Navigating electoral advocacy as a 501(c)(3) is not always easy but we have some great tips for those that are interested.
An Environmental Justice Advisory Board (EJAB) is a group that advises government agencies on issues related to environmental justice, ensuring that policies and actions address the needs and concerns of marginalized communities disproportionately affected by environmental harms. These boards play a crucial role in promoting fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race or income, in environmental decision-making processes. The importance of EJABs lies in their ability to bridge the gap between communities and policymakers, advocating for equitable solutions to environmental challenges. The goal of this document is to compare the strengths and weaknesses of different EJAB bylaws to provide informed recommendations for communities to advocate for strong Board structures that have the power to move their vision and needs forward.
On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States denied an application that would allow for the Keystone XL pipeline to continue construction pending an environmental review of their Nationwide Permit 12 (“NWP 12”). This means that construction for the pipeline is to be put on hold until it undergoes a strict and lengthy review process, which could last up until and into 2021. But there is a whole lot more to this story…
On June 4th, 2020 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the EPA’s approval of the use of three different types of dicamba, a herbicide developed by Monsanto. They did so stating that the EPA, “...substantially understated the risk that it acknowledged.” Dicamba is a herbicide developed by Monsanto, that was approved in late 2016 as a replacement for another dangerous herbicide “Round-Up”. Many common weeds had grown resistant to Round-Up along with many other common herbicides. While not as dangerous to people as Round-Up is, dicamba has still been making the farmers that use it sick. The true harm of dicamba that the Ninth Circuit focused on when it vacated the approval of it, however, was the harm it causes to the environment and nearby farms.
