Comments on: OnAir@AAAR: For Policymakers on Panel, Environmental Justice is High Priority http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/03/onairaaar-for-policymakers-on-panel-environmental-justice-is-high-priority/ The EPA Blog Mon, 06 Jul 2015 06:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.1 By: Ms.Khaing Mon Kyaw http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/03/onairaaar-for-policymakers-on-panel-environmental-justice-is-high-priority/#comment-18272 Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:58:09 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1974#comment-18272 For a healthy community, awareness of environmental Justic and environment policy by policymaker are very important.

]]>
By: Lina-EPA http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/03/onairaaar-for-policymakers-on-panel-environmental-justice-is-high-priority/#comment-18271 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:55:13 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1974#comment-18271 Sr. Torres:
Gracias por sus comentarios. definitivamente, todos debemos colaborar para ayudar a concienciar al público en general, especialmente las comunidades pobres y aquellas afectadas por problemas ambientales de la necesidad de proteger nuestro Planeta.

]]>
By: Dr. E. Waal http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/03/onairaaar-for-policymakers-on-panel-environmental-justice-is-high-priority/#comment-18270 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:02:14 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1974#comment-18270 Ms. Fried, you say, “According to EPA, environmental justice “will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.”

Is this a serious statement? With absolute endpoints, a statement like this is laughable. A better statement is “environmental justice will be achieved when no individual or group of individuals is denied protection or access to the decision making process as a result of their race, color, creed, or socio-economic status.”

Many people in our country have internet access, some don’t. Inequity in access to the decision making processes will exist so long as people have to use different systems to access the decision making process. Similarly, some people remain illiterate and cannot enjoy equal access to the decision making process because so much of it relies on the ability to read.

If two persons live in two areas which both continually meet the national Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter, and one area averages 50% of the standard and the other 30% of the standard, neither should be harmed, but do both enjoy “..the same degree of protection…” No they don’t. But there is no need to move toward equity or additional protectiveness for the more exposed of the two. Adequate protection should be the goal, not equal protection.

And how do we resolve the inequity created by our own EPA’s imposition of unneccessary burden. We’re considering another lowering of the 8-hour ozone standard to a level between 60 and 70 ppb. The data show there is no statistically significant difference in the health protection of a lower 60 – 70 ppb standard as opposed to the current 75 ppb. However the economic impacts are staggering at the lower levels. Those economic impacts translate, in part, to a reduction of employe benefits, including health benefits. There will be loss of jobs. Very often lost jobs are in work groups whose work products are discretionary; groundskeeping, janitorial services, secretarial and clerical. These are already often minimum wage jobs. Loss of benefits and loss of employment have profound negative health impacts. While there will be environmental related jobs to meet the new standard, there is a net loss of jobs and general welfare (compensation and benefits) when employment in sectors that produce wealth (manufacturing/mining/agriculture) are reduced.

If we want environmental justice, let’s target the right needs. Let all people have a voice in the issues that affect them, and let’s never deny protection based on race, color, creed, or socio-economic status.

]]>
By: Michael E. Bailey http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/03/onairaaar-for-policymakers-on-panel-environmental-justice-is-high-priority/#comment-18269 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:45:13 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1974#comment-18269 This is also a key issue area. Communities that are working class or poor and minority probably have air and water pollution significantly higher than other communihties because they are easier to be taken advantage of by those whose only concern is maximising their profits. One major concern the opponents to the multibillion dollar state water bond we will vote on in November have is that minority communities seem to get less and more polluted water than others. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.

]]>
By: Francisco Nadal C http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/03/onairaaar-for-policymakers-on-panel-environmental-justice-is-high-priority/#comment-18268 Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:09:16 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1974#comment-18268 Yes, but scrubbers are a piece of equipment where flue gases are “washed out”. This process is inteded for cleaning flue gases produced when burning any class of combustible matter and its complexity depends on how clean you want have your flue gases.

]]>
By: Jesús Torres Navarro http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/03/onairaaar-for-policymakers-on-panel-environmental-justice-is-high-priority/#comment-18267 Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:00:53 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1974#comment-18267 La Justicia Ambiental, tal y como Ustedes la entienden, es una prioridad para la Humanidad entera; su difisión masiva representa un firme impulso a la indispensable “Toma de Conciencia” en la Comunidades de todo el Planeta: ACCIONES LOCALES CON VISIÖN GLOBAL, felicidades por su excelente labor

]]>
By: Al Bannet http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/03/onairaaar-for-policymakers-on-panel-environmental-justice-is-high-priority/#comment-18266 Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:25:20 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1974#comment-18266 Ms. Fried:

Do you have information on “scrubbers”, which is some sort of technology to process the smoke from coal fired pwer plants?

]]>