Environmental Justice organizations (EJ’s) are supposed to be nonprofits that fight to protect the environment, especially for the disadvantaged that are unfairly affected by pollution and climate change. EJ’s are supposed to counter big money and greedy political influence and give a voice to the underrepresented including the poor, minorities, wildlife, and future generations. To the extent they achieve this good work, they should be fully supported. However, I have encountered a different kind of EJ with a different motivation. The good EJ’s need to weed out the bad ones to preserve the integrity of the movement.
I am an engineer, and I solve problems for a living. A number of years ago, I decided that the best way for me to have a positive influence is to use my decades of experience to help fight pollution and climate change. I have spent the last ten years (without salary) developing various novel ways to significantly reduce pollution in the world’s ports. I am also working on a technology to solve 1% of climate change by capturing 500 million tons of CO2 per year as soon as possible. This seems like something that EJ’s should get behind, right?
It caught me off guard when I had zero success in getting EJ support for a port project that would significantly reduce air pollution near disadvantaged communities in the Los Angeles port complex. More disturbing was when a particular EJ testified vehemently against the project during a board meeting of the local air pollution control district. This particular EJ is known to frequently show up to these board meetings, testifying in a way reminiscent of Rudy Juliani. Anyone who attends these board meetings is accustomed to patiently listening to his 3-minute rants which are times biased towards one particular “Favored Company”.
A proper EJ should evaluate all available approaches and support the technology that best serves the community the EJ represents, which in this case would be Wilmington, California which is located near the Los Angeles port complex.
So why would an EJ that represents a Los Angeles community set up surveillance with a camera near a small San Diego airport in 2013? Why would this EJ, all of a sudden have a deep concern over the endangered burrowing owl that lives near this airport and file a lawsuit to stop a major development at the airport?
It turns out that the owner of the Favored Company is good friends with the owner of an airport service business in the Brown Field Airport and that this airport service business was threatened by the major development. To be clear, I am on the side of any endangered species — my personal goal is to help save thousands of species by fighting climate change. However, I do have a problem with EJ “hitmen” with ulterior motives.
This is not the only occurrence of this EJ’s targeted EJ action for the benefit of the Favored Company. In 2015, Mitsubishi Cement applied for a final environmental impact report (FEIR)at the Port of Long Beach to make some modifications to the wharf. The above EJ again testified against the project because Mitsubishi was planning to use an alternate technology (not the technology of the Favored Company). These are just two examples.
To be clear, I am working towards the same goals as EJ’s, donate to them, and believe they perform a vital service. However, I have a problem if a particular EJ group acts only on behalf of its major “donors” and not on behalf of the disadvantaged they are supposed to be representing. EJ groups need to reign in this bad behavior among their own or they will by association lose credibility and the influence they need to effect positive change.
