Amid fake news and alternative facts, it is important for one to be able to look past the smoke and mirrors to decipher true intentions. One prominent issue that we are currently facing is the disastrous condition of our environment and the push to slowly defund the Environmental Protection Agency. Since its founding in 1970, the agency’s number one objective has been to protect human health and the environment. The agency tries to fulfill their mission through programs to educate communities and regulations to cap corporation’s effect on health and environment. This mission has recently been challenged by the White House through new plans to cut funding and lessen staff. Although some may argue that the EPA is unbeneficial, the EPA should
…show more content…
"No major sector of government is set to be ground down more than the Environmental Protection Agency” (Letzer, 2017). Although some may argue that cuts are necessary, the projected $2.6 billion loss--according to Business Insider--is excessive. Considering the expansion of military spending which, according to the National Priorities Project, already accounts for 54% of federal discretionary spending, it is safe to assume that the President much rather prioritize the military over sustainability. “...38 separate programs would be eliminated entirely” (Eliperin & Dennis, 2017). Some of these programs will directly impact low-income communities and people of color because they will no longer have the resources to be adequately educated about toxins and their right to report misconduct by polluters who often reside in their communities. The placement of low-income or minority communities in proximity of environmentally hazardous or degraded environments is environmental racism. Eliminating key programs is linking disadvantaged communities and hazardous environmental states together meaning the government will be enabling and participating in this environmental
"No major sector of government is set to be ground down more than the Environmental Protection Agency” (Letzer, 2017). Although some may argue that cuts are necessary, the projected $2.6 billion loss--according to Business Insider--is excessive. Considering the expansion of military spending which, according to the National Priorities Project, already accounts for 54% of federal discretionary spending, it is safe to assume that the President much rather prioritize the military over sustainability. “...38 separate programs would be eliminated entirely” (Eliperin & Dennis, 2017). Some of these programs will directly impact low-income communities and people of color because they will no longer have the resources to be adequately educated about toxins and their right to report misconduct by polluters who often reside in their communities. The placement of low-income or minority communities in proximity of environmentally hazardous or degraded environments is environmental racism. Eliminating key programs is linking disadvantaged communities and hazardous environmental states together meaning the government will be enabling and participating in this environmental