Featured

California Recycling Bill Highlights Rift Between Mainstream Environmentalism and Environmental Justice Movement

Published

7 years ago

June 19, 2019

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – When a group of liberal lawmakers in the state capitol in Sacramento recently proposed legislation that would raise the amount of recycled plastic required in bottled beverages sold in California, many environmental activists lauded the move as a much-needed step in the fight to curb plastic waste.

But as debate over the legislation begins to take shape, critics say that it is becoming increasingly clear that the proposed recycling requirement would, if enacted, have an unintended consequence that hurts one group in particular: low-income Californians, particularly those in African-American communities around the state.

The bill, AB792, would mandate that plastic bottles be made with 25 percent recycled plastic by 2021 before it steadily increasing the recycling requirement to 75 percent by 2030. The bill faces a major test in early July when the Senate Environmental Quality Committee considers whether to send it to the full Senate for a vote.

To supporters, the bill would put in place necessary targets to accelerate a reduction in California’s overall plastic use. But consumer advocates worry that the bill would create new production costs that average Californians would have to pay for.

A major concern is that the bill would unintentionally discourage bottled water consumption at a time when research shows that water is key for better nutrition and a successful diet.

The health implications are especially significant for African-Americans, who have experienced higher rates of diabetes than white Americans partly because of poor diet. The proposed legislation also comes at a time when studies have consistently shown black and Hispanic Americans are more inclined to drink bottled water than other ethnic groups.

In addition, research suggests that minority families without access to clean drinking water are more likely to turn to less healthy sugar-sweetened beverages. With African-Americans and Hispanics making up more than 60 percent of Californians suffering from obesity, some advocates say creating new barriers to healthy drinking options could put these individuals at an even greater risk of developing chronic conditions.

Therefore, experts and advocates are asking state lawmakers to slow down the pace of the bill in order to identify unintended consequences of the recycling legislation, regardless of its lofty goals.

The recycling bill has also had unintended consequences politically. It has exposed a rift between mainstream environmentalists and environmental justice advocates.

Specifically, some in the environmental justice movement complain that many mainstream environmental organizations have focused on high-profile issues like climate change and bottled-water recycling while largely neglecting the day-to-day environmental hazards that communities of color face in many American cities.

These environmental hazards largely stem from a number of factors, including rampant industrial development and unwise land-use policies in many cities. The toxic legacy that these communities confront include incinerators, landfills and contaminated water.

In fact, mainstream environmentalists have drawn heavy criticism for their relative silence during the water-contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan, a predominantly African-American city where there is now a pressing need for bottled water.

The differences between the mainstream environmental movement and the environmental justice movement appears to have deep roots: research that has shown people of color and low socioeconomic status have been historically excluded from preeminent environmental groups, many of which are largely white and enjoy the support of wealthy funders.

In 2014, researchers conducted one of the most comprehensive studies examining the intersection between race and environmentalism in environmental institutions. Their conclusion: An overwhelmingly white “green insiders’ club,” with racial minorities occupying less than 12 percent of the leadership positions in the environmental organizations studied.

Dr. Dorecta E. Taylor, the study’s primary author, is a graduate of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and is presently professor of environmental justice at the University of Michigan, where she also serves as the program director of the Multicultural Environmental Leadership Development Initiative. She is also the university’s director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Taylor says White environmentalists are ignoring pressing environmental justice demands due to their failure to move outside of their own insular communities. She said, “One of the things they should be doing is stop being so afraid of people of color, and meet them, interact with them, cultivate them, and start recruiting them.”

Khalil Abdullah, is a Washington, D.C.-area writer and editor. He staffed the Committee on Transportation and Environment for the National Black Caucus of State Legislators before and while serving as executive director. As a national editor for San Francisco-based New America Media, he edited and occasionally wrote on environmental issues.

Khalil Abdullah

Posts by Khalil Abdullah

Business

Newsom Signs Addictive Social Media Law to Protect Kids

Newsom said California’s approach focuses on the features that can encourage excessive social media use rather than taking the broader step of banning teenagers from the platforms altogether. He contrasted the measure with restrictions adopted in Australia and Malaysia that prevent teenagers from accessing social media or creating accounts.

Published

3 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Post News Group

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Word Count: 391

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a new California law targeting addictive social media features that can keep children scrolling, giving the state new authority to restrict how platforms engage young users.

AB 1709, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) prohibits social media companies from giving children under 16 access to personalized feeds, including “For You” pages, as well as other features designed to maximize screen time, such as infinite scrolling and video autoplay.

The law does not prevent children under 16 from using social media. Instead, platforms must deactivate the covered features for those users.

“This is about actually addressing the problem, the scrolling, the algorithms,” Newsom said Sept. 10 during a bill-signing event in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The law comes amid growing concerns about the impact of social media on children’s mental health and well-being. California lawmakers have increasingly focused on the design and business practices of technology platforms as part of efforts to protect young users.

AB 1709 is one of 13 youth online safety and privacy laws Newsom signed Sept.10. The package also includes measures regulating AI chatbots, increasing potential penalties for technology companies and establishing additional protections for children using digital services.

Lowenthal said the new rules represent a shift toward greater accountability for technology companies.

“We want oversight. We want accountability. We’re done asking nicely, and we’re demanding that there is a duty of care across these platforms — a duty that puts the wellness of our children ahead of profits,” Lowenthal said.

The law builds on California’s broader effort to regulate children’s online experiences. A separate law, AB 1043, will require users to provide their birth dates when setting up new phones or laptops beginning in January, with device manufacturers required to share users’ ages with apps.

Some youth online safety advocates have supported AB 1709 as a more targeted alternative to outright social media bans. Others have warned that the restrictions could make it harder for some LGBTQ+ young people to find support online and questioned how effectively age requirements can be enforced.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Featured

On Your November Ballot: Prop 38 Would Allocate $8.4 Billion to Immunology and Immunotherapy Funding

“Yes on 38”, with the tagline “Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures,” is leading the campaign for the support side of the proposition.

Published

5 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Post News Group

By Austin Gage, California Black Media

California voters will decide in November whether Proposition (Prop) 38 should authorize substantial state funding for immunology and immunotherapy research.

The initiative would fund immunology and immunotherapy research aimed at harnessing the body’s immune system to develop new treatments, medical procedures and potential cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

More specifically, Prop 38, titled the Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Funding Initiative, is split into three main components that would go into effect if passed.

First, the initiative would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to support immunology and immunotherapy research. At least half of the bond proceeds, or $4.2 billion, would be dedicated exclusively to research.

Additionally, Prop 38 would make it mandatory for the state to enter into an agreement with a qualified nonprofit institute focused and dedicated to researching immunology and immunotherapy within 90 days of the initiative’s effective date. The research institute must be affiliated with the University of California.

The third component mandates that the remaining bond revenue must be directed to California-based public and nonprofit medical institutions through a peer-reviewed grant process.

“Yes on 38”, with the tagline “Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures,” is leading the campaign for the support side of the proposition.

Along with the campaign, organizations that have publicly supported the ballot initiative include the California Democratic Party, The ALS Association, Alzheimer’s treatment and advocacy organizations, California Black Health Network, Parkinson Association of Northern California and Reform California among others.

“California has an opportunity to accelerate lifesaving medical breakthroughs. Immunotherapies work differently than traditional treatments. Instead of attacking cells directly, they empower the body’s own immune system to recognize and stop disease. Today, these therapies are already treating certain cancers and chronic conditions — and researchers continue to expand what’s possible. This initiative invests in proven science so cures can move from the lab to patients faster,” said the campaign.

No on Proposition 38 is leading the campaign against the measure, with support from the League of Women Voters of California. Opponents argue that California cannot afford to assume $8.4 billion in debt for medical research that may not produce definitive results. They also object to directing more than half of the bond proceeds — $4.2 billion — to a single qualifying nonprofit research institute, arguing that funding decisions of this magnitude should be made through the state’s regular budget process.

“Medical research can save lives, but Prop 38 is the wrong way to fund it. It would authorize $8.4 billion in borrowing for immunology and immunotherapy research and require the state to make $500 million to $600 million in annual debt payments for about 20 years. Those payments would come from the General Fund, which also pays for schools, health care, and other public services,” the League of Women Voters of California said.

A “yes” vote would authorize $8.4 billion in state bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy medical research.

A “no” vote would reject the proposed bond funding.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Community

Asm. Isaac Bryan’s Bill Banning California Police From ICE Side Jobs Reaches Newsom’s Desk

The legislation comes as ICE ramps up efforts to recruit law enforcement personnel under the Trump administration. Bryan said the federal agency is offering financial incentives to attract officers, raising concerns about the impact on local law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.

Published

5 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Post News Group

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

A bill by California Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights) that would prevent state and local police officers from taking second jobs with federal immigration enforcement agencies is headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom after clearing the Legislature.

AB 1537 would bar California peace officers from accepting secondary employment related to immigration enforcement, including work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The measure also would require officers to report offers for immigration enforcement-related outside employment to their employing agencies.

“They are trying to recruit our law enforcement personnel. They are offering these insane bonuses,” Bryan said.

Bryan said he is particularly concerned about efforts to recruit experienced law enforcement personnel while questions have been raised about ICE’s hiring standards.

“They want better skilled, better trained folks because their untrained and uneducated goons go through a very low threshold,” Bryan added.

The legislation would create consequences for California officers who violate its restrictions. Officers who fail to report offers of secondary employment related to immigration enforcement could face decertification as peace officers in California.

Bryan has framed the bill as a measure to establish boundaries between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement, particularly as immigration enforcement has become a major source of conflict between the Trump administration and California.

“This is a rogue agency that is harming the American people,” said Bryan. “It should be abolished, but in the meantime, we’ve got to do everything we can to put guardrails around our communities and protect our neighbors.”

AB 1537 previously received approval from the Assembly Public Safety Committee in March before advancing through the Legislature. The bill now awaits Newsom’s decision. The Governor can sign it into law, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature.