By David Wojick |August 25th, 2020
Kamala Harris did not mention climate change in her acceptance speech, but she did not have to. She talked a lot about justice and justice is now code for climate. Thanks to Harris and AOC, the strange beast of “climate justice” is now a big part of the Democrat’s agenda.
In fact the team of Harris and AOC has now codified the concept of climate justice. Just before the convention they jointly dropped the Climate Equity Act into the Senate and House hoppers.
The Equity Act does not mean that everyone gets their fair share of climate. The stated goal is for the Federal Government to adjust its investments and regulations to favor those who are supposedly most involved with climate change, or something like that.
The proposed law is so incoherent that it is hard to tell what it is for or what it does. That it would cause an enormous amount of confusion is certain.
The problem is that the central concept in the law is extremely unclear. Harris and AOC have continued the “war on climate” theme that AOC used when proposing the Green New Deal. Thus the Climate Equity Act is about something called “frontline communities.”
Apparently these so-called communities are on the frontline of climate change, or the frontline of stopping climate change, or some such. It is very hard to tell.
Here is how the Kamala Harris press release puts it:
“COVID-19 has laid bare the realities of systemic racial, health, economic, and environmental injustices that persist in our country,” said Sen. Harris. “The environment we live in cannot be disentangled from the rest of our lives, and it is more important than ever that we work toward a more just and equitable future. That is why, as we combat the climate crisis and build a clean economy; we must put justice and equity first. I’m proud to partner with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez on this comprehensive proposal to empower communities that have been neglected by policymakers for far too long.
The Climate Equity Act creates an administrative structure within the federal government to ensure that as we boldly address the climate crisis, our policies are founded in equity and justice for frontline communities. By ensuring that frontline community leaders and allies are playing a fundamental role in shaping and guiding federal policy, the Climate Equity Act helps hold the government accountable for creating a more just and equitable future as we tackle the climate crisis and build a clean economy.
‘Frontline communities’ are those that have experienced systemic socioeconomic disparities, environmental racism, and other forms of injustice, including low-income communities, indigenous peoples, and communities of color. As the climate crisis continues, these communities and others, including deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, vulnerable elderly populations, unhoused populations, and people with disabilities and the women, youth, and future generations belonging to these communities — will be impacted first and hardest by the climate crisis.
The Climate Equity Act holds the government accountable to frontline communities when it considers a policy, regulation, or investment with a climate or environmental nexus which could broadly include direct policies to address the environment and climate change, but also transportation, housing, infrastructure, jobs, workforce development, and more.”
So everything depends on what a frontline community is. It is here that the confusion begins. This central concept, upon which everything turns, is deliberately not defined. That definition is something to be done after the law is passed, by an Advisory Board no less. I am not making this up.
There is however, this wildly over the top guidance in the draft law:
“SEC. 205. DEFINITION OF FRONTLINE COMMUNITY.
(a) IN GENERAL. The Board of Advisors shall establish a definition of ‘‘frontline community’’ for purposes of this Act.
(b) INCLUSIONS. The definition under subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum
(1) a community or population that has experienced systemic socioeconomic disparities, environmental injustice, or another form of injustice, including
(A) a low-income community;
(B) an indigenous community; and (C) a community of color;
(2) a community or population that is the most vulnerable and will be the most adversely impacted by environmental and climate injustice and inequitable climate actions, including
(A) a community or population described in paragraph (1);
(B) a deindustrialized community; (C) a depopulated rural community; (D) a vulnerable elderly population; (E) an unhoused population;
(F) individuals with disabilities; and
(G) a community that is economically dependent on fossil fuel industries; and
(3) the women, the youth, and all of the descendants of women or youth that are part of a community or population described in paragraph (1) or (2) above.”
Note that section (2)(F) says that individuals with disabilities are by themselves frontline communities. One person communities? And the Advisory Board cannot change this inclusion. In fact all they can do is expand the definition to include more people.
I have no idea what section (3) means. It sounds as though if you are a descendent of a woman (but not a man?) in a frontline community you are still in it, or something. Or maybe only the women and youths in a frontline community are actually in it, not the older men? This section is truly incoherent.
Note too that in addition to communities there are also populations. What the difference is I have no idea. Perhaps communities have to be geographically together while populations do not, such as all the elderly people in New Mexico.
There is no way to tell from this incredibly vague and incoherent definition where the frontline communities are or who is in them.
The law requires that every proposed federal regulation, policy and investment (all grants, loans, etc.) that affects any frontline community must be analyzed for its impact. The negative impact must be minimized and the positive impact maximized. In the case of investments the agency is required to favor frontline communities to the extent allowed by law. Whether this includes federal contracts is unclear.
Given that there is no way to tell what a frontline community is, the result can only be chaos. Agencies cannot analyze what they cannot identify. If they try, in big money cases the attempt is certain to wind up in Federal Court, which the proposed law specifically allows for.
This law is modeled after the infamous National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental impact analysis of all federal, federally financed, or approved, projects. But in this case it is the economic impact on something undefined that must be analyzed and optimized.
This is the worst proposed law I have ever see. It is both wildly overreaching and deeply incoherent. But then the concept of climate justice is itself incoherent.
That Kamala Harris and AOC have teamed up to produce this complete nonsense is an ominous sign of things to come if the Democrats prevail in November.
Author
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.
For origins see
http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html
For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see
http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/
Available for confidential research and consulting.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have an idea. Let’s not elect crazy people to Congress and the White House. Or just make sure that they are in the minority.
For those who see everything through the lens of “race” and are easily triggered when they hear the word “minority”; in this context it means “not in the majority”. Any reference to racial minorities is simply your misinterpretation of plain English; an easy mistake to make if your out of your mind.
Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, woooh-hooo, you go for it!
Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez really show how the wimin’s social rationalism is just as good as the men’s. They’re the wimin with the spirit of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara but in the American Democratic Party! Shout it out — ‘Social Justice for all!’
[/sarc-off]
Let me explain: let’s give money to everyone who is not a non-homeless heterosexual white male, and make the non-homeless heterosexual white males pay for it.
So, what about the farting cows?
What if a frontline community has some cattle?
If there was a flood, would the ‘frontline communities’ get preference for aid over the more affluent neighbourhoods that are equally washed out?
Of course, all of them could then be considered homeless so possibly all qualify.
There’s nothing in the quoted extracts or the wider article to limit applicability of the CEA to the United States. Just imagine how much fun they could have using this as a foreign policy and overseas aid tool. And that’s just for starters…
Speaking as one descended from a woman, the vaguer the laws, the greater the power of the government.
That’s right. The power comes from regulations established by the bureaucracies to implement and administer the laws.
It’s congress’s duty to write laws that are exact. They don’t want to waste the time doing so and instead delegate it to unelected government employees. This would be acceptable if the results were returned for congress to be incorporated in a bill then voted on again however it isn’t. At the result, nearly all of the rules and regulations we live by are unconstitutional.
This is a progressive idea dating in writing back to Woodrow Wilson where the country is run by the president and staff with congress only serving as oversight. We went through a great deal of trouble eliminating rule of a king and this is nothing more than giving us back our king. Congress doesn’t think far enough ahead to understand that this type of government could put them out of a job.
It’s simply a power grab as if Harris becomes president, she will have nearly unlimited powers by redefining the law as needed through executive orders.
This needs to get published in every newspaper before the election. There are some legacy sane people out there who need to see what’s coming.
Can someone explain what is “environmental racism”?
Whatever the Left wants it to mean today, a meaning which may be different tomorrow. Its intended effect in any case is to be used as a club to beat someone over the head with in a baseless accusation to silence dissent.
From study_com:
“What Is Environmental Racism?
A lot of people are pretty lucky to get up in the morning and take a breath of fresh, clean air, or turn on the tap and drink clean, uncontaminated water. But not everyone is so lucky in this country or other parts of the world, for that matter. It seems that a disproportionate number of people who live in environmentally hazardous areas are either minority groups and/or are people of low socioeconomic status. That’s what environmental racism is basically about. It’s the placement of people into environmentally hazardous areas or, conversely, the placement of environmental hazards into areas with high numbers of minority individuals and/or economically destitute populations. ”
We have to read our
Mao’s Little RedAgenda21 Amendments.you know when clouds roll in and the sky gets dark?
it does that cause the sky and the environment are rayciss.
that hurts black people.
sned mese all ur moneyz now.
It appears to me that the frontline communities are being burned and looted by the vulnerable populations in a frenzy of inequitable injustice — sponsored by Kamala, AOC, and the rest of their Marxist globalist conspiracy.
The smoke from the burning cities can be seen from outer space. It is adding a huge amount of CO2, PM2.5, and other volatile carbon pyrolysis compounds, heavy metals, and toxic fumes to the atmosphere.
The drafters are the looters and arsonists who are polluting the planet. They ought to be pointing the finger at themselves.
Quote:
“COVID-19 has laid bare the realities of systemic racial, health, economic, and environmental injustices that persist in our country,” said Sen. Harris. “The environment we live in cannot be disentangled from the rest of our lives, and it is more important than ever that we work toward a more just and equitable future. ”
Democrats have been pounding the inequality drums for some 55-56 years now ever since the 1964 Civil Rights Act and President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” in 1965. I am not criticizing either piece of legislation here when I refer to them.
I am suggesting here that if the Democrats are still not happy with the amount of progress they’ve made toward alleviating inequality after more than half a century, then they should seriously consider the possibility that they’ve been a failure at it. In response to this claim of failure, they can certainly blame the Republicans for standing in their way–and they no doubt would do so.
If their aim is still to eliminate all racial and economic inequality with the force of government, they might as well throw out the U.S Constitution and our current form of govt and replace them with a full-blown Marxist state. Getting rid of the Republicans would certainly have to be prerequisite for such an act, and it would more than likely mean either prison or execution for all of them.
I suggest here that a democratic society with a free market economy that respects property rights (among other rights) cannot and should not expect the complete elimination of racial and economic inequalities with the force of govt or with force from anywhere else. Government can only do just so much in a free society, and the federal and state govts have probably done all they can in this area. Any additional progress can only come about through the gradual evolutionary change of society itself along with economic grown and opportunity. Even then it may still never happen. I challenge the Democrats to show me one — just one — civilization or organized society in human history that was totally classless and egalitarian.
These claims of “climate injustice” and “environmental injustice” may very well be just code terms for Marxism. When the Left attaches social and economic issues to the debate over climate change and environmentalism, it becomes patently obvious that the latter no longer have anything to do with the science of climate and the environment. They become just a clever back door through which radical socio-political ideologies can sneak into the building with few or no red flags of warning being waved. And there are probably plenty of people out there who will buy it all hook, line and sinker.
With no serious push-back to the climate alarmist narrative coming from the Trump administration and the Republicans, this whole circus can go forward with no challenges to the bad science that lies underneath. If the clowns in the center ring make into power in November, the future of the U.S. might look far from bright.
I hope I am wrong about that.
I recon the assassination of JFK was a clear message of who was / is in charge. Certainly not the people.
Great article, except it scares the hell out of me.
As I was reading, I kept thinking: “sounds like of like NEPA [the National Environmental Protection Act]” and “Whoa! NEPA on steroids!”
“… (G) a community that is economically dependent on fossil fuel industries; …”
Seems to me that somewhere close to 50% of this nation’s electricity is still generate by coal, thus 50% (or more) should be classifiable as “economically dependent on fossil fuel industries.” Between jobs in production, transportation, etc., of not just fossil fuels, but most things — plus the need to either take public transport or personal vehicles (both of which I believe remain overwhelmingly powered &/or lubricated by fossil fuel products) — we need to consider home heat, light, etc.
Actually, according to the Pew Research Center:
“In 2018, those “fossil fuels” fed about 80% of the nation’s energy demand, down slightly from 84% a decade earlier. Although coal use has declined in recent years, natural gas use has soared, while oil’s share of the nation’s energy tab has fluctuated between 35% and 40%.” ({BTW, they also say wind and solar amounted to less than 4% all energy used that year.]
I’d say that’s pretty much everybody! Including celebrities who own their own 747s, because, well, they “need to”.
Only thing missing from that legislation is a provision to arrest climate change deniers.
Hey, fella, don’t give those bimbos ideas!!!!
Kamala has already proposed mandatory gun buy backs.
Gulags can’t be far behind.
It seems clear to me that the bill envisions a “Frontline Community” as a poor black one, with a smattering of other colors as well just to improve the image. They are to get bigger subsidies, more tax breaks, more cash per person than others when the climate “fixes” wind up costing consumers more, as they surely will. It’s just a wealth redistribution scheme where work and achievement count for naught.
“war on climate” and “climate justice”
As long as we are attempting to end titanic natural forces how about a “war on the tides” or “sunset justice”? It is unfair that the tides go up and down, forcing beach creatures to adapt to rapidly changing environments. And why should the sun be allowed to set? This forces half of the Earth’s population to live in darkness or burn fossil fuels to keep the lights in!
We demand justice for the mist vulnerable! Stop these unfair and constantly changing conditions or we will raise taxes!!
https://ajustclimate.org/
“A VISION FOR AN EQUITABLE AND JUST CLIMATE FUTURE”
“What is the Equitable and Just Climate Platform?
The Equitable and Just National Climate Platform advances the goals of economic, racial, climate, and environmental justice to improve the public health and well-being of all communities, while tackling the climate crisis. Environmental justice advocates and national environmental organizations have committed to advocate this historic, bold platform that lays out our shared vision and goals, including:
A healthy climate and air quality for all
Access to reliable, affordable, and sustainable electricity, water, and transportation for every community
An inclusive, just, and pollution-free energy economy with high- quality jobs
Safe, healthy communities and infrastructure
why you should make the commitment
Systemic racism and injustice have left economically disadvantaged communities, tribal communities, and communities of color exposed to the highest levels of toxic pollution, as well as the most vulnerable people subject to more powerful storms and floods, intense heat waves, deadly wildfires, devastating droughts, and other threats from the climate crisis.
This is a critical moment to define bold and equitable climate solutions that address the legacy of environmental racism while rebuilding the U.S. economy in ways that work for everyone—not just the wealthy few. By signing on to the platform, organizations can commit to working with us to ensure that all people and communities have the right to breathe clean air, live free of dangerous levels of toxic pollution, access healthy food, and share the benefits of a prosperous and vibrant clean economy.”
You forgot the “sarc” tag.
1. I wonder what a “healthy climate” is?
2. I don’t think the poor are a race. A problem, sure, but not a race.
Define “environmental justice” in clear, concise terms that are not reminiscent of jabberwocky.
I like “the unhoused population” – much more scientific-sounding than homeless, not to mention derelicts and junkies. Yes, to normal people it sounds completely insane, but like all legislation its underlying purpose is rational–written by lawyers to make lawyers rich, or richer. The litigation possibilities are endless, with litigators and government agency defendants’ lawyers both paid by the ultimate saps – the taxpayers.
Yes, I call new laws with undefined central concepts “scapegoat laws” because the definitions will be worked out through a huge amount of expensive litigation. NEPA is the classic case where “environmental impact” was the undefined concept. But as Gene says above, the CEA is like NEPA on steroids.
An air crew is accountable for let’s say, a few hundreds of souls. From ground school up, checks, grumpy captains, medicals, proficiency, simulator, evals, ratings, recurrent training, you name it, we must overcome it all and all the time.
On the other hand, a bartender & co. are deemed qualified and fit to “fly” a whole superpower nation under the guidance of a dementia challenged captain… The outcome is largely predictable, no need to read the flight plan.
White is a color. All colors together, actually.
1. Shit is the sort of stuff you shovel in a barn Good and hones but smelly
2. Shite is nasty stuff that trickles down your legs when you have an accident. This AOC/ Harris nonsensewill Run and Run
3. Shoite is what some people speak esp some of the sponsor ofthe bill smelly but not very honest
The words are not quite interchangeable.
so which word would best apply to this Cr@p from our democratic leading lights
Frontline communities are easy to define.
It’s everyone except white Trump voters….
I thought “Frontline communities” were communities that were flea-and-tick-free.
I think that Humpty Dumpty can help us with this.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Exactly. “frontline communities” means whatever lefties want it to mean.
What is climate equality and how do we get. Is it that everyone should live in a Hawaiian climate? It about optimal for humans, but how do we get there? It also begs the question what do we do for the snow Skiers do we create perfect snow 365 day a year? That how I see climate equality a impossible idea that sound good and allow the Stalinist like heals up Harris and bubble head AOC to rule, sorry I want no part of that world.
Our Bryony Worthington did it first, over here in Fantasy Island UK. Drafted the Energy and climate change act for government coming to it with an English LIt degree and from a job as an activist for FoE.
From the same delusional box of frogs as AOC. Privileged know nowt eco nutter who doesn’t care about maintaining our economy at some respectable level we worked for decades to achieve bit by bit, as long as she is well set up. Seems no one in government at senior level understands engineering reality or how science is done. It doesn’t affect them, only the poor people they disinherit by law.