Bill Overview
Title: Environmental Justice For All Act
Description: This bill establishes several environmental justice requirements, advisory bodies, and programs and modifies the scope of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The bill sets forth provisions to address the disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects of federal laws or programs on communities of color, low-income communities, or tribal and indigenous communities. It also prohibits disparate impacts on the basis of race, color, or national origin as discrimination. Aggrieved persons may seek legal remedy when faced with such discrimination. In addition, the bill directs agencies to follow certain requirements concerning environmental justice. For example, agencies must prepare community impact reports that assess the potential impacts of their actions on environmental justice communities under certain circumstances. It also raises coal, oil, and gas royalty rates to create a funding source to support fossil fuel-dependent communities and displaced workers as they transition away from fossil fuel industries. Additionally, the bill creates a variety of advisory bodies and positions, such as the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council. Among other things, the council must issue an environmental justice strategy. It also establishes requirements and programs concerning chemicals or toxic ingredients in certain products. For example, the bill (1) requires certain products (e.g., cosmetics) to include a list of ingredients or warnings; and (2) provides grants for research on designing safer alternatives to chemicals in certain consumer, cleaning, toy, or baby products that have an inherent toxicity or that are associated with chronic adverse health effects. Finally, it creates a variety of funding programs, such as a grant program to enhance access to park and recreational opportunities in urban areas.
Sponsors: Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-3]
Target Audience
Population: People in communities of color, low-income, tribal and indigenous communities worldwide, including those affected by fossil fuel transition and urban areas lacking adequate green space.
Estimated Size: 80000000
- The bill addresses environmental justice for communities of color, low-income communities, tribal and indigenous communities, indicating these groups are the primary target.
- The prohibition of disparate impacts on the basis of race, color, or national origin suggests it targets minority groups.
- The bill's scope includes effects of federal laws or programs, affecting communities involved in or impacted by these laws.
- Adjustments in royalty rates for coal, oil, and gas indicate a focus on fossil fuel-dependent communities, which may include rural areas heavily relying on these industries.
- Provisions on harmful chemicals in products and support for safer alternatives imply that consumers at large will also benefit, particularly those exposed to potentially dangerous chemicals.
- The creation of advisory bodies and new strategies underlines a broad objective affecting both governance and public-policy landscape, ultimately serving larger state populations.
- The support for urban park and recreational spaces enhances public health and wellbeing, primarily for urban residents, typically more impacted by lack of green spaces.
Reasoning
- The policy's budget limits necessitate focusing on areas with significant expected impact, primarily low-income, minority, and indigenous communities where environmental justice issues are prominent.
- Despite the broad scope, the policy will disproportionately benefit communities severely affected by environmental and health disparities.
- Stakeholders such as individuals from fossil fuel-dependent communities will experience both direct (economic transitions) and indirect (environmental improvements) impacts.
- Urban areas will see enhancements in green spaces and parks; however, the policy's reach may be limited due to budget constraints.
- Attention to chemical safety will benefit consumers widely but is unlikely to drastically change wellbeing scores in the short term unless existing conditions are harmful.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is long overdue. Communities like mine have dealt with the bulk of environmental issues for decades.
- I'm hopeful that stricter regulations and local community impact assessments will improve both health outcomes and our living environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Coal Miner (Appalachia, WV)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about what this means for my job and my family's future without coal.
- If there are real opportunities and funding for retraining and new jobs, it could be a good thing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Community Organizer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill opens up avenues for further advocacy and may strengthen our legal positions.
- It's a big step forward, but implementation and local agency cooperation will be key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Urban Planner (New York City, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing urban green spaces is essential and has been ignored for too long.
- This policy could be transformative if it reaches the right neighborhoods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen first-hand how pollution has affected my students and community.
- Hope the policy can lead to real change and cleaner air.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Chemical Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm apprehensive about job security if the industry faces more regulation.
- However, the focus on safer chemical alternatives is intriguing and could open new opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Single Mother (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing what's in the products I buy for my kids is important.
- Grants for safer products could lead to more affordable, safe options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is positive that environmental justice is being addressed at a policy level.
- Hoping this inspires more youth involvement in policy matters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Water Treatment Specialist (Flint, MI)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies must prioritize water safety and community welfare.
- Funding could help ensure crises like Flint are prevented elsewhere.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Farmer (Rural Alabama)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy doesn't just focus on big cities and forget about rural folks like us.
- Access to cleaner resources and environmental improvements would be a big help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $150000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $170000000)
Year 10: $180000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $280000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's emphasis on environmental justice could shift resources towards historically underserved communities, potentially balancing regional disparities.
- The legal remedies provided for discrimination cases could lead to increased litigation costs and require robust governmental legal support.
- Raised royalty rates may face resistance from fossil fuel industries and could lead to temporary market fluctuations in those sectors.
- Long-term success depends on coordinated efforts across multiple federal agencies and effective community engagement strategies.