The Center for Coalfield Justice is a left-of-center environmentalist organization that opposes the development of conventional energy projects in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. The organization has a long history of opposition to coal mining in Pennsylvania. 1
The Center for Coalfield Justice was established in 1994 to oppose the development of coal mining in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. At the time, the organization operated under the name “Tri-State Citizens Mining Network.” In 2007, the group re-organized under the Center for Coalfield Justice name and expanded the group’s organizational mission to oppose the development of all conventional sources of energy, advocating instead the growth of environmentalist energy projects. 2
Finances
In 2019, the Center for Coalfield Justice received $163,806 in contributions and $164,028 in total revenue. 34 The Center also incurred $267,726 in expenses and reported $147,827 in net assets. 56
The Center for Coalfield Justice operates by generating local opposition to non-renewable energy projects. After developing support for its campaigns, the organization uses this support to organize public hearings on energy development projects, request meetings with energy regulatory agencies and legislators, and challenge permits that allow energy companies to move forward with conventional energy projects. 2
The Center for Coalfield Justice has led campaigns to protest and impede the development of the Bailey Coal Mine in Graysville, Pennsylvania,1 as well as campaigns that oppose the creation of new deposit sites for coal refuse from that coal mine. 1
The organization has also opposed the development of a new coal mine in Mingo Creek Park in Nottingham, Pennsylvania. 1 The Center for Coalfield Justice has praised Protectors of Mingo, an organization devoted solely to opposing mineral extraction at the site, for delaying permits for the coal mine. The Center for Coalfield Justice has given Protectors of Mingo credit for delaying the construction of the mine since 2013 by opposing its permits with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 10
Leadership
Veronica Coptis is the executive director of the Center for Coalfield Justice. Prior to joining the staff in 2013, Coptis sat on the board of the Center for Coalfield Justice while organizing for the Mountain Watershed Association. 11
The grant will support operation and support programs to hold energy companies and government accountable, build strong local leadership resulting in collective rural power, and provide economic and environmental justice in the coalfields. The grant supports the Climate, Environment and Health initiative's Climate-Friendly Region strategy. The grant advances this strategy by working to improve policy and regulations for the oversight of fossil fuel extraction and use, educating and organizing residents of coalfield communities and protecting public and environmental health. The organization has expanded its work to include economic transition and diversity in an effort to increase access to healthy jobs in Washington and Greene Counties.
Achieving the strongest possible Global Plastics Treaty hinges on securing strong commitments from the U.S. government for a treaty that covers the full life cycle of plastics and mandates production reductions. Doing so is the primary overarching objective of the BFFP U.S. movement over the next two years. Facing the reality of the treaty negotiation process, the plastics industry is redoubling its decades-old strategy of selling recycling, waste management, and so-called ‘advanced recycling’ as the core solutions. This collective knows that focusing only on the downstream aspects of the plastics crisis is a problematic strategy. A two-pronged, upstream/downstream strategy is needed to expose the false end-of-life “we will just recycle it all” narrative and shut off the production pipeline upstream. Our engagement thus far has shown significant promise, demonstrating that expanding and widely publicizing our approach has had the intended impact. There have already been many direct substantial wins–including the recent release of the Mobilizing Federal Action on Plastic Pollution: Progress, Principles, and Priorities report by the White House, and the indication of a narrative shift from the U.S. government towards an openness to global targets for plastic production reduction. These recent wins show us that our strategies are working, and illustrate the opportunity to use this momentum to continue to push these strategies even further and secure actual policy shifts from the U.S. government in both the domestic and international spaces. The Biden Administration has repeatedly made promises across agencies to uplift and ensure environmental justice in communities “overburdened by pollution.” These health impacts – namely, high risks of cancer and other illnesses – are directly related to the chemical and plastics production concentrated in areas like Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, the Houston Ship Channel, and the Ohio River Valley. Despite the recent announcement from the White House that they are open to considering caps on production, and the elimination of chemicals of concern as well as problematic and avoidable plastics, officials have offered no details on what such a welcome shift would entail nor how it would be pursued and achieved by the end of INC-5. For all practical purposes and without specifics on their supposed shift, the U.S. government’s position on the treaty remains focused on voluntary downstream approaches to the plastics crisis, which would have little to no impact on reducing the harm being done to fenceline communities and the contribution to the climate crisis.
