Ending the fallacy of Environmental Racism

From CFACT

By Melanie Collette

The debate over environmental justice has been overtaken by the term “environmental racism” — the claim that minority communities suffer disproportionately from pollution because of systemic racism. While it is true that some communities face more significant environmental challenges, blaming these disparities entirely on race oversimplifies the issue and leads to ineffective policy solutions.

Instead of focusing on the socioeconomics that exists in all races and infrastructure investments, advocates push race-based narratives that divide Americans rather than solve problems. Poverty — not race — is the most significant factor determining environmental hardship. If we want solutions, we need policies prioritizing economic growth, job creation and affordable energy for all Americans, regardless of background.

Many environmental justice policies, such as the Green New Deal and the electric vehicle mandates, are framed as solutions for marginalized communities. Do these policies help struggling families? The answer is no.

Take EV mandates, for example. Advocates say that promoting electric cars will create a cleaner environment and benefit lower-income communities. Here’s the problem: EVs remain too expensive for most working-class Americans. Even with government subsidies, the high upfront costs and limited charging infrastructure make EV ownership impractical for low-income families. A study in Nature Communications found that public EV charging stations are overwhelmingly in wealthier areas, leaving lower-income communities behind. 

Wealthy urban professionals who can afford private home chargers benefit the most, while working-class Americans struggling to afford their next car payment are left out. Rather than closing economic gaps, these policies exacerbate the financial woes of struggling communities while benefiting those already financially comfortable.

Another significant flaw in race-based environmental policies is their crippling effect on blue-collar jobs of Americans of all races. Regulations targeting carbon emissions and pollution may seem reasonable, but they often eliminate stable employment opportunities for working-class Americans. Industries such as coal, manufacturing and oil have long provided good-paying jobs for Americans of all backgrounds. However, overzealous climate policies have led to the shutdown of these industries, leaving thousands unemployed.

According to the Heritage Foundation, aggressive environmental mandates drive up energy costs and eliminate job opportunities, disproportionately hurting low-income families. If policymakers want to help disadvantaged communities, they will balance economic growth with sustainability rather than forcing entire industries out of existence.

The popular narrative assumes that pollution and environmental degradation uniquely target minority communities, but this ignores that low-income White communities suffer just as much — if not more. Look at Appalachia, where predominantly White, working-class families struggle with economic collapse, contaminated drinking water, and a lack of basic infrastructure. These coal-mining towns have been devastated by environmental policies that kill local industries without offering viable alternatives. 

Is this “environmental racism”? Of course not — because it’s not about race. The sooner we acknowledge that socioeconomics, not systemic racism, is the root of environmental inequality, the sooner we can enact effective, unifying policies rather than divisive, race-based rhetoric.

Instead of prioritizing racial narratives, we should implement income-based solutions that uplift all disadvantaged communities — regardless of race. Instead of pouring billions into EV subsidies that primarily benefit the wealthy, we should invest in better public transportation options such as buses, subways and trains for working-class Americans. Expanding public transit would reduce the number of gas-powered cars on the road, lowering emissions without imposing financial hardship on those who can least afford it.

Policymakers should prioritize affordable, reliable energy solutions rather than forcing costly mandates that drive up electricity bills. This means investing in natural gas, nuclear energy and clean-coal technologies — energy sources that provide cheap, abundant power without devastating the job market or increasing financial burdens on low-income families.

Additionally, environmental policies must support job creation rather than destroy industries. Eliminating traditional energy industries without offering alternatives is not a solution. Instead, we should encourage innovation in clean energy while ensuring that existing industries remain stable and provide employment opportunities for the working class. A balanced approach would allow for environmental progress without sacrificing economic security.

The claim of environmental racism is a political tool used to push race-based policies that fail to address the root causes of environmental hardship. If we are serious about creating a cleaner, more prosperous future, we must shift the conversation away from race and toward practical, income-based solutions. 

Case in point: California just flushed $2.2 billion in taxpayer money down the drain on a now-defunct solar plant — money that could have transformed minority communities with real opportunities instead of lining the pockets of green energy grifters. The key to environmental justice lies in economic growth, job creation, and affordable energy — not divisive rhetoric that ignores the realities of socioeconomic factors. 

America needs balanced, effective policies that help all working-class families — not one-size-fits-all climate mandates that punish those they claim to support.

This article originally appeared at DC Journal