How many times have you heard President Clinton justify a new public policy on the basis that it will help inner-city children and low-income minorities? Probably not as many times as you've heard Vice President Gore talk about the need to combat environmental injustices by punishing those industries that heartlessly expose politically powerless minorities and low-income families to toxic wastes.
However, two recent decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency have made it apparent that the interests of low-income minorities and our nation's children are not as high on Clinton's list of priorities as he has led the nation to believe.
Last month, the EPA failed to approve the construction of a plastic manufacturing facility in the predominantly black town of Convent, Louisiana. According to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, her decision to obstruct Shintech Inc.'s plans to build the facility was based on the notion that "it is essential that minority and low-income communities not be disproportionately subjected to environmental hazards."
As usual, the EPA set forth no comprehensive scientific studies to support the notion that the plastics facility would actually have adverse effects on the health of nearby residents. However, this decision was in the best interests of the low-income minority residents of Convent, right?
Wrong. According to a piece by Henry Payne in The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 16, black residents of Convent are furious with the EPA for stealing the "165 jobs and $5.6 million in school revenue that the Shintech plant will bring." Accusing the EPA of promoting their own political agenda at the expense of local residents, Carol Gaudin, a black resident of Convent stated that "None of these people are speaking for our community...these environmental groups never came here and asked me if I wanted the plant" (WSJ, Sept. 16).
Another black resident, Gladys Maddie, wrote to a local newspaper that, "we find the exploitative use of the color of our skin and our socio-economic condition sickening and insulting" (WSJ, Sept. 16). Apparently the Clinton administration doesn't care that a recent poll by the NAACP revealed that 73% of the residents in the black communities near the proposed site favor the plant since it will bring jobs to their community and improve the public schools.
Less than a week later on September 19th at an international meeting on ozone protection, the Clinton administration announced a proposal to ban chlorofluorocarbon-powered inhalers. As usual, EPA Administrator Carol Browner emphasized that at the heart of the proposed ban was the EPA's desire to protect all children in the United States from environmental health risks.
But according to Robert M. Goldberg, senior research fellow at the Center for Neuroscience, Medical Progress and Society at George Washington University, "such a ban would increase the cost and difficulty of treating childhood asthma, and inner-city children are already six times more likely than other children to die because of inadequate asthma care" (WSJ, Sept. 19). Although there are other inhalers on the market, many of the newer products without the CFCs are eight times more expensive than the generic inhalers with CFC propellants that are generally used by poorer children. Who then are the children whose health the EPA intends to protect?
The bad news is that these are just a few of the many environmental policies advocated by the Clinton administration that victimize inner-city children and low-income minorities and promote the ideological agenda of the ivory-tower environmentalists who have secure jobs and can afford brand-name inhalers for their children.
The good news is that at there are less than three years left of this environmental nonsense -- assuming of course that Gore isn't our next President.
