The Epa's Failure Of Social Justice

Environmental laws--do we actually know a lot about them? Many people fear for our environment’s future, while others are not aware that environmental issues are occurring around them. Even though we may have some knowledge about this devastation occurring in our communities, should we be questioning the Environmental Protection Agency and the president on these matters when we are not highly educated on them ourselves? Although the articles “Environmentalism Was Once a Social-Justice Movement” and “The EPA’s Failure to Protect People From the Environment” target different people about environmental issues and use the word “justice” at different frequencies, they both express that environmental laws are unjust and based upon race. Who is

On the other hand, Purdy uses the word justice thirty times. But what exactly do the authors mean when they use the word justice? Justice is defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as “the quality of being just, impartial, or fair.” However, both articles also use the term “environmental justice,” with Purdy once again again using this phrase more frequently. In contrast to Purdy’s article, Newkirk defines this term in his writing. He explains that the EPA clarifies environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (Newkirk). Although Newkirk defines this phrase in his article, the reader can't be sure that Purdy means the same thing when he uses the phrase. According to The Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences, “environmental justice has different meanings to various communities and institutions; therefore, the environmental justice definition is based in place, time, and perspective.” This difference in the author's use of one phrase doesn’t give the reader a clear understanding, therefore it causes extreme confusion for the reader when trying to interpret the meaning of the

This is evident when both authors use the term “race” at the same frequency as one another. This information is also proven when Newkirk states that “Federal environmental protection still seems to be a privilege of class and race” (Newkirk). We know that Purdy agrees that environmental laws are a matter of class and race when he explains that “environmental harms are distributed along very familiar lines of race and poverty” (Purdy). Both of these authors target others for the environmental issues because they are enraged and disturbed that race is an factor when it comes to these matters. The authors are both trying to convey their point that not only do we need to protect our environment, but we also have to protect those that are suffering from environmental laws because of their