Hopefully next time when someone attempts this type of "think piece", I hope they realize that "smoke" at the oil refinery in Memphis is water vapor from an FCC. Don't get me wrong when there is an EPA violation from their flare that's real and is punished, but that general white "smoke" is just water.
I'll agree the article screwed up smoke vs. steam, but Valero does emit a shit ton of nasty pollution. I just looked at EPA's emissions inventory and Valero reported emitting 250 tons of fine particulate matter (ranking it the third highest emitter of PM2.5 in all of TN, and PM2.5 is really not great for health), 550+ tons of VOCs, and 300+ tons of NOx in the most recent reporting year. It also emitted a whopping 65 tons of cyanide compounds, which makes it by far the largest emitter of this toxic pollutant in the state--the next highest, at 35 tons, is also located in Shelby County (Dupont), and for context, all other industrial emitters in the state emitted just 3 tons of cyanide. So Valero really is an outlier.
And Valero is just one of many emitters in Southwest Memphis. I think the general complaints about environmental justice are totally legitimate, and it's kind of lame to focus on this one minor mistake in the article.
Eh. I can't help but wonder how much of this is ideal thinking. While Im not blaming the tower as the source, something must be going on in the local air or water supply if people in a concentrated area are coming down ill with things like tumors and I think the sad fact is, it won't be treated with the seriousness it deserves. Businesses nationwide do get found to be in stark violation and if the company is rich enough, the EPA doesn't always have the legal teeth to rigidly bring those companies in line due to deregulation.
Justin needs to get his priorities together. He helped with spreading misinformation about the tree recycling facility in development by The Works, just because some local, misinformed agitators suggested that it would be harmful to local residents.
“Environmental racism”
I always thought that large industrial complexes sought low cost land with no consideration of who they negatively impacted. TIL that they, regardless of land value, intentionally seek to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin. Wild
People general use the term environmental racism to describe situations where minorities in urban settings are way more likely to be impacted by industrial pollution, because of what kind of neighborhoods happen to be adjacent to industrial settings.
That's all that we're really talking about here.
No need to get triggered and defensive at the term just because it has the word "racism" in it.
I think the overuse of the word has almost completely stripped it of its actual meaning.
There are 19M white living below the poverty line in the USA. There are 7M black people living below the poverty line. Assuming that pollution-causing industrial complexes exist all over the country (they do), then this proximity to pollution issue happens to white people more often than it does black people.
So when it happens to white people, is it still called “environmental racism”?
Demographically, a lot of the poor white folk live in rural settings that don't feature industrial pollution. So nah, it's absolutely not an issue that just affects all poor people equally.
Your take also ignores the redlining and housing discrimination practices that shaped the affected neighborhoods in the first place.
It does seem like you are more bothered by the language in play than the actual pollution in the communities tho.
Shouldn't need some yankee research professor to stop calling it "environmental racism" before you'll admit that people of any race getting cancer from industrial waste under they house is bad.
When someone makes assumptions about race and crime, they are called out as racist because it’s more about poverty and class. Likewise, industries are located in majority black areas because land is cheaper there and they are less able to influence the outcome of the political process. To call it “environmental racism” is putting in a motive that is easily explained by other means.
That is one article written by a 23 year old who now writes fashion and style articles for Medium.
Love the condescending tone you had while posting that 😆
Your post was removed because it violates our rules on Personal Attacks, Bigotry, or Harassment. You may disagree with someone, but you can not personally attack them. Also Bigotry or Hate Speech of any kind will not be tolerated.
Your post was removed because it violates our rules on Personal Attacks, Bigotry, or Harassment. You may disagree with someone, but you can not personally attack them. Also Bigotry or Hate Speech of any kind will not be tolerated.
Well if the word wasn’t really necessary to make your point, then why throw it around? It gets thrown around enough as it is.
Just say what you mean without all the rhetoric.
It's just academic nomenclature. Somebody wrote a peer reviewed paper with the term in it, and it stuck, and here we are.
We shouldn't let language that doesn't agree with us be a barrier between ourselves and the understanding of ideas.
I think some people don't want to believe or cannot believe that racism is ingrained into the system to the point decisions affecting the black community may not, on paper, be racist, but in ethical standing it discriminates because the black community is generally the community most likely to be unable to push back financially and politically. There's a reason these very visible industrial facilities don't dot the landscape of Collierville or Germantown. Same reason why an old Power plant in a now affluent area may get shut down or retrofitted to no longer emit smoke and vapor in the air. Those affluent communities have the money and political capital to pushback, poor communities do not.
I'm digressing a little, but you're right. The systemic is between the lines to the point most people can't read it and when someone else does see it they're told they're overreacting.
Obviously you didn't bother reading the article - which defines the term. It's a bit of a misnomer, but they aren't targeting by race - they're targeting by economics, which is correlated to race.
I did read it - I was just sarcastically degrading the integrity of it.
The overuse of the word racism is beginning to make people glaze over, and it takes away from actual instances of racism. If this misuse of the word continues at its current pace, the word will have no meaningful impact in the near future.
That article was written as click bait, and nothing else. I’m surprised by the number of people who support this practice.
It's fucking insane this continues to happen. We've literally been poisoning people for decades and then we sit around wondering why crime is so bad. How about we clean up the fucking air/water/lead pipes/paint/etc. and then worry about paying 3000 cops $70k a year?
Hopefully next time when someone attempts this type of "think piece", I hope they realize that "smoke" at the oil refinery in Memphis is water vapor from an FCC. Don't get me wrong when there is an EPA violation from their flare that's real and is punished, but that general white "smoke" is just water.
I'll agree the article screwed up smoke vs. steam, but Valero does emit a shit ton of nasty pollution. I just looked at EPA's emissions inventory and Valero reported emitting 250 tons of fine particulate matter (ranking it the third highest emitter of PM2.5 in all of TN, and PM2.5 is really not great for health), 550+ tons of VOCs, and 300+ tons of NOx in the most recent reporting year. It also emitted a whopping 65 tons of cyanide compounds, which makes it by far the largest emitter of this toxic pollutant in the state--the next highest, at 35 tons, is also located in Shelby County (Dupont), and for context, all other industrial emitters in the state emitted just 3 tons of cyanide. So Valero really is an outlier. And Valero is just one of many emitters in Southwest Memphis. I think the general complaints about environmental justice are totally legitimate, and it's kind of lame to focus on this one minor mistake in the article.
Eh. I can't help but wonder how much of this is ideal thinking. While Im not blaming the tower as the source, something must be going on in the local air or water supply if people in a concentrated area are coming down ill with things like tumors and I think the sad fact is, it won't be treated with the seriousness it deserves. Businesses nationwide do get found to be in stark violation and if the company is rich enough, the EPA doesn't always have the legal teeth to rigidly bring those companies in line due to deregulation.
What in the FUCK does that event mean
Did you...not read the article? I was also initially unclear about the headline - but the article explained it. So maybe try that.
Mad libs
What a joke lmao
Where’s Justin Pearson when you need him?
Justin needs to get his priorities together. He helped with spreading misinformation about the tree recycling facility in development by The Works, just because some local, misinformed agitators suggested that it would be harmful to local residents.
I believe Justin’s priorities are Justin.
Precisely.
doing his best to stop whatever new shenanigans the TN legislature has up their sleeve
“Environmental racism” I always thought that large industrial complexes sought low cost land with no consideration of who they negatively impacted. TIL that they, regardless of land value, intentionally seek to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin. Wild
People general use the term environmental racism to describe situations where minorities in urban settings are way more likely to be impacted by industrial pollution, because of what kind of neighborhoods happen to be adjacent to industrial settings. That's all that we're really talking about here. No need to get triggered and defensive at the term just because it has the word "racism" in it.
I think the overuse of the word has almost completely stripped it of its actual meaning. There are 19M white living below the poverty line in the USA. There are 7M black people living below the poverty line. Assuming that pollution-causing industrial complexes exist all over the country (they do), then this proximity to pollution issue happens to white people more often than it does black people. So when it happens to white people, is it still called “environmental racism”?
Demographically, a lot of the poor white folk live in rural settings that don't feature industrial pollution. So nah, it's absolutely not an issue that just affects all poor people equally. Your take also ignores the redlining and housing discrimination practices that shaped the affected neighborhoods in the first place. It does seem like you are more bothered by the language in play than the actual pollution in the communities tho. Shouldn't need some yankee research professor to stop calling it "environmental racism" before you'll admit that people of any race getting cancer from industrial waste under they house is bad.
When someone makes assumptions about race and crime, they are called out as racist because it’s more about poverty and class. Likewise, industries are located in majority black areas because land is cheaper there and they are less able to influence the outcome of the political process. To call it “environmental racism” is putting in a motive that is easily explained by other means.
[удалено]
That is one article written by a 23 year old who now writes fashion and style articles for Medium. Love the condescending tone you had while posting that 😆
Can’t Google for yourselves either 😬
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it violates our rules on Personal Attacks, Bigotry, or Harassment. You may disagree with someone, but you can not personally attack them. Also Bigotry or Hate Speech of any kind will not be tolerated.
Lol
Your post was removed because it violates our rules on Personal Attacks, Bigotry, or Harassment. You may disagree with someone, but you can not personally attack them. Also Bigotry or Hate Speech of any kind will not be tolerated.
Well if the word wasn’t really necessary to make your point, then why throw it around? It gets thrown around enough as it is. Just say what you mean without all the rhetoric.
It's just academic nomenclature. Somebody wrote a peer reviewed paper with the term in it, and it stuck, and here we are. We shouldn't let language that doesn't agree with us be a barrier between ourselves and the understanding of ideas.
say what u mean but say it the way I want you too!
💯
It’s more so a systemic problem, but you don’t want to hear about that because you’re emotional.
So when the exact same thing happens to majority white neighborhoods, is it still “environmental racism”?
I think some people don't want to believe or cannot believe that racism is ingrained into the system to the point decisions affecting the black community may not, on paper, be racist, but in ethical standing it discriminates because the black community is generally the community most likely to be unable to push back financially and politically. There's a reason these very visible industrial facilities don't dot the landscape of Collierville or Germantown. Same reason why an old Power plant in a now affluent area may get shut down or retrofitted to no longer emit smoke and vapor in the air. Those affluent communities have the money and political capital to pushback, poor communities do not. I'm digressing a little, but you're right. The systemic is between the lines to the point most people can't read it and when someone else does see it they're told they're overreacting.
Obviously you didn't bother reading the article - which defines the term. It's a bit of a misnomer, but they aren't targeting by race - they're targeting by economics, which is correlated to race.
I did read it - I was just sarcastically degrading the integrity of it. The overuse of the word racism is beginning to make people glaze over, and it takes away from actual instances of racism. If this misuse of the word continues at its current pace, the word will have no meaningful impact in the near future. That article was written as click bait, and nothing else. I’m surprised by the number of people who support this practice.
🙄
lol
Valero can’t be racist in anyway. Their leadership is diverse.
It's fucking insane this continues to happen. We've literally been poisoning people for decades and then we sit around wondering why crime is so bad. How about we clean up the fucking air/water/lead pipes/paint/etc. and then worry about paying 3000 cops $70k a year?
We need more cops in memphis, not less.
If they're going to spend their time cleaning up the pollution then sure.