The Environmental Justice Mapping and Data Collection Act of 2021 was introduced in the House on January 28, 2021 by Representative Cori Bush (D-MO-1) on behalf of herself and 32 original co-sponsors*. The Bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Natural Resources to determine which has jurisdiction over the legislation. In the Senate, an identical Bill was introduced by Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) on January 28, 2021 and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
THE BILLS: H.R.516 S.101 These Bills are focused on environmental justice (EJ), which in the Bill is defined as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.“ This is important for ensuring equal protection from environmental health hazards and equal access to actions relating to environmental regulations. What do these Bills do? The purpose of these Bills are to take a step towards connecting environmental justice communities with policy outcomes by providing layered maps depicting which communities experience environmental injustices. EJ communities are those with a substantial representation of Indigenous, low-income, or communities of color that experience more frequent or more adverse human health or environmental effects compared to other communities. Congress identified that EJ communities are more vulnerable to climate change and environmental hazards that impact human health due to systemic injustices such as race or income. The Bill would establish the Environmental Justice Mapping Committee, led by the Environmental Protection Agency and composed of relevant offices (1). The Committee will create, consult, and regularly engage with an advisory council of relevant stakeholders (2). At a minimum, half of these stakeholders will represent EJ communities, and will be led by a stakeholder with experience in environmental justice. The plan created will consider barriers to public engagement, including language, transportation, economic, and internet access, and will incorporate feedback from EJ advocates and communities. For this Bill, $20,000,000 will be set aside in 2021 and 2022, and $18,000,000 will be designated each year for 2023-2025. The Committee would formalize and develop a tool for mapping environmental justice communities. This tool would be interactive, transparent, and used throughout the Federal government, with all the impacts of environmental justice combined into the tool. The tool will integrate: demographics (3), public health (4), pollution burdens (5), environmental effects (6). The tool would also investigate how the impacts of climate change affect the vulnerability of the EJ communities. The tool will also be customizable in order to address policy needs and permitting processes, and allow communities to self-identify as EJ. Additionally, it would identify access to services including safe drinking water, sanitation, stormwater services, and access to green space, healthy food, affordable energy and water, internet, and transportation, among many others. The tool will be created at the national level but will implement regional indicators as well, such that the tool will be effective at a more local scale. This will allow states to expand and collect data to understand specific EJ issues in their area, and address them accordingly. The development process will be ground-truthing, meaning that technical information collected, will be supplemented with local knowledge in order to create the most inclusive and best policy and project decisions. This is important for engaging with EJ communities in a meaningful way to address critical EJ issues. The Bill specifically notes that care must be taken to not exacerbate current issues or create new issues. The Committee will identify gaps in data, and assign a federal agency to conduct an audit and collect data to address these gaps. A report will be made public 180 days after the audit to describe findings and conclusions. Finally, an Environmental Justice Data Repository will be created to maintain and update the data collected by the Committee as described in the Bill, and updated as often as possible but not less than once every 3 years. The repository will be made available to every regional, state, local, and Tribal governments, and each could collaborate to include pre-existing EJ data into the repository. Why were they proposed? Environmental racism, a form of systemic racism whereby individuals or communities face significant health disparities due to disproportionately shouldering unfair policies and practices based on race. This results in these communities often living in closer proximity to toxic sources and pollutants such as landfills, power stations, mines and sewage works (7). Environmental racism can take many different forms, and is a global scale problem that needs to be addressed. Some EJ communities have already been identified, such as a part of Louisiana nicknamed “Cancer Alley”, where communities have been exposed to extremely high levels of contaminants. However, the Federal Government lacks a consistent strategy to address environmental injustices in minority and low-income populations. The Bill notes that this is due to a deficiency of high quality environmental justice data in the US, and no consistent method to identify the environmental justice communities that currently exist. The method created would specifically account for historic and current racist and unjust practices. Removal and reduction of pollution within these communities is essential to creating equitable access to a cleaner environment. Benefits The Bill would be a systematic and inclusive collaboration through community engagement and intergovernmental agencies to identify public health concerns that are related to environmental injustice. It would be a crucial first step in identifying communities that are experiencing environmental injustices, and where help is most needed. The data collected will be used to build an interactive, layered map that would document existing EJ communities in the US and create a repository of data for long-term tracking to assess progress. Additionally, as described in the Bill, this information will help the current and future Administrations in directing at least 40% of the funds to clean energy, transportation, housing, and water quality infrastructure specifically in EJ communities. This is important for addressing the climate crisis in an equitable way by providing resources to communities that have been harmed by persistent unjust practices. Challenges The Bill will provide the framework to begin correcting critical environmental justice issues, but it may have some logistical challenges in identifying all EJ communities in the US. Each EJ issue is unique, and while resources and guidance can be federally implemented, the full issues will require local government involvement and community support. Additionally, there is no timeline created for how long it will take to create this map, and the Bill only provides funding through 2025. Future Bills will need to be created to continue this work to address the climate crisis in an environmentally just way. The Bill designates $18-20 million per year, but does not designate specifically how to spend the funds, so there is flexibility in design, but it is unclear if funding can be transferred from the previous fiscal year if there is any balance remaining. 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 1 cosponsor: Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). The House Bill has 41 cosponsors: *Original co-sponsors: Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia (D-IL-4), Alcee L.Hastings (D-FL-20), Ro Khanna (D-CA-17), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY-13), Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS-2), Alan S. Lowenthal (D-CA-47), Nanette Diaz Barragan (D-CA-44), Terri A. Sewell (D-AL-7), Gwen Moore (D-WI-4), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-23), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-10), Mondaire Jones (D-NY-17), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-At Large), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-11), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-13), Grace F. Napolitano (D-CA-32), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ-12), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-5), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY-16), Juan Vargas (D-CA-51), Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3), Ritchie Torres (D-NY-15), Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA-11), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE-At Large), Doris O. Matsui (D-CA-6), Henry C. "Hank," Johnson Jr. (D-GA-4), A. Donald McEachin (D-VA-4), Diana DeGette (D-CO-1), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA-7), Jim Cooper (D-TN-5). Additional co-sponsors: Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY-7), Andy Levin (D-MI-9), Matt Cartwright (D-PA-8), Ilhan Omar (D-MN-5), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA-40), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA-7), Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ-3), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-1), Nikema Williams (D-GA-5) 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 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:
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 Restoring Resilient Reefs Act of 2021 was introduced in the Senate on January 26, 2021 by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), on behalf of himself and Senators Scott (R-FL), Hirono (D-HI), and Schatz (D-HI). The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. An identical bill was introduced in the House by Representative Darren Soto (R-FL) and referred to the Subcommittee on Natural Resources.The bill had unanimously passed the Senate in December 2020, but was stalled in the House. It has been reintroduced with the 117th Congress.
THE BILLS: S. 46 H.R. 160 What do these bills do? The goal of these identical, bipartisan bills is to reauthorize and modernize the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, and establish the United States Coral Reef Task Force. The Coral Reef Conservation Act expired 15 years ago, and was implemented to protect our nation’s reefs. The new bill directs five years of federal funding and technical assistance to states feeling the impact of reef degradation. The goal is to preserve, sustain and restore the United States coral reef ecosystems that have been stressed by human-accelerated changes (e.g. increased temperatures, increased acidity, coral bleaching, coral diseases, water quality degradation, invasive species, poor fishing practices). Additionally, the bill requires the development of scientific information to assess threats, monitor conditions, and propose innovative science-based management solutions to reef degradation. The bill also incentivizes state and local investment in coral reef management capacity and conservation projects through Coral Reef Stewardship Partnerships. A Coral Reef Task Force will be established to lead, coordinate and strengthen Federal Government actions and initiatives to conserve, preserve and restore our coral reef ecosystems using mapping, monitoring, research, conservation, mitigation, and restoration strategies. It will be made up of voting (1) and non-voting (2) members. The task force will work in coordination with state, tribal, local government, nongovernmental and academic partners as appropriate. The task force will provide a report to appropriate Congressional committees each year summarizing recent management and restoration activities in each State as well as updated estimates of economic activity. The report will be made publicly available. The Act also establishes the National Coral Reef Management Fellowship program, specifically to provide year long fellowship funds and guidance to those with an intent to pursue a career in marine services, have leadership potential, hold a college degree or have equivalent experience in biological sciences or marine management, and is proficient with writing and speaking skills. The goal is to encourage future leaders to provide management. Why were they proposed? Coral reef systems are invaluable. They provide natural coastal protection, along with billions of dollars in food, jobs and recreational opportunities world wide (3). Additionally, although they occupy <0.1% of the world’s ocean area, they host ~25% of all marine life, and over 500 million people rely on them for food, revenue and protection. They are the rainforests of the sea. The diversity of these ecosystems is dependent on the corals. Reef building corals occur due to a symbiotic relationship between the coral and an algae called zooxanthellae. The algae live in the coral polyps and create oxygen for the coral, and the coral provides the essential protection needed for the algae to live by a process called photosynthesis (4, 5). This process is slow, and on average, corals only grow 0.3-2 cm a year. Live corals are often vibrantly colored, due to the algae, and attract diversity by providing food and shelter for other organisms. Increased water temperatures by 1-2 degrees can cause corals to expel their algae, a process called coral bleaching (6). In this scenario, the coral loses its color, and ultimately starves without the algae. As a result, the entire ecosystem can collapse. Benefits The bill reauthorizes existing federal programs to continue the essential efforts to halt reef degradation. It calls for scientific research and expertise into monitoring and protecting coral reefs, which will help to expand maps of reef areas and where the most at-risk areas are. It also calls for coral reef emergency plans and best response practices for outbreaks of disease, invasive species, and natural or human-made disasters, so that responders are prepared to immediately handle any emergency. The bill provides funding for state and local community conservation and restoration projects, so that through this bill, activities will also include making sure Federal laws related to the management of coral reef systems are upheld. This includes the taking of corals or surrounding organisms. A benefit of this bill is that it will attempt to identify reef-safe anchors and advance public awareness of reefs to prevent damage to reef systems from boats and other vessels. Challenges Reef degradation is a challenge for warmer coastal areas of the United States like Florida and Hawaii, but it is also a global challenge. Unfortunately, degradation is happening at an unprecedented speed. Scientists predict that without significant changes, we could see 90% of the world’s reefs disappear by 2050. Tropical coral reef coverage has declined 30-50% since the 1980s, and ~75% of the world's reefs are currently facing significant stress (7). Bleaching events have become increasingly more severe, with the worst occurring from June 2014-May 2017. The Great Barrier Reef (Australia) lost half of its coral to bleaching, and other reefs lost >90% of their coral (7). While bleaching events used to be rare, they are now becoming common, and reefs do not have time to recover between bleaching events. Additionally, the bill only provides funding for five years, and would have to be reassessed after this timeline. 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 three cosponsors: Brian Schatz [D-HI], Mazie Hirono [D-HI], and Rick Scott [R-FL]. The House bill has five co-sponsors: Ed Case [D-HI-1], Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen [R-AS-At Large], Brian Mast [R-FL-18], Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon [R-PR-At Large], and Stacey Plaskett [D-VI-At Large]. 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
Enacting laws is an incremental process (most of which occurs in the background) that takes place in a consensus-driven environment. We, as constituents, can and should be involved at any stage. Our Congresspeople represent us, but they can only do so if we voice our values, and share our expertise.
In order to advocate for legislation, though, it is important to understand how the process works. Congress is the Legislative branch that is responsible for crafting and enacting federal laws. The two legislative bodies within the Congress are the Senate (50 elected members, 2 from each state) and the House of Representatives (435 elected members, 1 from each Congressional district allocated to each state based on population as defined by the U.S. Census). A bill, which is a proposal for a new law, can be introduced by any member of Congress to their respective chamber. A bill must be introduced by a member of Congress, but the idea for a bill can start with anyone! Policy can be in the developmental stage for years prior to being introduced in either of the Chambers. Once a bill is introduced, it is placed in a wooden box called the bill hopper where it is assigned a legislative number before the Speaker of the House assigns it to a subcommittee (1). Numbers are assigned based on when the bill is introduced, and at the beginning of each new Congress (every 2 years), the group starts fresh and bill numbers are reset to 1. Even if a bill was already in debate by the House or Senate, it will have to be reintroduced at the start of each new Congress and assigned a new number. Once in a subcommittee, Representatives or Senators debate and amend the bill before voting on it. A vote can either defeat the piece of legislation, table it for later, or pass it to the House or Senate Floor for a debate. If it is passed within the subcommittee, members of the full House or Senate then read it and propose changes or amendments before holding a floor vote. If a simple majority (over 50%) votes to pass the bill, then it is sent to the other chamber, where it undergoes the same process, and both chambers have to agree on an identical version of the bill before it goes to the President. The bill can fail at any point during this process when a vote is held. Once (if) a bill is agreed on by both chambers, it is sent to the President. The President can 1) veto the bill, 2) decide to take no action 3) pocket veto the bill, and 4) sign the bill into law. A veto is when the President rejects the bill, and it is returned to Congress with the reasons for rejection detailed. At this time, Congress can override the veto with a supermajority (⅔) vote, and still pass the bill into law. If the President chooses to take no action and Congress is in session, after 10 days the bill automatically becomes law. A pocket veto occurs when the President decides to take no action and Congress is adjourned (out of session). After 10 days in this scenario, if the President does not sign it, the bill does not become law. Just to highlight the complexity of this process, during the 116th Congress (2019-2021), out of 16,601 pieces of legislation that were introduced, only 2% of bills and 4% of resolutions that were introduced were adopted (2). In addition to bills becoming laws through the process described above, the President can also take actions such as Executive Orders, Presidential Memoranda, and Presidential Proclamations (3). Of these, Executive Orders (EOs) hold the power of a law, and can be used to create organizations or issue other federal directives. They must cite the specific authority the President has to make the EO, and must be published in the Federal Register. Presidential Memoranda are similar to EOs in that they also hold the power of law, but don’t require publishing in the Federal Register. They are typically used to delegate tasks, start a regulatory process, or direct an agency to action. Through Presidential Proclamations, communication of information about holidays, special observances, trade, and policy occurs. Proclamations from 1994 to the present are available for download online (4). It is important to note that while the process detailed above highlights the federal legislative process, the same process occurs at the state level, and advocacy is still an essential component. Interested in advocating? Learn more about legislation you care about and what stage it’s at by checking out congress.gov and govtrack.us, and check out our Resources page to learn more about easy ways to voice your values to your legislators! Footnotes: (1) Subcommittee: A smaller group within a Senate or House committee that takes on some of the work from the main committee. https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/subcommittee.htm#:~:text=subcommittee%20%2D%20Subunit%20of%20a%20committee,for%20more%20than%203%20days (2) https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics (3) https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made#item-35862 (4) https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/proclamations Currently, the House and Senate are transitioning into the 117th Congress. While summaries and text of newly proposed pieces of legislation are being updated, we thought it was a good opportunity to discuss some of the exciting environmental bills that became law recently.
The National Landslide Preparedness Act was introduced by Representative Suzan DelBene (D-WA) on behalf of five original cosponsors* referred to the House Natural Resources Committee and the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee on November 24, 2020. The bill was passed on a voice vote (1) in the House and unanimous consent (2) in the Senate. became Public Law No: 116-323 on January 5, 2021. *The five original cosponsors in addition to Rep. DelBene are Reps. Derek Kilmer (D-WA-6), Denny Heck (D-WA-10), Adam Smith (D-WA-9), Matt Cartwright (D-PA-8), and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-1). THE LAW: H.R. 8810 What does this law do? This bipartisan law provides funds to establish two programs: The National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program and the National 3D Elevation Program through the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program aims to better identify landslide hazards and risks, reduce losses from landslides, protect communities currently at risk of landslide hazards, and improve the communication of emergency preparedness. This will involve identifying, mapping, assessing and researching landslide hazards and responding to landslide events. Priority areas will also be established in coordination with state offices, local government, territories and Indian tribes. Landslide hazard guidelines will be developed and standardized for those directly involved with the program (e.g. geologists and emergency management personnel), and emergency procedures will be developed and implemented. It will also create a publicly-accessible database that will be maintained and used to alert citizens of risks and health hazards associated with landslides as well as data on areas that have been stabilized and reduction of losses from landslides. National landslide research grants may be provided through the National Science Foundation to advance research on landslide events and develop ways to reduce risks and minimize losses that occur with landslide events. A Debris Flow Early Warning System is already in place, but this law will expand it to include more recently burned areas of the western United States, stormwater drainage monitoring procedures in high risk areas, and at-risk areas of wildfires and volcanic mudflows. The 3D Elevation Program (3) will be responsible for coordinating and facilitating the collection of 3D elevation data of the United States using high-resolution surveys (LiDAR) (4). Data will be disseminated to federal agencies and non-federal entities, as well as used to produce standard publicly accessible data products. This will be overseen and managed by a 3D Elevation Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee. One year after enacted, and then every five years, the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the director of the USGS) in Coordination with the committee, will publish an updated national strategy that will include goals and priorities for the program. Why was it proposed? Landslides are known geologic hazards that happen in every state, caused by disturbances in the natural stability of a slope. Some areas are more susceptible to landslides, as they often accompany other natural phenomena including heavy rains, droughts, fires, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions (5). Specific areas of increased risk include: steep slopes, areas where landscapes have lost significant vegetation naturally (e.g. fires) or by human behavior (e.g. logging), channel or river banks, areas where surface runoff is directed, or newly formed slopes (e.g. where landslides have occurred before or due to construction) (5). They cause ~$2-4 billion per year in damage and kill between 25 and 50 people each year in the United States (5,6, 7). Globally, landslides result in billions of dollars of damage and thousands of deaths and injuries each year. Adverse effects can include infrastructure destruction, medical costs, and disruption of transportation routes, as well as the loss of property value, fish stocks, timber, and both water availability and quality. More data can help to identify more areas of risk and mitigate potential damage. Benefits This federalizes the ability to monitor areas of high risk, advance landslide research, and do more LiDAR mapping to assess the land movement underneath vegetation covered areas. 3D elevation data can be an essential tool for public safety, national security, infrastructure, transportation, agriculture, and natural resource management. This is especially important in landslide prone areas like Washington state, which need better landslide prediction and monitoring efforts, but have increasingly tight budgets especially due to the pandemic. Challenges Funding is only authorized for the fiscal years 2021-2024. Without the establishment of long term funding, maintenance of these endeavors will fall to individual states that would have to designate specific funding and resources to these projects. Landscapes are continuously changing, and require active monitoring, rapid responses, and cost mitigation. Want to advocate? Although this bill has become 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:
The Great American Outdoors Act was introduced by Representative John Lewis (D-GA) on behalf of twelve original cosponsors* referred to the Ways and Means and Financial Services committees on March 28, 2019. This bill was passed in the House 310 yea to 107 nay, and passed in the Senate 73 yea to 25 nay. The bill became Public Law No: 116-152 on August 4, 2020.
*The twelve original cosponsors in addition to Rep. Lewis are Reps. Mike Kelly (R-PA), Richard Neal (D-MA), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Suzan DelBene (D-WA), Jackie Walorski (R-IN-2), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Darin LaHood (R-IL), Thomas Suozzi (D-NY), Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), Judy Chu (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Brendan Boyle (D-PA). THE LAW: H.R.1957 What does this law do? This bipartisan law allocates money to the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund and the Land Water Conservation Fund to support maintenance projects on federal lands that were put on hold, in hopes of aiding the restoration of our national parks and federal land. This law is relevant to projects from 2021-2025 within the National Park Service (70% of funds), the Forest Service (15%), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (5%), the Bureau of Land Management (5%), and the Bureau of Indian Education (5%). The law provides funds for these maintenance projects using revenues from oil, gas, coal, or alternative or renewable energy development on federal land. Each year from 2021-2025, 50% of the energy development revenues will be deposited into the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund but won’t exceed $1.9 billion for any fiscal year. The law will also provide permanent guaranteed funding, $900 million, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. No less than 65% of funds will be allocated for non-transportation projects. Any funds remaining can be put toward transportation projects such as improving unpaved roads, bridges, tunnels, and parking areas. None of the funding will be allowed for land acquisition, bonuses to employees, or replacing annual discretionary funding for maintenance at an agency. Why was it proposed? Over 325 million people visit our national parks each year, and currently, ~70% of park infrastructure, like historic buildings and campgrounds, is over 60 years old (1). While park entrance fees cover some maintenance costs (2), the goal of this law is to reduce the ~$12 billion (1,3) backlog of important maintenance projects that have been deferred. National park tourism has increased 50% since 1980 with a relatively flat budget (2), leading to poorly maintained infrastructure. Without significant repairs to roads, trails, restrooms, water treatment systems, visitor facilities, etc. parks will not be able to keep up with the increasing popularity and demand. Benefits This is the largest land conservation legislation to pass into law in a generation (1, 3). National Parks and other federal agency lands will be supported with funds to complete projects, protect natural historic sites and access to these places, and create better experiences for all. Additionally, these funds will not draw from taxpayer dollars to push more funding toward the parks. Investing in National Parks helps to create jobs and sustain existing employment, and boost local economies (4). Challenges The law only provides maintenance funding for five years, which could lead to significant future deferred maintenance backlogs as the federal state continues to expand, if we do not ensure proper maintenance. The law also does not focus on maintaining routine maintenance, which if unchecked also becomes deferred maintenance (1). Additionally, as indicated by H.R. 8288 Improving the Not-So-Great American Outdoors Act, there’s more work to be done. Other shortcomings described in H.R. 8288 that could be addressed are fairness and parity for eastern states, strengthening commitments to urban recreation, establishing logic in funding priorities, transparency in funding allocation, appropriate consequences regarding funding sources, and ensuring availability of funds for maintenance backlogs (5). Want to advocate? Although this bill has become 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:
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 purposes of this blog are to bring awareness to legislation and provide encouragement and resources for advocacy. This is a special blog post that highlights a unique opportunity in science policy and advocacy.
Are you a scientist interested in advocacy or science policy, but don’t know where to start? Is science communication and outreach important to you, but maybe you don’t have experience interacting with the policy world? Are you becoming more concerned with the environmental changes you’re witnessing? Do you have a feeling of obligation to use your scientific expertise and passion for science communication to help inform our policymakers and support their legislative efforts? Like any new direction, the policy world might feel like an overwhelmingly vast unknown. Participating in the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) Voices for Science Program could change all of that. Morgan was a part of the 2020 cohort and is sharing some of her insight and experiences below. About the Program AGU launched their Voices for Science (VFS) Program in 2018, in an effort to train scientists in effectively communicating the impact of science to a diverse set of audiences. The program is split into two tracks (you apply to the one you are interested in), a communications track focused on communicating science to journalists, media and public audiences, and a policy track geared towards communicating and building connections with policymakers. Both tracks have a central goal of increasing community engagement. Selected scientists participate in a two day training as a cohort, and then receive support from an assigned regional team and trained AGU staff throughout the year. Individuals gain a diverse and incredible network of passionate scientists, all sharing and conducting creative outreach opportunities with the common goal of advancing an understanding and trust in science. The Experience By the end of the first day of training, I (Morgan) was shocked at the vast role that science plays in policy, and surprised by the overlap of my skills as a scientist and those needed for a career in science policy. To name a few, science policy relies on persistence, natural curiosity, knowledge of the scientific process, the ability to juggle multiple projects and shift gears rapidly, familiarity with uncertainty, and communication skills. Many of these skills or qualities are what drove me to pursue a graduate degree, and others I have been consciously and steadily trying to build throughout my career. On the second day of training, with guided preparation, we led mock meetings (in non-COVID times, these would have been in person meetings on Capitol Hill) with legislators, learned how to formulate an “ask,” and connected our message with the values of our legislators. In the span of two days, I went from feeling nervous about the unknowns associated with the policy world to feeling excited and motivated to dive into advocacy. Monthly meetings with my regional team and AGU leader have held me accountable to conducting advocacy and outreach activities throughout the year. Working with this incredible team has pushed me to be more creative and confident in my outreach endeavors. This opportunity has been hugely inspiring. It has shown me the vast possibilities for connecting science and policy, and has helped me define career goals in which I can use my technical science background as a tool to help address critical societal challenges. I gained a more comprehensive understanding of the legislative process, and have learned how to articulate the importance of scientific research in an accessible way. The VFS program provided me with resources and support that enabled me to navigate my way into the policy world, and pushed me to advocate for legislation and topics I am passionate about. I would encourage anyone with an interest in science policy to take advantage of opportunities like VFS. Interested in Applying? The application for the 2021-2022 cohort is open until February 1. The application can be found at: https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Sharing-science-network/Voices-for-science If you miss the application deadline, apply next year! In the meantime, keep an eye out for the many opportunities offered by AGU, AAAS, GSA, and other scientific societies. You can also be involved by sending emails or calling your representatives offices. Check out our resources page for more on this, or if you need help getting started send us an email! There is a growing mission throughout the scientific community to make science more accessible, so take the initiative and be a part of it! If you have found opportunities or have personal experience getting involved, we would love to hear about it! Send us an email or leave a comment below. |