(Emphasis added where appropriate.)
**************************************
From page 1:
"DHS’ ability to affect environmental justice arises principally through environmental review of the impact of our own operations, financial assistance to state, local and tribal governments, and through regulatory permitting activities. Recognizing that the incorporation of environmental justice policies may be highly variable across parts of the Department depending on a component’s mission, this Environmental Justice Strategy is intended to promote a comprehensive, consistent and adaptive strategy among our components. In August 2011, DHS joined a Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice (EJ MOU) to participate in government-wide environmental justice efforts, consistent with DHS’ own authorities and missions, and is a 'Participating Agency' in the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, pursuant to section III.B of the EJ MOU."
From page 2:
"Along the Nation’s land borders and coastal waters, DHS has a significant physical presence, principally through the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), where environmental justice considerations arise. Through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) work in emergency preparedness and response, the agency helps ensure environmental justice in communities that must prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, or recover from an emergency or disaster."
From page 3:
"A.How the Environmental Justice Strategy Was Developed
DHS began the development of this Environmental Justice Strategy with the Secretary of Homeland Security’s participation in the White House Environmental Justice Forum in December 2010. Initially through participation in the Interagency Environmental Justice Working Group, DHS began tailoring its strategy to its mission requirements by establishing internal environmental justice points of contact in its major areas of responsibility. From these points of contact, DHS formed a working group of those components with a larger role in ensuring that environmental justice is appropriately considered in securing the homeland. The working group was co-chaired by the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and the Directorate of Occupational Safety and Environmental Programs within the Management, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (OCAO) and met regularly to identify programs already implemented with consideration to environmental justice. Figure 1, at the end of this Strategy shows the offices of DHS that participated in this internal work group. This strategy was developed over the course of a year-long process of discussion and formal internal review. These ongoing efforts reinforced the Department’s commitment and are listed in Appendix B." (Funny how the word "Congress" doesn't appear in this paragraph, huh?)
Page 4:
"Environmental justice considerations are taken into account at the earliest stages of planning new policies, programs and activities by OCAO, which has Department-wide oversight of asset management and of environmental and historic preservation planning and compliance."
From page 5:
"Effectively communicating through active outreach efforts with the public, the academic community, other agencies, and non-federal governmental entities, including government-to government contact with tribes, to anticipate, understand, and resolve specific issues of concern raised by our activities, including activities designed to adapt to climate change. Communication on initiatives related to environmental justice will implement the DHS Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1277242893223.shtm, along with multi-lingual summaries), and with the Department’s forthcoming language access plan."
From page 9:
"Environmental justice has been a consideration in DHS activities since early in the formation of the department. In addition, some components of DHS came into the department with a legacy of consideration of environmental justice because they formerly existed within departments that were required to comply with the EO. USCG was covered by the EO because it was part of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1994. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was also covered, since it was formed within DOT in November 2001. Similarly, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, most of which has become a component of DHS, was covered by the EO because it was part of the Department of Justice in 1994. However, FEMA voluntarily undertook efforts to comply with the EO in 1994, although it was an independent agency at that time.
Consideration of environmental justice became a formal operating requirement in DHS with the issuing of Directive 023-1, Environmental Planning Program, in April 2006. Directive 023-1 implemented NEPA and required that environmental justice considerations be a part of the review process required by NEPA*."
*In 1969, NEPA, or the National Environmental Policy Act, was one of the first laws ever written that establishes a broad national framework for protecting our environment. NEPA's basic policy is to assure that all branches of government give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major federal action that could significantly affect the environment."
http://www.epa.gov/region1/nepa/
And what is "environmental justice" again ?
"Mother Jones: Can you briefly explain what 'environmental justice' means to you?
Van Jones: Environmental justice is the movement to ensure that no community suffers disproportionate environmental burdens or goes without enjoying fair environmental benefits."
http://motherjones.com/environment/2008/10/qa-van-jones
Mmmmhmmmm..... and why is "environmental justice" so important, Vannie ?
"VJ:Well, the only reason that we have the unsustainable accounting that we have right now is because incinerators, dumping grounds, and sacrifice zones were put where poor people live. It would never have been allowed if you had to put all the incinerators and nasty stuff in rich people's neighborhoods; we'd have had a sustainable economy a long time ago. We'd have had a clean and green economy a long time ago. It's the environmental racism that allowed the powerful people in society to turn a blind eye for decades to the downsides of the industrial system that got us to this point. So there's a direct relationship between environmental racism and the lack of sustainability of society as a whole. We were the canaries in the coal mines, crying for relief. Now finally the consequences are affecting everyone, with global warming and everything else. The other thing is that the environmental justice agenda is also changing. Before, it was much stronger on demanding equal protection from environmental bad. Now we are also demanding equal opportunity and equal access to environmental good. We don't want to be first and worst with all the toxins and all the negative effects of global warming, and then benefit last and least from all the breakthroughs in solar, wind energy, organic food, all the positives. We want an equal share, an equitable share, of the work wealth and the benefits of the transition to a green economy."
http://motherjones.com/environment/2008/10/qa-van-jones
This is now government policy. Not by an act of Congress mind you, but by an Executive Order.
God help us all.
Out of Control.
Let’s point out the obvious: this really the Department of Homeland Security’s purview.
Bump for a later read
“Poor people”, manufactured by the government, to denounce their next door neighbor, to insure a government agent’s job and to make sure we all feel guilty but them thus enabling property seizure and accomodation to their bossing our everyday lives.
A liberal utopia of extravagant exploitation and control is thus borne, with all kinds of government drones out there to make sure they catch us before we can catch them, that those who refuse to denounce neighbors be “caught” by drones in the act of not denouncing them.
Welcome to the new Amerikkka where we neither have security nor liberty.
Your government on crack...
Long story short: We are paying the leeches in our society more and more so they won’t riot and try to steal your stash.
FUJC, FUBO and FUDHS
Have we all forgotten that under Obama the number one role of NASA is: “...outreach to the Muslim community.”
For those who don't have the patience to read the whole thing, here are the low lights of the above document
See synopsis at # 1.....
*This is now government policy. Not by an act of Congress mind you, but by an Executive Order.*
Don't miss the remainder of the last paragraph; here's a snipit:
"VJ:Well, the only reason that we have the unsustainable accounting that we have right now is because incinerators, dumping grounds, and sacrifice zones were put where poor people live. It would never have been allowed if you had to put all the incinerators and nasty stuff in rich people's neighborhoods; we'd have had a sustainable economy a long time ago. We'd have had a clean and green economy a long time ago. It's the environmental racism that allowed the powerful people in society to turn a blind eye for decades to the downsides of the industrial system that got us to this point.
Buried down deep there is a glimmer of reasonableness here, but only as background. To explain:
America has, since the 1960s, increasingly become dominated by NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) zoning, for anything and everything perceived as property value related “negatives”.
This started with industries that openly polluted groundwater, surface water, the air, landfills, crematoriums, etc. The middle class no longer wanted to live around that stuff, which because the middle class is so large, presented a problem.
The first response was to overload those places where the stuff had long been dumped, mostly where the poor lived, since they didn’t organize or particularly care about it, as long as they could live there cheaply.
This quickly became so obnoxious and toxic that the government intervened to improve disposal of pollutants in a more orderly manner.
Up to this point it was reasonable.
However, the process continued. Soon the middle classes didn’t just want to NIMBY things that were hazardous or unpleasant, but not aesthetically or socially acceptable, and then things that did not positively improve (by their lights) where they lived.
The poor areas remained poor, however, and crime ridden, and generally poorly maintained by those who lived there, and this presented the “flip side” to the problem. Who wants to put a “nice” business in a “nasty” area, full of unpleasant people?
And this is where scoundrels like Van Jones enter the picture. They crave power and money at the expense of those who have earned it, which they offer to use to “uplift” those who have made no effort to uplift themselves. Though in truth they are indifferent to their supporters and want the power and money for themselves.
Therefore his argument to the simpletons is simple: help me to destroy the “good” neighborhoods of those who earned the right to live there and work to keep them “good”, and this will somehow make life better for those of you who live in “bad” neighborhoods and make no effort to make them better.