Environmental racism in the United States

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Environmental racism is a form of

transportation, housing, and economic opportunity.[5]

Communities of color are more likely to be located next to pollution sources, such as

healthcare systems.[8] Empirical evidence suggests environmental hazards negatively affect nearby property values, employment opportunities, and economic activities. In addition, environmental hazards can cause psychological stress.[9][10][11][12]

Natural disasters also tend to have unequal impacts on communities of color. The extent of poverty within a region can often have a much stronger effect on the scale of a natural disaster's impact than the severity of the disaster itself.

disaster prevention and recovery plans are often biased against minorities in low-income areas.[14]

History

The origins of the environmental justice movement can be traced to the Indigenous environmental movement, which itself has roots in over 500 years of colonialism, oppression, and ongoing struggles for sovereignty and land rights.[15] In 1968, grassroots environmental activists from several tribal nations met in Minnesota and formed an organization known as the American Indian Movement (AIM).[15][16]

The 1982 North Carolina PCB Protest is widely recognized as the origin of the environmental justice movement.[17] In 1982, North Carolina state officials decided to place a landfill with highly toxic PCB-contaminated soil in the small town of Afton in Warren County, North Carolina. Afton was about 84% African American. This decision sparked the first national protest against the location of a hazardous waste facility. Organized by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, residents of Warren County, along with local civil rights and political leaders, gathered in opposition to the placement of the landfill site. Over 500 protesters were arrested.[18] In response, two major studies were published: the US General Accounting Office 1983, and the United Church of Christ 1987. Both studies found that there was a strong relationship between race and the location of hazardous waste facilities.[19]

The

Hispanic Americans lived in communities with hazardous waste sites.[18]

Pollution

A protest at Crawford Coal Plant

Agriculture

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) contribute to the adverse health effects experienced by EJ communities by releasing harmful gas emissions into the air (ammonia, volatile organic compounds, endotoxins, etc.) greatly reducing the surrounding air quality.[22] Some ways that these chemicals pollute the air are through barns that contain animals, the storage of waste specially hog operations, handling the wasted stored These pollutants in the air are able to carry and transmit disease-causing bacteria and certain fungi.[23] They can also pollute the soil and nearby water sources. The most common adverse effects of CAFOs in humans are increased asthma and reduced lung function.

Methane emission is emitted and produced from organic compounds found in industrial wastewater and from the breakdown of animal manure, usually pigs, cows, and goats.[24] Even when looking at a small scale, each animal's contribution is huge, one cow is able to produce up to 264 pounds of methane gas per year. [25] While methane emissions from animals can cause adverse health effects, another important aspect to look at is the fact it is driving climate change. Climate change in EJ communities is the most impacted, not having the all the resources they need. Weather events in these communities are becoming more severe and dangerous, the agricultural industry is the biggest contributor of methane in the United States. [26]

Pesticides have been used for thousands of years worldwide, in the United States most of the pesticide use is in agriculture.[27] People and the families of people that work as a farmworker or as an agricultural worker are at the highest risk of the effects of these chemicals. [28] Eighty-three percent of farmworkers identify themselves as Hispanic and one-third of all farmworkers have an income below the federal poverty line. [29] From previous federal policies and racist lending practices have ensured that most of the farmlands in the United States are owned and operated by whites and has ensured that BIPOC and people living in low-income areas are the ones mostly impacted by pesticide pollution. [27] According to research that was conducted in California; pesticide pollution has the greatest income, racial, and ethnic inequality in the state. While this research was done in California, this is unfortunately the case across the United States, BIPOC are the most impacted. [27] The impacts that pesticides have on human health are dependent on the type that is used in that area, such as organophosphates and carbamates, which affect the nervous systems, while others may only irritate a person's eyes or skin, they may be cancer causing, or may affect hormones of the endocrine system. [30]

Hazardous waste facilities

Recent studies show that hazardous waste facilities are more likely to be located in communities of color and low-income neighborhoods.[31] In fact, communities with a high concentration of racial minorities are nine times more likely to be exposed to environmentally hazardous facilities than communities with a low concentration of minorities.[32] A 2002 study in Massachusetts by sociologists Daniel R. Faber and Eric J. Krieg found racially-based biases in the placement of 17 industrial waste facilities.[21] Residential segregation is correlated with higher cancer risk; as segregation increases, cancer incidence is higher.[33][34] A 2018 study by the American Journal of Public Health found that Black people are exposed to 54% more particulate matter than the average American.[6] In Los Angeles, minority children have the highest risk of being exposed to air pollution at school. Environmental health scientists Rachel Morello-Frosch and Manuel Pastor, Jr. found that "at schools ranked in the bottom fifth for air quality, the children were 92% minority." They also found that air pollution is associated with decreased achievement in school.[35] The United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Census Bureau found that, in the mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the US, minorities are exposed to 66% more particulate matter from vehicles than white Americans.[36] In a study in 2000 in Texas, sociologists Kingsley Ejiogu and Hon R. Tachia found that the percent Asians and percent Hispanics were significant predictors of toxic sites.[37]

Environmental racism is very prevalent in many states across the country. Environmental racism raises ethical issues and can also have implications for a state's laws and constitution, for example the "clean air act", "the fourteenth amendment" and the "civil rights act".

An example of a case of environmental racism is a small mainly African American (90%) town called Uniontown, AL where a toxic landfill is believed to have caused serious health issues.[38] In 2010, the Tennessee Valley Authority moved four million cubic yards of coal ash to a landfill in Uniontown without providing citizens any protection from the waste.[39] Mental health issues, a one-in-five chance of developing cancer and reproductive issues were associated with mercury and arsenic contained within the ash.

Other examples include West Dallas, Texas where African American housing projects have been set up twenty paces from a battery recycling smelter, and Chester Pennsylvania which has become an attraction for toxic waste sites.[40] In California the government also decided to allow pollution in vulnerable communities.[41] The effect of environmental racism is seen in the health data which shows that African Americans are three times more likely to die from asthma.[42] Three out of five African Americans live in a community with a least one toxic waste site.[42] On average it takes twenty percent longer for toxic sites in minority community towns to be placed on the national priority list than white areas.[42]

Water pollution

A 2002 study published by the Annual Review of Public Health found that Low-income communities and communities of color are more likely to have contaminated drinking water.[43] A 2019 study by a team of epidemiologists found that community water systems with higher nitrate concentrations tended to serve communities with higher proportions of Hispanic residents.[44] Nitrates have been linked to cancer, reproductive problems, and death in infants.[45] Additionally, contamination of drinking water contributes to 20 percent of lead poisoning in children; per studies in 2000 and 2004, low-income African American and Latino children have disproportionately high levels of lead in their blood.[46][47]

Several case studies demonstrate race-based inequalities in access to clean water. A recent, highly publicized example of water pollution's disproportionate effect on racial minorities is the

Flint Water Crisis. In 2014, Flint, Michigan, a city with a 57% Black population, switched its drinking water to the Flint River, which led to complaints about the water's taste and color.[48] Studies found that the water was contaminated with lead from aging pipes.[49] As of 2015, the US government had spent $80 million in addressing the Flint Water Crisis.[50]

Another example is

East Orosi, a small, low-income, Latino town in California's San Joaquin Valley where the groundwater was found to be contaminated with nitrates due to fertilizer runoff at nearby farms.[51]

Air Pollution

Air pollution is a growing problem in populous cities, particularly those neighboring airports. In the U.S., 70% of airborne lead exposure is caused by leaded aviation fuel.[52] The Biden administration has prioritized efforts to reduce child lead exposure throughout their administration, but they have not yet banned the use of leaded aviation fuel.[53] While the Clean Air Act of 1963 served to ban the uses of leaded gasoline, it has yet to address the continued consumption of leaded aviation fuel.[54] The negative impact of the use of leaded aviation fuel can be seen in the case of the Reid-Hillview Airport in San Jose, where in 2021 blood lead levels of children living within a 1.5 mile radius of the airport tested at double that of children at the peak of the Flint Michigan Water crisis.[55] Furthermore, 97% of the affected community identifies as non-white.[56] Since then, the use of such fuel has been banned in Santa Clara County, but it remains a primary contributor of airborne lead in the rest of the United States.[57]

Health effects

Minority populations are exposed to greater environmental health risks than white people, according to the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The advocacy organisation Greenlining cites EPA assessments finding that Blacks are exposed to 1.5 times more air pollutants causing heart and lung disease than whites, while exposure rates for Hispanics were 1.2 times the amount for non-Hispanic whites. People in poverty had 1.3 times the exposure of those not in poverty.[58]

Environmental pollution has been found to cause physical and mental disabilities, cancer, and asthma. Exposure to industrial chemicals have correlated with increased cancer rates, learning disabilities, and neurobehavioral disorders.[59] Some industrial chemicals have been identified as endocrine disruptors, which means they interfere with the functioning of hormones. Endocrine disrupters have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, metabolic disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and infertility.[60] There is a strong link between cancer and childhood exposure to pesticides, solvents, and other toxic substances.[59]

Non-white populations, especially Black Americans, are exposed to a higher concentration of harmful chemicals than white populations. High-emissions in majority-Black areas may contribute to the high prevalence of conditions such as cardiovascular disease mortality and asthma in Black populations.[61] Additionally, climate change has been found to increase the frequency of extreme heat and pollen events that exacerbate asthma, disproportionately affecting pediatric ED visits of BIPOC.[62]

A row of industrial plants in Louisiana has now been dubbed "

heart disease were significantly higher in Cancer Alley, and in Louisiana, than the United States overall.[64]

Since the 1700s, power companies have dumped

reproductive health. Lead causes developmental disorders, arsenic can lead to rashes and lesions. Kristina Zierold, an environmental health scientist and epidemiologist, concluded that there are clusters of cancer around coal ash sites where workers are exposed. However, scientists have not been able to prove a direct link between coal ash and cancer. Measuring coal ash's impact on a control group would be dangerous and unethical, so researchers have had to extrapolate based on their current knowledge of toxins. Researchers have observed that the placement of a coal ash dump near a community causes dramatic increases in cancer rates and neurological issues among children.[65]

Low-income households and people of color are often unable to afford adequate

African-American, low-income neighborhood in Chicago.[66] This results in the compounding of health issues within these communities, and exacerbates a cycle of poverty; sickness eats up money, often forcing families to sell assets to pay off medical debt and/or quit a job to take care of family members. It also results in less money to pass down to children or share with local organizations, such as schools.[65]

The graph above demonstrates the correlation between income and heat in the city of Baltimore, Maryland. Low-income neighborhoods are seen with higher summer temperatures than higher-income neighborhoods during the same period. The data was provided to authors Anderson and Mcminn by NASA/U.S. Geological Survey, Census Bureau.

A study involving 108 urban areas found that neighborhoods with a history of redlining were five to twelve degrees hotter than neighborhoods without redlining.[67] This increase in temperature is caused by the urban heat island, an area which has a slightly warmer climate than the surrounding area. Low income communities are acutely at risk to heat mortality because of reduced access to air conditioning as well as tree cover.[68] "Temperatures on a scorching summer day can vary as much as 20 degrees across different parts of the same city, with poor or minority neighborhoods often bearing the brunt of that heat".[69]

Natural disasters

A house crushed by flooding from a breached levee in the Ninth Ward, New Orleans, due to Hurricane Katrina

The immediate impact of a natural disaster does not discriminate, but responses do when the lingering results of structural racism hinder relief.[70] Natural disasters have historically had a larger impact on poor African Americans than wealthy whites. Structural disinvestment in communities of color additionally reduces their ability to respond to climate disasters, for instance, Black survivors of natural disasters are less likely to receive FEMA assistance.[71] In counties hit by natural disasters, the wealth of white residents increased while Black residents fell.[72] In 2020, FEMA's advisory council admitted the historic unfairness in federal disaster response and asked the agency to address the issue.[70]

In particular, Black people were disproportionately affected by

New Orleans Convention Center until he heard about it on the news. Deliveries of supplies to the convention center did not arrive until four days after Katrina hit.[75]

Another example is the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane, the first category 5 hurricane officially recorded in the Atlantic. The storm devastated much of the southern coast of Florida, but hit low-lying, Black migrant-worker communities particularly hard. In fact, over 75% of the 3000 recorded deaths were Black migrant workers. Most Black bodies were burned or buried in mass graves. The towns of Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay were "virtually wiped off the map".[13]

Natural disasters have also been used as an opportunity to oppress African Americans. For example, During the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, whites were evacuated, while African Americans were placed into disaster-relief "concentration camps" and forced to work while being held at gunpoint.[13]

Access to public green space

Public Green Space in Alabama.

A study by sociologist Salvatore Saporito and Daniel Casey found that urban green space is generally distributed unequally across racial and economic groups. Low-income, people of color tend to live in areas with less vegetation than their white, wealthy counterparts. There is also a relationship between "city-level racial and economic segregation and differences in exposure to green space between the members of different racial and income groups." The more segregated a city is, the more likely it is that neighborhoods with large concentrations of racial minorities will have less green space than white neighborhoods.[76]

According to Ian Leahy, "the wealthiest neighborhoods have 65% more tree canopy cover than the highest poverty neighborhoods."[77] Tree canopy cover is the measure of the percentage of the ground covered by a vertical projection of the tree. Inequities in tree canopy cover and the presence of urban green space arise from policies such as redlining.[77] Redlining is the "historical practice of refusing home loans or insurance to whole neighborhoods based on a racially motivated perception of safety for investment."[78] This policy affected mainly Black and Latino individuals, thus shaping the current urban green spaces. Redlined areas have less green space, are on average 2.6 degrees Celsius warmer than neighboring areas, and experience other environmental hazards, leading to discussions of heath disparities.[79]

There are few studies on the link between green spaces and health, but it is a rising concern with increasing urbanization and spatial planning policies of densification. There is one epidemiological study that was performed in the Netherlands that showed a positive link between abundant green spaces and better health mostly apparent among the elderly, housewives, and people from lower socioeconomic groups.[80] Other small epidemiological studies show that green space is positively correlated with self perceived health, number of symptoms experienced, and mortality risk.[81] The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that the relationship between urban green space and health is intrinsically related and recent studies show that immersion in natural landscapes can reduce stress and improve mental and social health.[82] Research continues in underserved communities and the link of green space to health outcomes.

The presence of green space in one's living environment has been found to have an important impact on physical and mental health. Green space can contribute to stress reduction and attention restoration, as well as improved

social cohesion and increased physical activity.[83]

A proposal to develop a police training facility at the

Old Atlanta prison farm in Atlanta, GA has resulted in community protest. Opponents to the project would like to conserve the area as part of the 3500 acre South River forest (a large green space in southeast Atlanta), and they have said that the development is an example of environmental racism that will lead to increased police brutality against people of color.[84][85]

Native Americans

History

According to Potawatomi philosopher

Columbian Exchange, drastically reshaping the biology and ecological landscape of the Americas. Simultaneously, there was a drop in carbon dioxide levels in the geologic layer following the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas and the regrowth of plants. Settler colonialism is marked by the process of "terraforming"—damming of rivers, clear-cutting of forests, and importation of plants and animals.[88]

For instance, in

white settlers. These early settlers also believed that deforestation would create an environment more hospitable to those with "fair skin" instead of "savages."[89]

Throughout the nineteenth century, as the United States spread its territory from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, Native Americans were pushed onto reservations, which were often lands that were deemed undesirable to white settlers because of poor soil quality. Additionally, they tended to be located next to tracts of federally owned land. During World War II, a significant number of military facilities were built or expanded onto these federal lands. The United States sought "remote lands to house bombing ranges and related noxious activities," and, thus, many facilities contained dangerous unexploded ordnance, putting Native populations at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals.[90] In the early 1990s, the United States government attempted to blackmail Native populations by offering tribes millions of dollars for hosting nuclear waste facilities. This offer was appealing to many tribes because of extreme poverty on reservations.[91]

Through the 1940s and 1950s, the US Military responded to wartime industry by erecting uranium mines in the southwestern deserts.[92] The nearest residents were almost exclusively Native American tribal members.[15] Navajo and Hopi drinking water supply in Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico continues to this day to be affected by runoff and pollution from neighboring mines.[93]

Hazardous waste on reservations

Because Native Americans live at the lowest

hospitals.[90]

unilateral right to determine where roads would be built.[91]

Water quality

Native American communities are more likely to have contaminated drinking water. In 2006, 61% percent of drinking water systems on Native American reservations had health violations or other violations, compared to 27% of all public drinking water systems in the United States.[97]

A highly publicized example of water pollution on a reservation is the

President Donald Trump reversed this order and authorized the completion of the pipeline.[101] The pipeline remains commercially operable.[102] There are still ongoing litigation efforts by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline in an effort to shut it down permanently.[103]

Additionally, in 2015, the Gold King Mine spill contaminated 3 million gallons of water in the Colorado River, which served as a primary source of drinking water for the Navajo and Hopi nations downstream. The Navajo and Hopi subsequently recorded dangerously high levels of arsenic and lead in their water supply. Through the following litigative proceedings, the US EPA appropriated just $156,000 in reparations to those affected by the Gold King Mine spill.[50]

Declining riparian oxygen has also affected Washington's Quinault tribe which has reported greater levels of dead fish, affecting their seafood business.[104]

Civil rights litigation

The environmental justice movement in the US was heavily influenced by the

civil rights movement, and shares many of the same goals and tactics.[105][106] Existing community organizations and leaders that contributed to mobilize the civil rights movement have also engaged in environmental justice work.[106] Several prominent environmental justice lawsuits in the US have attempted to claim discrimination based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though none of these have so far been successful.[107]

Litigation

Some environmental justice lawsuits have been based on civil rights laws. The first case to claim environmental discrimination in the siting of a waste facility under civil rights law was Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management, Inc. (1979). With the legal representation of Linda McKeever Bullard, residents of Houston's Northwood Manor opposed the decision of the city and Browning Ferris Industries to construct a solid waste facility near their mostly African-American neighborhood.[107] Although the Northwood Manor residents lost the case, there were several lasting outcomes: the city of Houston later restricted the dumping of waste near public facilities such as schools; the strategy of using civil rights law in environmental justice cases was adopted in other cases, and Bullard's husband (Robert Bullard) became an increasingly visible scholar and writer on environmental justice.[108][109][110]

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been used in many environmental justice cases.[105] This strategy requires that the plaintiff prove discriminatory intent on the part of the defendant, which is very difficult and has never been done in an environmental justice case.[107]

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has also been used in lawsuits that claim environmental inequality. The two most relevant sections in these cases are sections 601 and 602. section 601 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by any government agency receiving federal funds. To win an environmental justice case that claims an agency violated this statute, the plaintiff must prove the agency intended to discriminate. Section 602 requires agencies to create rules and regulations that uphold section 601. This section is useful because the plaintiff must only prove that the rule or regulation in question had disparate impact. While disparate impact is much easier to demonstrate than discriminatory intent, cases brought under section 602 are not typically successful.[108] It is also unclear whether citizens have right of action to sue under section 602. In Seif v. Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (1998), a district court determined that residents did not have right of action; but this decision was overturned in an appeal. When the case went to the supreme court, the case was dismissed as moot because the plaintiff had withdrawn their permit. Earlier decisions in the lower courts were vacated, leaving no judgment on the books establishing citizen right of action for section 602.[107][105]

Successful environmental justice litigation has typically used environmental law or tort law. While cases brought under civil rights law may have political advantages, these cases are not typically successful in court.[107][108]

Policy responses

Five cities, including Seattle, Portland, Baltimore, Chicago, and Oakland, have passed ordinances banning fossil fuel storage and infrastructure expansion.[111]

Federal agencies

In the United States it was also found that income inequality greatly affected the quality of the environment in which people live. People of colour and the poor in America on average experience much lower quality environments than white people or the wealthy.[112] Action was taken in the early 1990s by the American Government in an attempt to improve environmental quality for poorer regions. In 1992 the United States Environmental Protection Agency set up the Office of Environmental Equity, now known as the Office of Environmental Justice, to address the situation at hand.[113] However the Office of Environmental Justice's work was undermined by Congress who refused to pass the bills which were presented to them by the EPA.[112] Instead states began to pass their own bills which did very little to improve environmental quality for poorer areas. As a result, there has been little to no change in the ratios of environmental inequality whereas there has been a decline in the ratios of race and poverty.[112]

Background

In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations", which required environmental justice to be part of each federal agency's mission. Under Executive Order 12898 federal agencies must:

  1. enforce all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority and low-income populations;
  2. ensure public participation;
  3. improve research and data collection relating to the health and environment of minority and low-income populations; and
  4. identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority and low-income populations.

EO 12898 established an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice that is chaired by the EPA Administrator and heads of 17 departments, agencies, and several White House offices in order to collectively promote and advance environmental justice principles.[114] This was a historical step in addressing environmental injustice on a policy level; however, the effectiveness of the Order is noted mainly in its influence on states as Congress never passed a bill making Clinton's Executive Order law.[115] Many states began to require relevant agencies to develop strategies and programs that would identify and address environmental injustices being perpetrated at the state or local level.[116]

In 2005, during

President George W. Bush's administration, there was an attempt to remove the premise of racism from the Order. EPA's Administrator Stephen Johnson wanted to redefine the Order's purpose to shift from protecting low income and minority communities that may be disadvantaged by government policies to all people. Obama's appointment of Lisa Jackson as EPA Administrator and the issuance of Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898 established a recommitment to environmental justice.[117] The fight against environmental racism faced some setbacks with the election of Trump. Under Trump's administration, there was a mandated decrease of EPA funding accompanied by a rollback on regulations which has left many underrepresented communities vulnerable.[118]

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also forbids federal agencies from providing grants or funding opportunities to discriminatory programs.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) was created in 1992 and has coordinated efforts of the EPA to meet environmental justice goals. The Office of Environmental Justice provides technical and financial assistance to communities working to address environmental justice issues.[119] The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) provides independent advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator that crosses various environmental justice issues. The Tribal Consultation & Indigenous People's Engagement works with federally recognized tribes and other indigenous peoples to prioritize their environmental and public health issues.[120]

Tools and direct support

OEJ provides financial resources for creating healthy, sustainable and equitable communities through the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program and the Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program. As of 2016, more than $36 million of financial assistance has been given to nearly 1,500 community-based organizations.

The Technical Assistance Services for Communities program provides a way for communities to gain better understanding of the decision-making process as well as assist to understand the science, regulations, and policies that impact environmental issues and EPA actions.[120]

The EPA website on environmental justice has various resources such as EJSCREEN, a mapping tool and screening tool, Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action, Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis, trainings and workshops, and the Legal Tools Development document.[121]

Emergency Planning and Right to Know Act of 1986

After the Bhopal disaster, where a Union Carbide plant released forty tons of methyl isocyanate into the atmosphere in a village just south of Bhopal, India, the U.S. government passed the Emergency Planning and Right to Know Act of 1986.[122] Introduced by Henry Waxman, the act required all corporations to report their toxic chemical pollution annually, which was then gathered into a report known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).[123][124]

Corporate Toxics Information Report

The Corporate Toxics Information Project (CTIP)[125][126] provides information and analysis on corporate pollution and its consequences for communities. The project develops corporate rankings, regional reports, industry reports based on industrial sectors, and presents this data in a web-based resource open to the public. The data is collected by the EPA[127] and then analyzed and disseminated by the PERI institute.[128]

Since 2004, the CTIP has also published an index of the top 100 corporate air polluters in the United States.[129] The list is based on the EPA's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI), which "assesses the chronic human health risk from industrial toxic releases", as well as the TRI. The Toxic 100 has been updated five times, with the latest update in 2016.

U.S. Department of Agriculture