As far as we’re concerned, “environmental justice” is what you’d call it if Al Gore froze to death while speaking about global warming. But that’s not the way the EPA looks at it.
CNSnews.com has the story:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released a 55-page “guidance” to help its employees “advance environmental justice” for low-income and minority communities.
“Achieving environmental justice is an Agency priority and should be factored into every decision,” the document says.
You may ask yourself the obvious question that we asked ourselves: What the hell is environmental justice?
The EPA defines environmental justice as the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, particularly minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”
The guide states that from now on — in the process of developing rules, policy statements, risk assessments, and other regulatory actions — EPA managers and staffers must first ask themselves, “Does this action involve a topic that is likely to be of particular interest to or have particular impact upon minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes?”
If the answer is yes, the rule-writers must reach out to the affected minority and/or low-income communities. One section of the guide explains how EPA rule-writers may have to make “special efforts” to connect with people who may be uneducated or non-English-speaking.
Far as we can tell, that means environmental justice is served when the indigenous populations build indigenous population casinos.
Hit me, dealer. And power to the indigenous population!
Source: CNSnews.com
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (20)
And to make sure everybody is "equal"- white people will have to stand under overhead wires for an hour a day, or eat 13 cans of tuna a day for a week to absorb mercury, or use clorox without gloves once a day for 52 weeks, or inhale one cubic inch of Right Guard one a day between Christmas and New Years, or not wear the protective chest and genital guard during a tooth X ray. White People may avoid these penalties ( not a tax), by either contributing 1000$ to the DNC, President Obama's birthday fund, or 5000$ to ACLU or "other" terrorist organization.
Hmmmm... there may be unforseen problems with this policy.
Since "carbon" is the hot issue these days..... What if the majority of an indigenous ( native ) population on the reservation use wood stoves or furnaces for heating, thus increasing the "carbon footprint" and furthering "global warming"? Will these people have to buy "carbon credits"? How about low-income people in non-electrified rural areas that use kerosene lamps and wood stoves? Same question as above. Will they receive a discriminatory "exemption"?
Don't see those people buying carbon credits, USN-RETIRED. You see, they are living the way we all are " supposed to". No discriminatory exemption required, but probably extra kerosene stamps if they live in a mud hut or a cave.
Each low-income, tribal, predatory, illegal, ex gang-banger will get 10,000 carbon credits for their "carbon fingerprint". The credits can be used like food stamps to buy cigarettes, alcohol and left-over Obama/Ayers t-shirts.
i.e. no harm, no foul - or not-a-citizen, then dont worry
MV
No doubt this will be used to redistibute money from my wallet to some undeserving lazy a-hole.
bingo
Headline: "Good news! The EPA now factors 'environmental justice' into its rulemaking process"
Fine... so long as the adjudicator is Judge Judy!
Okay I feel a bit stupid right now or else I am unable to understand liberal nonsense. What is this about?
It means "any way you can think of to soak those that produce and redistribute to those who consume, well then do it"
Ugh... So basically if there are people who just happen to have a nice green unpolluted piece of land and there are others who live in a polluted nasty place (area that they can clean their damn selves if they want to) they will take the land from those that take care of what they have and give it to those that do not have it. So basically this environmental crap is another word for socialism...
Fan-tas-tic...
Kimmy I love how you always cut right to the heart of the matter with your brilliant insight... I grew up on a dairy farm in the rural agrarian country side. As you drove down the county roads and passed by the various farms in my community, you could tell who was taking care of their land and who wasn't. I also recall when the government ploy to "subsidize" farming was attempted that the farmers who weren't taking care of their land were the first to jump on the band wagon. Meanwhile, all of us who were working from 4:00am till 10:00pm tending our crops, livestock, and property were the first ones the government want to "shut down". It amazed me how even back then the productive members of society were the ones the government wanted to punish.
Thanks for that!I think the government has this innate NEED to protect those whom they deem to be the underdog. The idea that someone is lazy and does not want to take care of what they have doesn't compute with the "government". It seems as if the idea is that those that DO take care of their property and succeed because of it, did SOMETHING untoward or BAD to succeed and do not deserve their success whereas those that did nothing to help themselves deserve to be helped because in the end according to the government (socialists, etc) it is not their fault that they failed.
I don't understand the mind of a liberal/socialist/progressive/communist, why is it that when a person does not know or doesn't want to take care of their property it is not their fault, but it is the fault of THOSE that do care for their property and want to succeed on their own....? That other person success shouldn't reflect the other person's failures, everyone is responsible for their own actions, but not so for the socialist.
Also there is the fact that the government subsidizing is a ploy of control and power, control and power that the lazy will easily give away because it means they don't have to work so hard to get the minimal comfort that they want, whereas someone who works hard for what they get doesn't need the government which means that the government wants to punish them for not needing them and hence endangering their ability to gain more control and power unto itself.
That is why the socialists (et al) hate conservatives (etc). especially fiscal and political conservatives. We do not want to give the government more power and control over our lives. I see the goverment kind of like the Matrix. The ONLY way for the Matrix to survive (because it is self aware) is to control and overpower other entities that can have the ability to overpower and control it. If there are people that will not submit then they are put down one way or another. That is why our fight is so important.
What the editor said is interesting. Sounds to me as if the government wanted successful farms to fail so the farms would have no choice but to go to the govt for assistance and hence give away rights, control and power over to them. it is insidious.
"the government wanted successful farms to fail"
Exactly... That's their Socialist approach to every scenario... Remember people... "It's easier to dumb something excellent down than it is to raise something dumb up to excellence." Just look at public education, welfare programs, or anything else Big Government has stuck their nose into... And to think, these Social Darwinists have no concept of the corner stone of that scientific philosophy: "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST". But then again, if they actually adhered to that discipline, not only would their prime voting block cease to exist, but so would most of them (the leaders of Marxism/Socialism) as well.
and Necron I find that EXTREMELY hypocritical, but then again that is the mark of a true liberal/progressives/socialist. Hypocrisy is how they play the game.
Sounds to me as if the government wanted successful farms to fail so the farms would have no choice but to go to the govt for assistance and hence give away rights, control and power over to them. it is insidious.
That is exactly what it is all about.
Necron: I also grew up on a dairy farm. I can still remember the day the government showed up at the door to tell my dad that he had to start doing something their way instead of the way he had always successfully done it. "What is this," he hollered at the regulators through the screen door, "friggin' Russia?"
True story. Except that he didn't say "friggin'".
Yep, my dad said, "You gotta be fraking kidding me.", laughed at the guy, showed him our 98% rating from the USDA (and his shotgun), then told him our property was posted.... The shill left and we never heard from them again.
now you got it
and then OF COURSE since the people do not know how to take care of something to begin with the next land will be as bad or worst as the ones they had... then the whole process starts again UNLESS the government decides to take over completely.
It is a vicious cycle that makes no common sense.
environmentalism/socialism kinda sound like subsidized housing etc. don't they? Yep, no common sense. Liberal kooks have infested all government bureaucracies. They need to be cleaned out as well, but it'll never happen. Just like our friend Shirley Sherrod said, "Have You ever heard of anyone getting fired from a government job?". These fools at the epa, not having already done enough damage to capitalism, will be bringing us cap-and- tax soon.