates these hardships. After the film, Samir Nichols, Executive Director of Superior Arts Institute led a Q&A discussion with Jamal and Azzuari (featured in the film), who shared more from their perspectives as Camden youth.
We concluded our 2023 Fall Film Series by screening “Aftershock,” an award-winning documentary that chronicles the tragic deaths of two young women due to childbirth complications. The film also portrays their families as they work to raise awareness about one of the most pressing crises in America today: the U.S. maternal health crisis. Myla Flores, founder of The Birthing Place and one of the maternal health experts featured in the film, joined us for a heartfelt dialogue about pathways for advocacy and change. A critical component of this conversation was the emphasis on environmental factors which contribute toward higher rates of negative birth outcomes for Black women, such as air pollution, contaminated water, etc.
Myla Flores, founder of The Birthing Place, answers a question about improving maternal health outcomes. (Photo Credit: Imani Oakley)
NJEJA’s Fall Film Series is an educational program designed to build our community’s understanding of environmental justice through engaging media content, facilitated discussions, and special guest speakers. Thank you to everyone who joined us, bringing their perspectives and passion to these vital discussions. We look forward to continuing this series next year. To support our 2024 Fall Film Series, please consider making a donation today!
Experts say all Michigan residents could benefit from the transparency in the Garden State’s pollution rules for overburdened communities.
Homes near the Marathon Petroleum refinery in southwest Detroit. Alamy.
Theresa Landrum has been fighting for environmental justice in Detroit’s heavily polluted 48217 zip code for decades, where residents suffer from disproportionate rates of asthma, cancer, respiratory problems, heart disease, miscarriages, and birth defects, all of which are associated with air pollution.
Landrum said this year’s wildfire smoke worsened the bad air, turning the sky orange and leaving her coughing for days. Indeed, new research shows that although the nation’s air quality had improved following the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, in many states wildfire smoke has slowed or reversed much of this progress over the last two decades.
But, she said, the new smoke threat could bring more urgency to efforts to control air pollution from other sources. “We’re not looking at cumulative impacts from all these industries,” she said.
Activists like Landrum are focused on the collective impact of pollution from multiple sources, often concentrated in low-income areas and communities of color such as southwest Detroit. Facilities are regulated on a case-by-case basis, although a permit could be denied if it will increase the level of one of six pollutants covered by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the area is already out of compliance for that pollutant.
This approach can allow for a heavy overall pollution burden, even though individual businesses are operating within legal emissions limits.
The concept of regulating cumulative impacts is slowly gaining traction. In January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released guidance outlining its authority to consider cumulative impacts in its decisions. And at least 12 state legislatures have considered or adopted legislation addressing cumulative risk or impacts, according to a University of Michigan analysis released last year.
Theresa Landrum. Photo by Joe Parnell.
To address this issue in Michigan, Landrum is working with a statewide coalition of environmental groups to push for cumulative impact legislation, influenced by New Jersey’s landmark 2020 environmental justice law that restricted the issuing of new permits or expansion of facilities in overburdened communities.
Michigan could learn from the approach organizers took in New Jersey, advocates say. There, activists worked for years on legislation that was finally passed when the Black Lives Matter movement and public health concerns related to COVID helped galvanize support.
Yet, advocates say passing a law in Michigan may require a slightly different approach, with a need to build support in both urban and rural areas to challenge a powerful industrial lobby in a state where Democrats hold a slim majority in the legislature.
“The health impacts, the air quality impacts, the water quality impacts are something that both rural people and urban folks that are on the fence line of big industry are dealing with,” said Christy McGillivray, legislative and political director for the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter.
She said a smart strategy in Michigan could look at the impacts of industrial agriculture and other industries in farm country as well as urban pollution to build a broad constituency for a cumulative impact bill.
New Jersey sets a precedent
Melissa Miles, executive director of the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, said New Jersey’s 2020 law came at the end of a years-long effort to bring more protections for overburdened communities in the state.
“EJ groups never dropped that banner of cumulative impacts, even when it was unpopular, even when there wasn’t political will,” Miles said.
She said the key to getting the New Jersey law over the finish line were the specific circumstances of 2020 that brought justice concerns to the fore.
“This moment happened nationally that was heard around the world, which was the Black Lives Matter movement,” Miles said. “When Black people say, ‘we can’t breathe,’ it could be the result of the quick, violent deaths at the hands of law enforcement, or it could be the slow, silent death due to air pollution.”
Miles said New Jersey environmental justice advocates were ready to help inform policy-making when these tragic circumstances created an appetite for reform.
The result was legislation with key cumulative impact provisions. The law gave the state’s Department of Environmental Protection a mandate to deny permits for certain types of facilities like incinerators and sewage treatment plants seeking to locate in areas already burdened by pollution. It also required businesses to perform a cumulative impact analysis for new projects or expansions and gave the public more opportunities to influence permit applications.
Jonathon J. Smith, an attorney with the nonprofit Earthjustice, said demographic information, including race, income, and limited English proficiency, was used to help define an “overburdened” community.
This last piece gets at a common practice in Michigan. For example, Stellantis used jobs to make the case for expanding its polluting facilities on Detroit’s east side. This project received$400 million in tax incentives and at least 12 odor violations since it opened in June 2021.
After New Jersey’s law was passed, Miles said her group worked to prevent industry from undermining the legislation and ensuring residents were available to influence the new rules when regulators put them together. However, New Jersey only began enforcing the law in April 2023 and Smith said the state will have to wait and see how much regulators are “taking it to heart”.
How Michigan could get it done
Trent Wolf, who recently served as the senior advisor to Michigan House Majority Floor Leader Abraham Aiyash (D-Hamtramck), told Planet Detroit that Aiyash and State Sen. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit) are crafting cumulative impact legislation that can stand up to litigation or constitutional challenges.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to end race-based affirmative action in college admissions, environmental justice laws that use race as a criterion for defining an overburdened community could be open to legal challenges.
This ruling may have prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to drop a civil rights complaint into Louisiana’s permitting of industries in a heavily polluted area known as “cancer alley”.
Nick Schroeck, an environmental law expert at Detroit Mercy School of Law, said state programs that incorporate race as a factor in decision-making are less vulnerable to challenges than federal ones, although the language still needs to be drafted carefully.
Wolf said the White House’s Justice40 program, which seeks to direct 40 percent of federal climate-related funding to disadvantaged communities, could also provide a template for crafting a bill. This program excluded race when defining target areas, using other criteria as a proxy for disadvantaged communities of color. However, the screening tool used by the programs has had only mixed success in identifying these areas so far.
Previously, Michigan advocates have said the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) already has the power under Rule 901 and Rule 228 to consider cumulative impacts, at least from air pollution, and deny permits.
EGLE spokesperson Hugh McDiarmid said the powers provided by these rules were limited and that the agency’s air quality division “does not have the ability to do cumulative impact analysis incorporating all ways a person may be exposed to pollutants [but that] the program is designed to minimize potential health impacts of the air emissions from facilities on nearby residents.”
In Michigan, the first step toward creating a law that explicitly requires the agency to consider cumulative impacts may be engaging with impacted communities to raise awareness and get input on proposed legislation.
“For this legislation to move, it’s going to take a lot of work at the grassroots level of getting people engaged and understanding that legislation like this can have a deep impact in their community,” Wolf said. “This is a relatively new concept.”
Wolf also believes there’s the potential for urban advocates to build a coalition with rural people dealing with factory farms and facilities like chemical recycling centers and battery plants.
Pam Taylor, a farm owner in rural Lenawee County who leads the water testing program for the nonprofit Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Southeast Michigan, has been working for decades to address water quality problems created by the manure-laden discharge from industrial livestock farms. This pollution has contributed to potentially life-threatening toxic algal blooms downstream, like the 2014 Lake Erie bloom that shut down Toledo’s drinking water supply for several days.
In the past, Taylor has helped lead tours with the Sierra Club to highlight toxic industries in Detroit and Lenawee County, showing the public and mental health problems that occur when industry concentrates in certain areas.
Taylor said her sparsely populated community roughly 60 miles southwest of Detroit resembles other areas where scarce jobs and poverty drive people to work in industries that may compromise their health.
“There aren’t that many jobs, so people end up working for these big factory farms even though they hate it,” she said. “It’s basically a captured community, just like a mining community would be Appalachia.”
Taylor said a cumulative impact bill would reduce the impact of these farms on local waterways and protect groundwater. She said that as waterways have become more polluted, communities have turned to groundwater for drinking water, a resource threatened by water-hungry industrial farms.
“A cumulative impact bill would be wonderful,” Taylor said. “It would reduce the chance of so many of these farms being crammed together in one area.”
Pushback from industry
Michigan’s powerful industrial lobby, including automakers, utilities, and chemical companies, will likely fight against a cumulative impact bill that could add new business costs.
Mike Alaimo, director of environmental and energy affairs at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said cumulative impact laws would add new requirements for businesses that could hurt job creation and get in the way of rebuilding the state’s aging infrastructure.
“Cumulative impacts is kind of this whole new bureaucratic layer that would function on top of an already challenging and burdensome system,” he said. “Adding more burden, just adding more regulatory costs, will simply drive businesses away.”
He said these costs could undermine technology like carbon capture, which could be used to reduce emissions from fossil fuel power plants. That technology has been challenged by environmental advocates for its potential to increase non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions like nitrogen oxides and particulate matter as well as creating possible safety issues.
And if investment is pushed away from areas of concentrated industry, Alaimo said it could lead to developing greenfield areas instead of cleaning up contamination and redeveloping brownfield sites.
Schroeck said Michiganders have good reasons to support a cumulative impact law, even if they feel relatively protected from pollution. He said the transparency and cumulative impact assessments offered by a law like New Jersey’s could shed light on pollution issues residents may not be aware of, helping influence statewide permitting and protecting public health.
“I don’t think any of us are really safe,” Schroeck said. “To the extent that we can provide more data and more transparency, I think that will help the public at large to understand the benefits and also the costs of the way that we have been doing business.”
He adds that a healthier population is better for everyone, lowering healthcare costs and insurance rates. But Schroeck said that legislation could be stymied by a lack of knowledge among lawmakers and residents about the health impacts from pollution and the culture war framing of environmental justice that he said paints the issue as “a liberal pet project.”
Lawmakers also have a poor record of being proactive with environmental legislation, Schroeck said.
“We’re much better at, like looking backwards, coming up with cleanup standards and things, than we are at actually preventing harm in the first place,” he said.
He agrees with Landrum in southwest Detroit that more summers with wildfire smoke could create renewed urgency to manage air pollution as much as possible, changing the political calculus around cumulative impacts.
For now, Landrum says environmental advocates need to keep raising the issue until an opportune moment arrives to pass a bill like what happened in New Jersey.
“The intention is to keep putting it out there,” she said.
Although it’s typically posited as a consumer problem, reducing plastic output is the responsibility of producers — a situation that has a grave impact on environmental justice.
Plastic has become an escalating global crisis that is impossible to ignore. Its presence can be found everywhere, from rivers and oceans to human blood and breast milk. As we collectively confront this mounting challenge, we must acknowledge that plastic pollution affects communities differently, depending on race, socio-economic status, access to health care and ZIP code. Communities most familiar with its direct impacts are often of color and low income. Any solution to address this crisis must be intersectional and recognize the interconnectedness between a plastic-free future and the pursuit of environmental justice.
From the extraction of fossil fuels to the exposure of toxic chemicals and the eventual disposal of plastic waste at incinerators, landfills or the environment, plastics disproportionally expose these environmental justice communities to harmful pollutants. For example, our environmental justice partners in the South and the Gulf Coast are actively fighting against the petrochemical industries sited in their communities. This is where the plastic crisis starts, in places like Cancer Alley in Louisiana, where the presence of petrochemical industries has exposed Black communities to high rates of cancer-related illnesses and deaths.
The current disposal of plastic waste is a continuation of the environmental racism that allows for the siting of incinerators and petrochemical industries in the most overburdened communities throughout the country. Research shows that eight out of 10 incinerators nationwide are located in majority-BIPOC, immigrant and low-income communities.
The plastic crisis arrives at our front door in environmental justice communities like Camden, Rahway and Newark, where plastic waste is burned alongside all other types of waste. New York City alone spends $448 million exporting its waste out of the city. Some of this waste leaves the state and goes to the Covanta incinerator in Newark. Burning plastic waste exposes us to toxic ash and pollutants, increasing the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory-related illnesses — posing a significant threat to frontline communities living near these facilities.
Recyclable? Not really
While plastic is promoted as a recyclable material, it cannot be easily recycled due to its toxic chemical composition (particularly single-use plastics). It’s become clear that we cannot recycle our way out of the plastic problem, mainly since less than 6% of plastic in the United States is recycled. As the production of plastic designed for recycling decreases, the generation and disposal of plastic waste increases at incinerators or landfills in environmental justice communities. Major polluters cleverly tout greenwashing terms like “chemical recycling,” “advanced recycling,” “waste-to-energy” and “plastic-to-fuel” as groundbreaking methods for “recycling” and “repurposing”plastic. In reality, they amount to nothing more than disguised forms of waste burning.
Although plastic waste is commonly portrayed as a consumer problem, it’s essential to recognize that reducing plastic output rests in the hands of its producers — and we know that they will not do this on their own. This is why policy intervention and community organizing are necessary to drive change and hold the manufacturers of plastic accountable.
In New Jersey, implementing the Single Use Waste Reduction Act has created a tangible way to encourage reuse practices and reduce the use of plastic bags, polystyrene food containers, paper bags and straws. Since implementation, the number of bags collected on New Jersey beaches has dropped by 37%. Plastic straws also decreased by 39%, and polystyrene takeout containers decreased by 38%, according to a recent Beach Sweeps Report, proving that bans on plastic can be effective at curbing plastic waste.
At the state level, well-written Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws can be a vital tool to significantly reduce the current plastic waste stream and improve recycling goals. EPR laws shift plastic production, consumption, and disposal accountability from the consumer to the plastic producers while also preventing the push of false solutions like chemical recycling. Most recently, California and Colorado passed EPR laws last year.
If not for policy intervention, plastic waste will continue to be incinerated or landfilled in environmental justice communities where these facilities primarily exist. Prioritizing the implementation of policies that hold polluters accountable will pave the way for a sustainable and healthy, waste-free future. In the meantime, the advocacy and organizing required to address the plastic crisis and tackle the deep-rooted environmental racism that has persisted for so many decades continues.
Environmental justice (EJ) communities are on the frontlines of the adverse impacts of climate change and are disproportionately exposed to a wide range of polluting industries, including fossil fuel infrastructure like coal plants, natural gas plants, and pipelines. The use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) mechanisms and hydrogen co-firing in the power sector will further harm EJ communities that are already overburdened. The only real solution to climate change is the rapid and complete transition of the power sector away from all types of fossil fuels to energy efficiency and renewable energy in the form of wind and solar power. We call attention to critical EJ concerns related to the proposed rule that would hinder a reliable, just, and truly clean power section transition.
The EPA will finalize the standards in the coming months.
“Addressing climate change and decades of toxic exposure experienced by environmental justice communities means moving away from a dependence on fossil fuels and investing instead in renewable energy sources and infrastructure in communities. Supporting carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and hydrogen co-firing in the power sector through massive amounts of public funding and policies like EPA’s proposed rule will perpetuate the fossil fuel industry, to the continued detriment of EJ communities. These same overburdened communities have time and again been sacrifice zones to unjust policies and infrastructure that place them on the frontlines of fossil fuel polluting structures. Environmental justice should be a priority for the EPA’s power sector rule rather than an afterthought . We urge the EPA to take seriously the environmental justice implications of this rule and consider cumulative impacts in decision-making processes related to the rule.”
“Too many low-income communities and Communities of Color around the country are exposed to the harms of all types of polluting infrastructure and have disproportionately borne these cumulative burdens for too long. It’s time to right these wrongs. EPA’s proposed rule all but recognizes that CCS and hydrogen co-firing will add to toxic air pollution in communities living near power plants, and this is unacceptable when such communities already live with an unfair share of cumulative impacts from pollution. The EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards must adopt a more affirmative approach toward environmental justice to address cumulative impacts. ”
“A rapid, clean energy transition is indispensable to ensure that current and future generations have healthy and safe communities to live, work, play, learn, and worship in. We need policies that mandate emissions reductions in EJ communities and ensure the closure of fossil fuel powered plants first and foremost in EJ communities. The EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards are an opportunity for the EPA to create equitable policies that truly center communities on the frontlines and bring us to a clean energy transition and just future for all.”
“We know that overwhelmingly the burden of pollution from fossil fuel powered power plants is borne by low income communities, communities of color and indigenous communities. We also know that the impacts of rising intensive heat cycles, extreme temperatures and the resulting power outages are experienced most acutely by environmental justice communities. We are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history. We must meet the challenge of climate change like never before – in ways that center environmental justice communities. We urge the EPA to uphold its commitment to environmental justice and create policies that reduce carbon pollution from the power sector in ways that create benefits for environmental justice communities.”
New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, Clean Water Action,
and South Ward Environmental Alliance
New Jersey Releases Landmark Environmental Justice Rules
Environmental Justice (EJ) communities throughout New Jersey are on the brink of change as the landmark Environmental Justice Bill S232 comes closer to being realized. Today’s release of long awaited rules that accompany this landmark EJ Law is a critically important milestone.
The law and now proposed rules tackle the decades-long pattern of dumping polluting facilities in communities Of Color and low-income communities. Under these new rules, polluting facilities will be required to undergo a robust environmental justice review before being permitted in overburdened, i.e., environmental justice communities. These precedent-setting rules will arm New Jersey regulators with the right to deny further harmful pollution in these neighborhoods. Environmental justice communities will finally have a chance to have what many people take for granted – clean air and a safer environment in which to thrive.
The just released rules would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of New Jersey environmental justice advocates and organizations, as well as State Senator Singleton, State Senator Ruiz, Assemblyman McKeon, Governor Murphy, NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJEP) Commissioner LaTourette and staff that led to the passage of the law (S232) in the first place.
This rule reflects two years of continued hard work, expertise and community knowledge of EJ advocates who worked alongside the NJDEP staff to develop a strong set of rules that reflect the ambition, significance and promise of the landmark EJ law. We are eager to see these rules adopted as written as soon as possible and finally put to use in the communities that have been sacrificed for far too long.
New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, Ironbound Community Corp. Environmental Justice, South Ward Environmental Alliance, and Clean Water Action will be making sure that communities understand and are engaged with the public hearings regarding the proposed regulations. Too often when a historic bill such as S232 is passed, people stop paying attention after the bill is signed. It is imperative that our communities stay engaged. Until the final rule adoption occurs later this year, we urge the NJDEP to act in the spirit of the law and as we continue to fight our current battles for environmental justice in New Jersey, including: a fourth fracked gas power plant proposed by Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, threat of a sludge facility proposed, and waste facility expansions in Camden.
The draft rules require the NJDEP to evaluate the environmental and public health impacts of various polluting facilities on overburdened communities when reviewing specific types of permit applications. It lays out a process for assessing the burden that new facilities may pose to communities that are already overburdened and directs the state to deny those permits that contribute to the existing stressors in those census blocks. It requires additional reviews of existing facilities in overburdened communities that undergo a renewal or expansion process and can apply more stringent conditions to those existing facilities. It also offers a robust set of public participation processes for local input.
“This is an important first step to ensuring that communities Of Color and communities with low-income in New Jersey have a chance to attain the clean environment that other communities in the state enjoy.”
– Nicky Sheats, Ph.D., Esq, NJEJA Trustee
“The South Ward community of Newark just wants to breathe clean air and enjoy their quality of life free from additional toxic facilities impacting the health of the neighborhood.”
– Kim Gaddy, Environmental Justice Director, Clean Water Action
“We are excited about reaching this pivotal moment in the trajectory of the EJ law. Environmental Justice communities will be paying specific attention to what warrants a compelling public interest, what does it mean to avoid harming the community and provisions around community engagement. We need to ensure that no industry green washes their way through EJ law.”
– Maria Lopez-Nunez, Ironbound Community Corp.
“These rules represent the hard work and diligence of EJ activists that have worked tirelessly alongside NJDEP to produce the strongest environmental justice law in the nation. Finally, there is a light at the end of this journey towards environmental justice for all.”
– Ana Baptista, Ph.D., The New School University, NJEJA & ICC Trustee
“One of the most critical details of the Environmental Justice Law is the robust public process required of permitting facilities. For far too long some of the worst actors have lied or bought their way into the good graces of a few key people and claimed that their ‘back room’ deals were community engagement. Even now some communities expect polluting industries to operate in obscurity and without their input. That all ends with the implementation of the EJ Law.”
– Melissa Miles, Executive Director, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA)
Contact: Kim Gaddy, Clean Water Action and South Ward resident 973-914-2449
Maria Lopez-Nunez, Ironbound Community Corporation 201-978-6660
Melissa Miles, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance 347-553-3338
TODAY, Newark – The Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHP)* issued a call for action regarding the scrap yard fire at Eastern Metal Recycling Terminal at Port Newark, the second large fire at this site since September 2021.
Current policies, regulations and emergency response procedures leave communities and workers vulnerable to unknown chemical exposures and other harms of this facility and others like it during routine operations, only made worse during crisis management.
Community notification procedures and air monitoring systems are inadequate, leaving residents clueless as to what to do to protect themselves and their families. The only information residents are getting is from news reports. Agencies will have limited information to assess the situation, pollution impacts, and/or consider remedies to put in place in the future.
It is also alarmingly unclear who has jurisdiction for permits, operations, emergency response and enforcement at Port Newark – Port Authority of NY&NJ (PANYNJ), NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for port, on-site and emergency responders just to name a few. The PANYNJ fire team deemed themselves ill equipped so the City of Newark Fire Department was called in to respond. Additionally, NJDEP’s oversight is currently limited, but we anticipate that the long awaited environment justice rules will include scrap yards – facilities that have long eluded regulatory controls and tools for community accountability.
The Coalition for Healthy Ports calls on the Governor and other responsible agencies to:
take immediate action to protect residents and workers, properly and regularly inform them of developments related to the fire
install emergency and permanent air/water monitors to assess pollution and health impacts
evaluate reasons for current fire and take immediate steps to prevent future fires
exercise enforcement powers where they may currently exist
formally propose and adopt cumulative impact regulations as soon as possible, including scrap yards and other previously un/underregulated facilities of concern
resolve chronic jurisdictional issues and enforcement powers at the port
hold a community meeting to both inform and receive public input on their concerns and demands for action
Below are quotes from impacted community leaders and Coalition for Healthy Ports members:
“ We often have to worry not just about fires but what is burning in those fires. No one should go to bed with nausea or headaches from the smells outside but our residents know the feeling all too well. This fire joins a long list of situations that remind us how close we are to potential catastrophe in our communities because of the concentration of toxic reactive chemicals. We need more than lip service, we need real protection. It is exhausting to keep asking for protection from our state but there are decades of historic injustice that must be addressed.” – Maria Lopez-Nuñez, Deputy Director, Organizing and Advocacy, Ironbound Community Corporation
“Longshoreman and Newark residents deserve to be protected from fires at Port Newark. Our health must be a priority of Gov. Murphy and the PANYNJ. As a South Ward resident living in a Port community, we demand mandatory air monitoring and environmental enforcement at the Port today.” – Kim Gaddy, Executive Director, South Ward Environmental Alliance and New Jersey Environmental Justice Director, Clean Water Action
“Leadership at the Port of Newark has consistently denied their responsibility for air pollution beyond their fence line. This is a clear incidence of serious impacts as far away as New York City. We need fence line air monitoring and community accountability from the Port and its tenants.” – Melissa Miles, Executive Director, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance
“This fire is a reminder of the threats that port related waste facilities pose to community and worker health. In times of emergency, we must have clear lines of communication and a coordinated response to protect people. We call on state and local agencies together with the PANYNJ to ensure effective monitoring and enforcement to prevent future fires.” – Ana Baptista, P.h.D. Co-Director, Tishman Environment & Design Center, The New School University and Coalition for Healthy Ports Member
“The frequency of chemical fires occurring in New Jersey is on the rise – sounding the alarm for immediate action. The state must step up enforcement of existing laws and adopt long awaited cumulative impact protections including strict oversight of polluting facilities and scrap yards in already grossly overburdened communities and port region. Anything less than this is an environmental and public health injustice to residents and workers.” – Amy Goldsmith, NJ StateDirector, Clean Water Action and Steering Committee Member, Coalition for Healthy Ports
“The New Jersey Governor’s Office, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and all relevant governmental agencies need to work together to address this alarming fire and to prevent this type of incident from happening again in the future.” – Nicky Sheats, Esq., Ph.D., Director, Center for the Urban Environment, John S. Watson Institute for Urban Policy and Research at Kean University, and New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance Member
###
* Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHP) is a bi-state alliance founded in 2007 by environmental and environmental justice activists, truck drivers, faith leaders, labor unions, and community advocates fighting for zero emissions, clean air, good jobs, healthy communities, environmental and economic justice at the Ports of New York and New Jersey and throughout the logistics industry. Particular emphasis is given to port-adjacent communities that are disproportionately overburdened by port pollution and operations.www.coalitionforhealthyports.org
Comments on: In The Matter Of Medium And Heavy Duty Electric Vehicle Charging Ecosystem, New Jersey Electric Vehicles Infrastructure Ecosystem 2021 – Medium And heavy Duty Straw Proposal
One of the most important policy recommendations that has been supported by a significant segment of the environmental justice (EJ) advocacy community is that climate change mitigation policy, in addition to fighting climate change, should be used to reduce the disproportionate amount of pollution often found in EJ communities.
In the power generation sector the EJ advocacy community has indicated this means, at least partly, that electricity generating plants located in EJ residential communities should be required to reduce emissions, no matter what type of climate change mitigation program applies to the plants. This policy would guarantee that climate change mitigation policy would deliver critical reductions in locally harmful greenhouse gas co-pollutants to vulnerable and overburdened EJ communities. These reductions would improve the health of residents living in communities affected by plant emissions. The New Jersey EJ Alliance (NJEJA), has called this policy “mandatory emissions reductions for EJ communities through climate change mitigation policy”.
NJEJA is a statewide organization that focuses solely on EJ issues and advocates for policies that will improve the quality of life of low-income communities and communities Of Color, i.e. EJ communities, in New Jersey and across the nation. It is important to note that NJEJA has strongly advocated for the adoption of the mandatory emissions reductions for EJ communities through climate change mitigation policy and opposed New Jersey’s entrance into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and Transportation and Climate Initiative, in part because they do not guarantee such reductions. A comparable type of mandatory emissions reductions policy that directly and unequivocally improves the health of EJ communities is needed for the transportation sector. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities’ (NJBPU) Notice, In The Matter Of Medium And Heavy Duty Electric Vehicle Charging Ecosystem, New Jersey Electric Vehicles Infrastructure Ecosystem 2021 – Medium And heavy Duty Straw Proposal (hereinafter referred to as Straw Proposal), provides New Jersey with an opportunity to discuss and make progress on this type of important policy. NJEJA is submitting the following comments in an effort to further that discussion.
The Clean Power Plan rule is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) regulatory method of reducing the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions and, by doing so, of fighting climate change.1 There was very little in the original Clean Power Plan proposal that addressed environmental justice (“EJ”)2 using section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act3 as authorization; it instead featured averaging carbon dioxide emissions rates4 and facilitated emissions trading.5 The EJ advocacy community responded to the Clean Power Plan’s failure to address equity by propos- ing a number of ways that EJ could be incorporated into the proposed rule.6 The three primary recommendations were: 1) mandated emissions reductions for EJ communities, i.e., communities of color and low-income communities; 2) prioritized use of energy efficiency and renewable energy in EJ communities; and 3) mandatory EJ analyses included in state plans developed pursuant to the Clean Power Plan that demonstrated the implementation of the first two recommendations and determined the distributive impacts of a state plan on EJ communities within the state.7 There were other important EJ recommendations such as the recommendation that states should not be able to use carbon trading to fulfill their obligations under the Clean Power Plan.8 However, the above three suggestions were also usually core recommendations.
The final version of the rule does provide what might best be characterized as an EJ “foothold” by requiring that states interact with EJ communities during development of their state plans9 and the inclu- sion of an optional incentive program for the use of energy efficiency in low-income neighborhoods.10 However, the Clean Power Plan still pro- vides no mandatory substantive protections for EJ communities and does not attempt to incentivize emissions reductions for any particular communities, including EJ neighborhoods…
AN ACT concerning the disproportionate environmental and public health impacts of pollution on overburdened communities, and supplementing Title 13 of the Revised Statutes.
BE IT ENACTEDby the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
C.13:1D-157 Findings, declarations relative to impact of pollution on overburdened communities.
1. The Legislature finds and declares that all New Jersey residents, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, color, or national origin, have a right to live, work, and recreate in a clean and healthy environment; that, historically, New Jersey’s low-income communities and communities of color have been subject to a disproportionately high number of environmental and public health stressors, including pollution from numerous industrial, commercial, and governmental facilities located in those communities; that, as a result, residents in the State’s overburdened communities have suffered from increased adverse health effects including, but not limited to, asthma, cancer, elevated blood lead levels, cardiovascular disease, and developmental disorders; that children are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects caused by exposure to pollution, and that such health effects may severely limit a child’s potential for future success; that the adverse effects caused by pollution impede the growth, stability, and long-term well-being of individuals and families living in overburdened communities; that the legacy of siting sources of pollution in overburdened communities continues to pose a threat to the health, well-being, and economic success of the State’s most vulnerable residents; and that it is past time for the State to correct this historical injustice…
WASHINGTON (August 8, 2023) –The Tishman Environment and Design Center at The New School, the Center for the Urban Environment of the