The Climate Emergency Act of 2021 was introduced in the House on February 4, 2021 by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, on behalf of himself and 28 original co-sponsors, and the bill now has 44 Democrat co-sponsors. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management on February 5, 2021. The 28 original co-sponsors are: Representatives: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY-14], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA-32], Grace Meng [D-NY-6], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Adriano Espaillat [D-NY-13], Jerrold Nadler [D-NY-10], Mike Quigley [D-IL-5], Andy Levin [D-MI-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Doris O. Matsui [D-CA-6], Mark DeSaulnier [D-CA-11], Ayanna Pressley [D-MA-7], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Mondaire Jones [D-NY-17], Janice D. Schakowsky [D-IL-9], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Jimmy Gomez [D-CA-34], John A. Yarmuth [D-KY-3], Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1], Joe Neguse [D-CO-2], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Jamaal Bowman [D-NY-16], Pramila Jayapal [D-WA-7] THE BILL: H.R.794 What does the bill do? The goal of this Bill is to require that the President declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act (1) with respect to climate change. This would ensure that the Federal Government allocates money and resources to mitigation and resiliency projects, particularly for public systems, to upgrade infrastructure to expand access to affordable, clean energy, transportation, high-speed broadband and water. These projects should enable a transition to a clean energy economy that must be racially and socially just, actively combat environmental injustice, create sustainable jobs with liveable wages, and prioritize local and equitable hiring that provides opportunities. Additionally, the bill will ensure that the Federal Government avoids solutions that increase inequality, violate human rights laws, or harm the environment. Each year after its enactment, the Bill requires the President to submit a report to Congress that describes the actions taken that align with the requirements laid out by the bill in direct response to the climate emergency. Why was it proposed? Congress found the years 2010-2019 to be the hottest on record, and are accompanied by a 40% increase of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial times, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 415 ppm. They also note a 1.5 degree C global temperature increase. All of these increases are primarily due to human activities. Carbon dioxide is the primary global warming pollutant, and concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise at a rate of 2-3 ppm annually. Global concentrations of other global warming pollutants (methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (2)) have also increased significantly due to human activities including burning fossil fuels. We are already seeing the harmful impacts of increased levels of greenhouse gases including ocean warming and acidification, and increased duration and severity of droughts, wildfires and extreme weather events. Climate-related disasters have increased exponentially over the past decade, and cost the U.S. alone ~$1 billion per year. The public health consequences from climate change are also expansive, and will lead to temperature related deaths and illness, decreased air quality, vector borne diseases, water borne illnesses, food safety complications and mental health and well-being concerns. Congress notes that communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities will be disproportionately impacted due to existing environmental injustices (3). Additionally, the intelligence community identifies that climate change is a national security threat multiplier due to an increasing scarcity of resources and the spread of infectious diseases, among others. Climate scientists indicate that addressing the climate crisis must include phasing out fossil fuels in order to greatly reduce the amount of carbon being released in the atmosphere. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that mitigation and transition to clean energy needs to happen immediately. This will require urgent governmental action in the United States, and will require public awareness, engagement, and deliberation to develop and implement equitable policies. The United States has a powerful history of collaborative, constructive, large-scale Federal mobilizations of resources and labor to address challenges (e.g. the Interstate Highway System, Apollo 11 Moon landing, the New Deal and World War II). Many other countries including the UK, Ireland, Portugal and Canada have already declared a climate emergency, as have some local governments such as New York City and Los Angeles. Benefits
The bill acknowledges that climate change is human-induced, which requires the United States to take action on catastrophic and harmful events that will affect the entire country. Limiting the warming of Earth to not more than 1.5 degrees C would avoid climate change that’s catastrophic and irreversible. By declaring a national climate emergency through this bill, upgrades to public infrastructure will happen so that access to clean and affordable energy, water, and internet is available to all. The bill would support farmers and agricultural workers by investing in local and regional food systems to ensure healthy soil and regenerative agriculture. The bill takes a major step toward addressing major environmental justice issues by focusing on mitigating pollution, removing health hazards, and fixing the health and environmental impacts of climate change on communities. The bill specifically emphasizes a focus on communities of color and Indigenous communities that have systemically been denied equitable access to public health resources. Challenges The bill notes a lot of broad actions that could be taken, but does not provide guidance on any specific, actionable steps to take in the immediate future. Additionally, this bill does not address funding or expenses for such tasks, but notes that the President will ensure that the Federal Government invests in climate change mitigation and resiliency projects, of which 40% of those go to historically disadvantaged communities. Want to advocate? Does this bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The House bill has 44 cosponsors: Representatives Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY-14], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA-32], Grace Meng [D-NY-6], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Adriano Espaillat [D-NY-13], Jerrold Nadler [D-NY-10], Mike Quigley [D-IL-5], Andy Levin [D-MI-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Doris O. Matsui [D-CA-6], Mark DeSaulnier [D-CA-11], Ayanna Pressley [D-MA-7], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Mondaire Jones [D-NY-17], Janice D. Schakowsky [D-IL-9], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Jimmy Gomez [D-CA-34], John A. Yarmuth [D-KY-3], Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1], Joe Neguse [D-CO-2], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Jamaal Bowman [D-NY-16], Pramila Jayapal [D-WA-7], Raja Krishnamoorthi [D-IL-8], Thomas R. Suozzi [D-NY-3], Brendan F. Boyle [D-PA-2], Gerald E. Connolly [D-VA-11], Alcee L. Hastings [D-FL-20], Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia [D-IL-4], Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO-5], Judy Chu [D-CA-27], Ilhan Omar [D-MN-5], Brad Sherman [D-CA-30], Dwight Evans [D-PA-3], Jahana Hayes [D-CT-5], Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13], Bennie G. Thompson [D-MS-2]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes:
0 Comments
The Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act (PFAS)* was introduced in the Senate on February 4, 2021 by Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), on behalf of himself and Senators Sullivan (R-AK), Hassan (D-NH), Tillis (R-NC), Carper (D-DE), Murkowski (R-AK), and Collins (R-ME). The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. *PFAS in this scenario stands for both the title of the bill (Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act), and the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances that are addressed in the Act. Moving forward, when discussed, PFAS will refer to the toxic chemicals. THE BILL: S. 231 What does this bill do? The goal of this bill is to prevent the release of and exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) specifically from firefighting foam, which is a common tool used for fire suppression. The bill would also develop and publish guidance for emergency response personnel, such as firefighters, to reduce their exposure to materials that contain PFAS. Specifically, this would be achieved by identifying and using alternative firefighting foams, personal protective equipment, and other tools that do not contain PFAS. These items would be uploaded to an online public repository and updated regularly for workers to limit their exposure to and the release of PFAS to the environment. Guidance will be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders including emergency response personnel, communities dealing with PFAS contamination, scientists, state fire marshals, and manufacturers of firefighting tools. Review of this guidance will be performed within 3 years of enactment, and every 2 years after that by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in consultation with the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Why was it proposed? PFAS are human-made, toxic chemicals that are extremely difficult to break down and therefore persist both in the environment and in the body (1), leading to their nickname of the “forever chemicals.” There are more than 5,000 substances in this class of chemicals, and they are known for providing a grease- water- or stain- resistant barrier when applied to a product. They can be found in food, especially where the item was packaged in PFAS containing materials or grown in PFAS-contaminated water or soil. They can also be found in household products, such as non-stick products (Teflon), polishes, waxes, and cleaning products (2). PFAS can enter drinking water if it’s associated with a wastewater treatment plant, landfill, or firefighter training facility where PFAS is present. Specifically related to this bill, places where firefighter training occurs, such as airports and military bases, are a major source of groundwater contamination due to the fire fighting foams that are used (1). PFAS exposure can lead to adverse health effects in humans, such as reproductive and developmental issues, liver and kidney concerns, cancer, and thyroid hormone disruption (1). Currently, only a handful of states have adopted or proposed limits to PFAS in drinking water (3) Benefits According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 95% of the United States population has PFAS in their bodies, and therefore, any mitigation of PFAS in the environment is beneficial (4). Contaminated water is a main route of exposure to PFAS, and firefighting foam is one of the two main sources of PFAS contamination in water (5, 6). Therefore, federal legislation for developing alternative foams that do not contain PFAS would greatly reduce the amount of PFAS being released into the environment. Education and best practices for understanding PFAS and how to avoid it will aid in keeping it out of the environment long-term. Challenges PFAS are extremely difficult to break down in the environment. They can persist for decades, and be detected in substantial levels in blood for 8 years after exposure. This bill only addresses limiting or preventing PFAS from entering the environment in the future, but does not discuss cleanup of current PFAS in the environment, which will continue to pose major health concerns. This bill does not provide financial assistance required for building and maintaining the database and training efforts, so it is currently unclear who would be responsible for this, nor does it address the cost of identifying and shifting to equipment that does not contain PFAS. This bill is specifically geared towards PFAS release from firefighting foam and PPE. However, PFAS are found in many common items as well, such as food packaging, household items, non-stick cookware, and outdoor gear. Future legislation would need to address these concerns. Want to advocate? Does this bill resonate with you? Do you want to see them become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Senate bill has six cosponsors: Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI), Sullivan (R-AK), Hassan (D-NH), Tillis (R-NC), Carper (D-DE), Murkowski (R-AK), and Collins (R-ME). Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Additionally, if you are worried about PFAS in everyday items, consumers can contact brands to stop using PFAS in their products. Some larger companies like Ikea, H&M, and Crate & Barrel are already eliminating PFAS from their product lines, and others like Chipotle and Taco Bell have pledged to do so (3). The more people who speak out, the more likely change is to happen. Your voice matters! Footnotes
The United States Commitment to Climate Change Action: Simplifying the Paris Climate Agreement1/26/2021 Some important Executive Orders have been signed by President Biden since he was sworn in on Wednesday January 20. One of these includes the Executive Order to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, a worldwide effort to combat climate change. What is the Paris Climate Agreement? The Paris Climate Agreement is an international treaty on climate change, agreed upon by 196 state parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC (1), which took place near Paris, France in 2015. The Agreement is the culmination of decades of international efforts to combat climate change. It is significant because it means the majority of the World’s leaders, who do not always agree, understand that humans are driving climate change, and that we can only mitigate it with global action (2, 3). The Agreement, which began in 2016, addresses greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions with the overall goal of limiting global warming to below 2 (ideally below 1.5) degrees C above pre-industrial levels. Why Greenhouse gases? GHGs are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. While some of these gases are naturally emitted to the atmosphere, human activity is responsible for the substantial increase in their levels since the Industrial Revolution (4). Their presence in the atmosphere is bad because some can remain there for thousands of years. As they accumulate over time, they slowly alter Earth’s climate (5) by increasing average global temperatures. The increased temperature in the atmosphere, even by one degree, can facilitate more extreme weather (6) events across the planet. Although 2.5C may not seem like a lot, it will have numerous direct and indirect impacts.To read more about what this temperature increase would look like, check out this interactive website by the Carbon Brief. Common GHGs include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons. Some, like methane, impact Earth’s atmosphere more strongly than others by trapping heat more effectively. These gases have many origins including through the burning of fossil fuels (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide), application of fertilizers (methane, nitrous oxide), raising livestock (methane, nitrous oxide) and maintaining landfills (methane). How does the Agreement work? Broadly, the treaty works on a 5 year cycle and requires both social and economic change based around the best available science. Working towards a worldwide goal, the Agreement has a bottom-up structure. Each country must establish and submit its own climate action plan, called a nationally determined contribution (NDC), by 2020. Each NDC plan outlines nationally determined targets and intended mitigation and adaptation actions to reduce GHG emissions and to build resilience to combat the impacts of rising temperatures on Earth. Involvement by a country is voluntary, and plans are considerably variable amongst countries. This is because actions and intentions should reflect a country’s level of development, access to technology and scientific innovation, and its contribution to carbon emissions over time. Additionally, more developed countries should provide financial assistance to developing countries that are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The treaty states that each country’s commitments to these outlined actions should strengthen over time by reflecting advancing technologies. To track the progress, the Agreement established an enhanced transparency framework, in which each country will submit reports beginning in 2024 outlining actions taken, adaptation measures, and financial support given or received. The reports will be used collectively to assess progress towards long term goals (3). The United States’ Involvement President Obama entered into the Agreement by Executive Order. He was able to do this because the United States already had tools and carbon-cutting emissions laws already enacted by Congress. The US entered into the Agreement in 2016. The United States has committed to cutting its total GHG emissions by ~27 percent below its 2005 levels by 2025 (3). This is important because the U.S. is currently the second largest emitter, and is just behind China, which recently surpassed the U.S. as the largest emitter. The U.S. plans to achieve this using laws, regulations and incentives to continue and increase efforts in advancing renewable energies as alternatives to fossil fuels, and by developing better energy storage technologies. In June 2017, President Trump announced the United States withdrawal from the Agreement. This became official on November 4, 2020 within a larger effort to reverse environmental policy in the U.S. He cited that the Agreement would hurt the US economy. Research, however, clarifies that climate inaction will outweigh the immediate costs of the U.S. committed actions within the Agreement (3). Additionally, studies show that green infrastructure investments in clean energy and energy efficiency would likely have major, long term global rewards including job creation, scientific innovation, and becoming a leader in renewable energy (3). President Biden signed an Executive Order on January 20, 2021 to rejoin the Agreement. The United States will officially rejoin the Agreement 30 days after the Administration sends a letter of intent to the United Nations. Benefits: We are already seeing the impacts of climate change through more severe wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, and flooding. Rising sea levels are already impacting coastal communities with effects reaching inland to the Great Lakes. The Agreement provides a global acknowledgement of the threat of climate change, and a consensus that human behaviors are driving the rapid change. Challenges: The action plans that have currently been laid out by participating countries, will likely only limit temperature change to 2.9 degrees C, which is significantly higher than the upper 2 degree limit (7). Additionally, current evaluations of countries participating show that many countries are already falling short of their intended commitments (8, 9). This includes the United States, which is only on track to reduce emissions by ~17%. An important note: Even though an Executive Order does not go through the same legislative process as a bill that becomes law, advocacy is still important. Sending “thank you” notes or emails to your legislators who support a bill, an Executive Order, or other legislative efforts are powerful tools in forming relationships, and tells your legislator that they are representing their constituents’ needs. We encourage people to reach out to their legislators with appreciation, questions, or concerns. Footnotes
Carbon Brief Interactive Website: https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/?utm_source=web&utm_campaign=Redirect The MICRO Plastics Act of 2020 was introduced in the Senate on February 13, 2020 by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), on behalf of himself and Senators Graham (R-SC), Collins (R-ME), Sullivan (R-AK), Coons (D-DE), and Duckworth (D-IL). The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. An identical bill was introduced in the House by Representative Brian Mast (R-FL) on the same day and referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
THE BILLS: H.R. 5902 S. 3306 What do these bills do? The goal of these identical bills is to begin to address the issue of small, micro-sized plastic particles in the environment. According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, micro-sized particles are less than 5mm (1). These bills establish a pilot program that would allow the Administrator of the EPA to test the effectiveness of technology and techniques in removing microplastics from the environment. This pilot program would also work to test preventing new releases of microplastics to the environment. The EPA would consult with the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee, stakeholders, and experts in the field to select projects for the program. These projects would test mechanical removal systems (like pumps and filtration units), green infrastructure (like stormwater harvest systems, plant/soil systems, etc.), and natural infrastructure (natural mitigation solutions like mangroves, wetlands, reefs, dunes, etc. (2)). The bill states that the projects could be conducted in stormwater systems, wastewater treatment facilities, drinking water systems, and marine environments such as ports, harbors, inland waterways or estuaries. After 180 days, the EPA Administrator would report to Congress with a summary of their outreach conducted. Why was it proposed? Note: The bill does not state reasons for its proposal, so this section is based on the EPA’s assessment (1) of microplastics. The EPA reported that in 2018, 35.7 million tons of plastic was generated in the United States alone, and only about three million tons of plastic were recycled. Plastics are particularly harmful because of their longevity, and in a marine ecosystem present physical and chemical hazards to both birds and marine wildlife. In addition to destroying ecosystems, plastics also litter our harbors and beaches. Impacts include: disruption to our fishing industries, tourism (and therefore local economies), and navigation. Microplastics are estimated to be 90% of the plastic content in the open sea marine environment and mostly occur due to breakdown of larger pieces of plastic. These plastics are also small enough that they can pass through wastewater treatment facilities easily without being removed. They cause severe issues because marine life often sees them as food, which can kill organisms andresult in the destruction of ecosystems over time. Additionally, plastics act somewhat like magnets and attract organic pollutants such as DDT, dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Similar to mercury in fish, these compounds bioaccumulate in the food chain and have harmful impacts on humans. The best way to combat this problem is by preventing microplastics from entering our waterways. Benefits Testing the ability for currently established systems such as wastewater treatment facilities and drinking water systems to trap and collect microplastics before they enter the environment is a first step before establishing new systems. Additionally, green infrastructure such as rain gardens provide greenery, improved air quality, and improved water quality to a city and would have the additional benefit of rerouting water from directly entering stormwater drains (3). Challenges Microplastics come from a long list of products - from our clothing to packaging (4). Removing microplastics from the environment is difficult because there are many sources that are difficult to track. Unlike our food that naturally breaks down into soil, as plastic breaks down, it breaks into increasingly smaller pieces but does not go away (5). Filtration units are expensive and require regular replacement and maintenance. Micro plastics may be so small that they pass through the pores in the filtration units (4). This could be a reason why the small plastics make their way through water treatment facilities. Want to advocate? Do these bills resonate with you? Do you want to see them become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Senate bill has five cosponsors: Lindsey Graham [R-SC], Susan Collins [R-ME], Dan Sullivan [R-AK], Christopher Coons [D-DE], Tammy Duckworth [D-IL]. The House bill has eight co-sponsors: Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1], W. Gregory Steube [R-FL-17], Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen [R-AS-At Large], Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Matt Cartwright [D-PA-8], Ed Case [D-HI-1], Ron Kind [D-WI-3], Matt Gaetz [R-FL-1]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes:
The Clean Air Sharp Minds Act S.3364 was introduced in the Senate on February 27, 2020 by Democrat Cory Booker from New Jersey, and referred to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee. An identical bill, H.R. 6025 was introduced in the House by Representative Katherine Clark, a Democrat representing Massachusetts' 5th district.
THE BILLS: H.R. 6025 S. 3364 What does it do? This bill highlights the intersection of education and environmental justice. The main goal of this bill is to improve air quality in schools, leading to both better health and academic achievement. The bill outlines a three year, $20 million, trial program called the School Air Filters Demonstration Program. This would be administered and overseen by a joint effort between the Department of Education (DE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The DE would be responsible for selecting a mix of urban, suburban and rural, public elementary or secondary schools. The selection would focus on advancing environmental justice (1), giving priority first to schools located in highly polluted zones (e.g. near heavily trafficked roads or a toxic release site), then to schools that have known health threats, and finally to schools with a high concentration of students from low-income families. At least 175 schools will participate in the program. In the bill Congress notes, “More than 1 in 5 public schools in the United States are located within a mile of a toxic release site. Nearly 1 in 11 public schools, serving 4,400,000 students, are less than 500 feet from a major road.” Further, “4 percent of schools serving predominantly white students are next to major roads, while 15 percent of schools serving largely students of color are next to major roads.” Annually, the DE and EPA will purchase, install, and maintain the filters, and provide a report to Congress outlining metrics, pollutants captured, academic outcomes, and rates of health related absences. They will also provide technical support to the participating schools and collect and analyze data for evaluating the effectiveness of the program. The idea conveyed in this bill is that this program will greatly improve air quality because high quality air filters can remove up to 90% of particulate matter. At the end of the three year trial period, the effectiveness of the program will be evaluated by Congress based on a cumulative report from the DE and the EPA. Why was it proposed? It has been documented that academic achievement increases when students are working in a healthy environment. Yet, in 2014, ~50% of schools in the states reported air quality issues. Asthma is already the leading cause of school absences, and poor air quality increases the risk of asthma, and allergic reactions. According to the EPA (2), indoor air pollutants, which can originate within or outside the building, can be 2-5 times as high, and occasionally as much as 100 times higher, than the outdoor equivalents. Since the majority of people spend ~90% of their time indoors, these levels are concerning. Schools in particular have 4 times more occupants than most office buildings for the same amount of space. The goal is that air filters remove particulate matter (3) and gaseous pollutants (4), and therefore will create healthier environments that in turn advance academic achievement. Benefits The bill states that proof of concept has already been demonstrated in 18 public schools in Los Angeles. Test scores dramatically improved mirroring the same effect as reducing class sizes by 1/3. Ideally, schools should not be located near heavily polluted areas, but in the short term, this program would provide immediate assistance. Challenges Long term, school budgets are small and the addition of ventilation systems and their upkeep increases the strain on maintenance staff. Also, there are known pollutant sources associated with art and science supplies, vocational arts, gyms, and the large amounts of diesel gas emitted from buses. In these areas with higher pollutants, the filters would require more frequent replacement and maintenance. Want to advocate? Does this bill resonate with you? Do you want to see this bill become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? Thus far, this bill only has two cosponsors, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Tina Smith (D-MN). You can email your Senators by finding their emails at: https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes as defined by the bill: (1) Briefly, means: the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all individuals with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This specifically ensures that populations of color, communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income communities -- a. have access to information and opportunities for meaningful public participation relating to human health and environmental planning, regulations, and enforcement b.are not exposed to a disproportionate burden of the negative human health and environmental impacts of pollution or other environmental hazards c. that the “17 Principles of Environmental Justice”, written and adopted at the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit (1991) are upheld. (2) Source: https://www.epa.gov/iaq-schools/why-indoor-air-quality-important-schools (3) Includes: mold, smoke, dust, soot, lead, and allergens from pests (4) Includes: carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) |