What are the origins of the environmental justice movement? And what were its original goals?

The environmental justice (or “EJ”) movement first got national attention in 1982, when residents of Warren County, North Carolina, a majority-black community, protested plans to locate a toxic-waste landfill there. Soon, several studies showed that communities with toxic-waste facilities were likely to have higher percentages of minority residents. The concept of “environmental racism” was born. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both moved to make EJ a governmental priority. Early on, the basic demand of the EJ movement was reasonable: all groups should be entitled to equal protection under environmental laws.

How has the Biden administration’s effort adapted the EJ framework into its environmental agenda?

At the start of his term, Biden issued Executive Order 14008, which set aggressive targets for clean energy but also included the demand that 40 percent of the “overall benefits” of environmental programs should flow to disadvantaged communities. The White House says this “Justice40 Initiative” must be a major focus of every government agency. The underlying concept holds that poor and minority communities are exposed to higher levels of pollution and are entitled not just to lower emissions but to various economic benefits to make up for historic underinvestment in those communities. In effect, the Justice40 project redefines the purpose of environmental programs to include not just less pollution but also various social goals such as “empowering communities” and reducing poverty.

What are the key problems with that effort?

Biden’s EJ agenda is a confusing jumble of requirements that burden government agencies with new layers of bureaucracy and contradictory demands. Some of the key requirements of the program, including the meaning of the word “benefit,” are left undefined. At a time when the White House says we are in a “climate emergency,” the EJ requirements will make it harder to get clean energy infrastructure projects approved. It will also raise the costs of those projects by adding demands such as favoring more expensive union labor. In practice, this means it will cost more and take longer to reach the administration’s ambitious climate targets. The EJ rules will also make it easier for activist groups to tie up private industry in litigation, which will undermine economic opportunity in poor communities.