Democrats and environmental activists have pivoted to a racial justice angle on climate change policy in the wake of the demise of President Biden’s massive climate and social spending bill.
Democrats say their proposed efforts would combat environmental hazards like pollution that disproportionately harm low-income and minority communities, a message that appeals to their far-left base in an election year and offers some hope of resurrecting pieces of the president’s climate agenda.
Democrats are calling for action on environmental justice in Mr. Biden’s Build Back Better Plan, which included more than $500 billion in climate program funding.
Our folks, they can’t wait another day. Another month, another hour, another year for us to have real climate policy that changes their lives for the better, puts them before profits, puts them before the fossil fuel industry and the corporate polluters, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Democrat, said at a virtual event this week with the liberal advocacy group People’s Action.
Democrats’ primary focus is on the Environmental Justice for All Act. This broad proposal would allow legal recourse for low and minority communities disproportionately hurt by environmental discrimination; establish advisory roles; increase regulations; impose fees on oil, gas, and coal companies.
Democrats claim it will correct decades of racial injustice.
[This bill is]Ral Grijalva, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, stated during Tuesday’s hearing that it was based on a simple principle and premise: All people have a legal right to clean air and clean water. He is the main author of the Environmental Justice for All Act.For far too many across the country, these rights are not acknowledged,” said Mr. Grijalva, Arizona Democrat.
Climate justice legislation is likely facing a similar fate to Build back Better, despite Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III from West Virginia showing interest in climate measures after he singlehandedly ruined Mr. Bidens spending plan. It is possible for Republicans to block its passage in Congress. They have not given the Environmental Justice for All Act a warm reception.
The hearing of Mr. Grijalvas on the bill became a partisan battle over racism. Republicans criticised the proposal for allowing more frivolous litigation, inflation and bureaucratic red tape. Rep. Garret Graves (a Louisiana Republican) called it a conspiracy to racism to claim that there are systemic racial disparities in environmental policies.
The Senate Republicans share the same sentiments.
I don’t even know what in the heck climate justice is, Sen. Kevin Cramer, North Dakota Republican, said in an interview. I do think there’s an opportunity to discuss energy policy. I’m open to shaping certain investments toward people that are disadvantaged for whatever reasons.
His remarks by Mr. Cramer reflect the party’s resistance to racial injustice rhetoric and simultaneous willingness address unhealthy environmental conditions within poor communities. Republicans oppose the partisan, expensive and heavy-handed approach that Democrats advocate.
Harry Brower Jr. was the mayor of North Slope Borough in Alaska. He was invited by Republicans to testify at the hearing on Environmental Justice for All Act. He acknowledged that there were disproportionate and adverse environmental effects on disadvantaged communities. However, he said the bill was not up to the mark. He stated that the bill would have unintended effects by giving too many legal recourses to special interest groups.
Harry Brower Jr. was the mayor of North Slope Borough, Alaska. He will testify during the hearing on the Environmental Justice for All Act. He acknowledged that there were disproportionate and adverse environmental effects on disadvantaged communities. However, he said the bill was not up to the mark. He stated that the bill would have unintended effects by giving too many legal recourses to special interest groups.
Brower stated that the desire to correct these historical wrongs is good. However, I am concerned about the possibility that well-intentioned legislation, such as this bill, could allow outside special interest groups to use federal courts to defeat the interests and elected leaders of communities.
