Advocates of “environmental justice” rally at the White House, and are given the ear of no fewer than five cabinet officers as well as other high Obama Administration officials. [Carter Wood/ShopFloor, more]
Advocates of “environmental justice” rally at the White House, and are given the ear of no fewer than five cabinet officers as well as other high Obama Administration officials. [Carter Wood/ShopFloor, more]
8 Comments
Environmental problems are best addressed by us inventors – the lawyers can vet the proposals.
How about a basic new infrastructure for the 21st century? Or a method to capture 30% more run-off water for drought plagued regions (like California) all patents or pending.
So we need help from lawyers, political wonks, and economists to fully characterize our infrastructure creation. One element right up Cato’s alley is the use of eminent domain in a completely new way to take unused resources without disturbing those in place. How to get the job done with minimum lawyer load!
Walter,
It would seem that you need to read Godwin’s law again!
My use conformed to his “proper” or LAWFUL use code “The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, eugenics (racial superiority) or other mainstays of Nazi Germany….” Most certainly the “T” word is eminently propaganda!
Your guffaw and/or apology accepted.
Like “institutional”, the word “environmental” is a euphemism for “imaginary”.
Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone
Le Mur,
To believe that “institutional” meaning related to institutions and “environmental” related to the environment are cover words (euphemisms) for imaginary is of course your statement that you do not believe either institutions or the environment exist.
Truly dysfunctional you are! Stop gaming and get help soon.
“Environmental justice” is indeed a code word, but it represents a somewhat simplified view of a real and complex problem: the placement of undesireable facilities such as waste transfer stations in poor, often predominately black neighborhoods. There are a lot of reasons this happens, from the availablity of cheap land and buildings, political dealmaking and the perception that opposition to the facility will be ineffective. The problem is that poor people are often in these neighborhoods because they are already run down and offer cheap housing, so there is something of a chicken and egg problem with the first of these reasons.
If only we had a system that could met out justice for poor men then all the rest would follow.
the “wrong side of the tracks problem”
When railroads would lay out towns they would put the tracks on the edge of town so people wouldn’t cross the tracks and interfere with the trains. The undesirable land across the tracks was cheaper and attracted poorer people leading the the “wrong side of the tracks”.