The primary objective of NAACP Report is to create awareness to all persons on the harmful effects of coal usage as well as the pollution it has caused in the community. The report lays out a strategy for individual organizations and legislators to make a just shift from using coal to other sources of energy. It entails the economic, health and environmental effects of coal pollution to the people who can’t afford it. Precisely those coming from low-income families and the people of color.
Toxic emissions from coal are very dangerous to the individuals are close to the coal plants, and they also play a prominent part in the devastating impacts of climate change. Pollutants released by coal plants have been associated with severe illness such as asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, congenital disabilities, lung inflammation and irregular heart conditions. Therefore, the report highlights the need to preserve the climate and the livelihood of our communities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
February 3, 2017
To,
Barrack F. Morris
Coal Blooded: Putting Profit before People
National Organization for the Development of Colored People
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21220
Dear Editor,
After critically going through the article; “Coal Blooded Putting Profits Before People” NAACP Report release, I have few things that I want to point out in this writing. I conquer with your idea that the country’s coal-burning power plant are “Poisoning our communities with toxic emissions.” It is because of these pollutions that cause killing to the communities that live near these plants. The numbers presented support the argument that “13,200 premature deaths” and severe diseases, for instance, “9,700 hospitalizations per year” associate with individuals existing under the coal power plant’s bracket. Notably, the other discovery I found fascinating is that the persons living in these populations are low-income.
According to the article, the “average income of a coal plant community member is $18,400”. This numeral is a bit small than “compared with $21, 857 nationwide” of community members who do not use coal plants. These two numbers are in line with the article’s idea. However, I was speculating who was there first? Could it have been that the coal plant holder intentionally purchased the land and developed their power plant in a low-income community? In my opinion, that doesn’t seem okay, under a corporate social obligation perspectives. I believe the neighborhood was built around the coal plant since the land was affordable. Contrary, the article has failed to address the fact that the community, specifically the people decided to stay there.
In conclusion, I believe we all can agree that surviving in the shadow of a coal power plant is harmful to all humans, irrespective of color, race, or annual earning.
Name
Email Address.
