Upholding the Purpose of Executive Order 12898 and Protecting Environmental Justice

Thirty-one years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. EO 12898 succinctly stated that:

[E]ach Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands.

EO 12898 only formalized decades of grass-roots environmental justice action advanced by pioneers from these same communities. It even specified what each agency’s organization-wide environmental justice strategy should contain. At minimum the strategy should:

• promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority populations and low-income populations; 
• ensure greater public participation; 
• improve research and data collection relating to the health of and environment of minority populations and low-income populations; and 
• identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority populations and low-income populations

Together with President Biden-era executive orders directed at protecting the public and addressing inequities, EO 12898 marked significant federal environmental justice progress. This President’s EO 14151 not only decimated programs at federal agencies and negatively impacted employees (a gross understatement), it incorrectly combined Environmental Justice and DEI activities as if they were the same. It was also written in a way that can only be described as discriminatory on its face, as it is a clear attack on Black and minority workers in the federal government.

Viewing the executive orders through a personal lens

There is a great deal of factual data related to the existence of prejudice and bias based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. If one was interested in educating themselves about the need for EJ and the need for DEI (in all of its iterations), there would be irrevocable evidence that glaring inequities exist.

My professional background is in environmental sciences, toxicology, and law. Rather than viewing this from the perspective of a lawyer or even a scientist, my perspective is that of a human being, a person from an EJ community, and one who has worked in this space for more than 30 years. I do agree with EO 14151 that there is immense public waste and shameful discrimination and I will add that it is perpetrated on disadvantaged groups of people. I also agree that “Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect…” Enough said there.

My take is this: Instead of focusing on “the prevalence and the economic and social costs of EJ, DEI and DEIA”—whatever that is, the focus should be on the prevalence of racism, environmental injustice, misogyny, hatred, bias, unfair and unequal treatment and prejudice. 

What about the prevalence of systemic racism? Of economic apartheid? What about the costs related to medical treatment for exposure to environmental contaminants or the economic burdens related to a history of racist practices like redlining that have resulted in a disproportionate amount of environmental and health challenges in minority populations and communities? 

What about the indisputable fact that a disproportionate number of people of all races live below the poverty line and struggle to afford basic necessities? What about the number of lives lost? We must ask ourselves: How much is a life worth?

If those were the questions considered, actions focused on the good of the people would prevail and EOs designed to undermine those actions would not. 

Learn more about NWF’s environmental justice work here.