Playing the Green race card

Well, you have to give them credit for imagination and originality.

The Hill:

House Republicans are being accused of “environmental racism” by an environmental group that argues GOP efforts to reform decades-old chemical laws would disproportionately harm minority groups.

At issue is draft legislation backed by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) that would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to focus on chemicals that pose the greatest risk to the public in enforcing environmental protections.

Shimkus argues his bill would free up resources to focus on the most dangerous chemical threats, but the liberal Environmental Justice Health Alliance says it would end up hurting minority groups by moving resources away from policing the threats in their neighborhoods. That, it turn, would increase the risk that they could develop cancer, asthma, childhood leukemia, infertility and birth defects, among other health problems. 

In a press release, the group said the bill would promote what it called "environmental racism." 

“This bill harms communities of color disproportionately,” Michele Roberts, co-coordinator of the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, said in an interview. “Most of these chemicals are either manufactured, stored in, or disposed of in primarily communities of color." 

Shimkus last week argued the bill would strengthen the chemical protections in the 1976 Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TSCA) by more effectively targeting the chemicals that pose the greatest risk to the public.

“The vast majority of chemicals are low priority, and we really want to free up the time and energy to focus on the more important chemicals,” said Shimkus, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee.

His office declined to comment on the Environmental Justice group’s comments.

Shimkus’s bill has faced widespread criticism from environmental groups and Democrats who say they cannot support the bill as it is currently written.

Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, last week called the draft bill a "disappointment" and said it would "do more harm than good."

Here's a list of the 28 most polluted places in America. While the list gives no racial breakdown as far as residents affected, it would appear that there are as many cities and towns that feature overwhelming or majority white populations as minorities. Idaho and Montana sites are probably not places where minorities are mostly affected. Other sites in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kansas would also seem to suggest at least as many whites being affected by pollution as minorities.

Companies illegally dumping chemicals anywhere should be caught and punished. What the hell difference does it make what the race is of residents who are being affected? Is the "environmental justice" crowd suggesting it is somehow less egregious if the dumping occurs in white cities, white neighborhoods?

Why yes. Yes they are.

Bringing racial politics to bear on environmental policy is an articficial political construct that has been created to add to the grievance machine of the racialists. I guess it's one more thing we whites have to feel giulty about.

 

Well, you have to give them credit for imagination and originality.

The Hill:

House Republicans are being accused of “environmental racism” by an environmental group that argues GOP efforts to reform decades-old chemical laws would disproportionately harm minority groups.

At issue is draft legislation backed by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) that would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to focus on chemicals that pose the greatest risk to the public in enforcing environmental protections.

Shimkus argues his bill would free up resources to focus on the most dangerous chemical threats, but the liberal Environmental Justice Health Alliance says it would end up hurting minority groups by moving resources away from policing the threats in their neighborhoods. That, it turn, would increase the risk that they could develop cancer, asthma, childhood leukemia, infertility and birth defects, among other health problems. 

In a press release, the group said the bill would promote what it called "environmental racism." 

“This bill harms communities of color disproportionately,” Michele Roberts, co-coordinator of the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, said in an interview. “Most of these chemicals are either manufactured, stored in, or disposed of in primarily communities of color." 

Shimkus last week argued the bill would strengthen the chemical protections in the 1976 Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TSCA) by more effectively targeting the chemicals that pose the greatest risk to the public.

“The vast majority of chemicals are low priority, and we really want to free up the time and energy to focus on the more important chemicals,” said Shimkus, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee.

His office declined to comment on the Environmental Justice group’s comments.

Shimkus’s bill has faced widespread criticism from environmental groups and Democrats who say they cannot support the bill as it is currently written.

Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, last week called the draft bill a "disappointment" and said it would "do more harm than good."

Here's a list of the 28 most polluted places in America. While the list gives no racial breakdown as far as residents affected, it would appear that there are as many cities and towns that feature overwhelming or majority white populations as minorities. Idaho and Montana sites are probably not places where minorities are mostly affected. Other sites in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kansas would also seem to suggest at least as many whites being affected by pollution as minorities.

Companies illegally dumping chemicals anywhere should be caught and punished. What the hell difference does it make what the race is of residents who are being affected? Is the "environmental justice" crowd suggesting it is somehow less egregious if the dumping occurs in white cities, white neighborhoods?

Why yes. Yes they are.

Bringing racial politics to bear on environmental policy is an articficial political construct that has been created to add to the grievance machine of the racialists. I guess it's one more thing we whites have to feel giulty about.