Integrating EJ into Federal Policies and Programs: Examining the Role of Regulatory Impact Analyses and Environmental Impact Statements

Vajjhala, Shalini P.; Epps, Amanda Van; Szambelan, Sarah Jo

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1299062

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Vajjhala, Van Epps, and Szambelan (2008) studied whether environmental justice issues increased in EISs and regulatory impact statements after EO 12898. While the researchers found that environmental justice issues were more likely to show up in EIS reports as a result of EO 12898, they also found high levels of inconsistency in the way environmental justice was addressed in those statements.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also discovered that few reports were arbitrary in the way they address environmental justice and did not "contain enough data to assess whether EJ impacts are significant" (Vajjhala, Van Epps and Szambelan, 2008, 2). In one agency (Department of Transportation) the use of "environmental justice" actually decreases over time 26" " (Vajjhala, Van Epps, and Szambelan, 2008). It should not be surprising, then, that environmental justice activists have recommended that NEPA be modified to require consistency and "identify environmental justice as an issue in NEPA compliance documents" (Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights 2010, 17).…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental Justice in the Courts

Gross¹,

Stretesky²

2015

Failed Promises

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The environmental justice movement recognizes the importance of social equity when assessing environmental burdens and benefits (Bullard 1990;Gould, Pellow, and Schnaiberg 2008). As a result, environmental justice concerns are diverse and focus on a variety of issues.As Bunyan Bryant (1995, 6) makes clear, environmental justice "refers to those cultural norms and values, rules, regulations, behaviors, policies, and decisions to support sustainable communities where people can interact with confidence that the environment is safe, nurturing, and productive [and is] is supported by decent paying safe jobs, quality school and recreation; decent housing and adequate health care; democratic decision-making and personal empowerment."The focus of this chapter is on environmental justice in the courts, which makes up only one small portion of the movement's overall concerns and activities. More specifically, this chapter emphasizes corrective justice, or the role of contemporary U.S. courts in punishing environmental offenders and/or reversing environmental injustices (Weinrib 2012). Prior to examining the way courts function with respect to environmental justice we briefly examine major federal environmental justice policies that attempt to direct environmental enforcement.We focus on federal environmental justice policy because this is the level of governance at which a significant amount of court activity has occurred. We draw upon that policy to examine whether federal agencies have pursued environmental justice goals set out in those policies in the courts.

show abstract

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Justice in the Courts

Gross¹,

Stretesky²

2015

Failed Promises

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Failed Promises

Konisky¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic evaluation of the implementation of the federal government's environmental justice policies. In the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. Congress passed a series of laws that were milestones in environmental protection, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. But by the 1990s, it was clear that environmental benefits were not evenly distributed and that poor and minority communities bore disproportionate environmental burdens. The Clinton administration put these concerns on the environmental policy agenda, most notably with a 1994 executive order that called on federal agencies to consider environmental justice issues whenever appropriate. This volume offers the first systematic, empirically based evaluation of the effectiveness of the federal government's environmental justice policies. The contributors consider three overlapping aspects of environmental justice: distributive justice, or the equitable distribution of environmental burdens and benefits; procedural justice, or the fairness of the decision-making process itself; and corrective justice, or the fairness of punishment and compensation. Focusing on the central role of the Environmental Protection Agency, they discuss such topics as facility permitting, rulemaking, participatory processes, bias in enforcement, and the role of the courts in redressing environmental injustices. Taken together, the contributions suggest that—despite recent environmental justice initiatives from the Obama administration—the federal government has largely failed to deliver on its promises of environmental justice. ContributorsDorothy M. Daley, Eileen Gauna, Elizabeth Gross, David M. Konisky, Douglas S. Noonan, Tony G. Reames, Christopher Reenock, Ronald J. Shadbegian, Paul Stretesky, Ann Wolverton

show abstract

The Federal Government’s Response to Environmental Inequality

Konisky¹

2015

Failed Promises

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating EJ into Federal Policies and Programs: Examining the Role of Regulatory Impact Analyses and Environmental Impact Statements

Cited by 5 publications

References 25 publications

Environmental Justice in the Courts

Environmental Justice in the Courts

Failed Promises

The Federal Government’s Response to Environmental Inequality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About