Camden’s Helpless
by Luis Ramirez
Site Description:
My research topic will be based upon the Camden garbage incinerator located in Camden, New Jersey. The timeline I want to focus on is the 1980s to early 1990s, from the moment the incinerator was proposed to the moment it opened for business. Historical actors will include city officials, environmental agencies, environmental groups, and local Camden residents. This research will explore the people who opposed the Camden incinerator project; how they tried to address an environmental issue about the incinerator, only to be ignored by its own local government. I want to find out the people that were opposing the incinerator. How they advocated their cause? What kind of obstacles they faced? And why did their mission failed? This research will not only raise awareness about the inequality in low income minority areas, but to prevent the same mistakes in future situations.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut diam quam nulla porttitor massa id. Elementum facilisis leo vel fringilla est ullamcorper eget nulla. Orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Purus semper eget duis at tellus at urna. Diam maecenas ultricies mi eget mauris. Diam ut venenatis tellus in metus vulputate eu. Ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas. Quis eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin. Consectetur adipiscing elit pellentesque habitant. Cras fermentum odio eu feugiat pretium nibh ipsum consequat nisl. Lectus mauris ultrices eros in cursus turpis massa. Luctus accumsan tortor posuere ac. Porttitor eget dolor morbi non arcu. Maecenas pharetra convallis posuere morbi leo urna molestie. Neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque vitae. In iaculis nunc sed augue. Suspendisse interdum consectetur libero id faucibus. Sit amet porttitor eget dolor.
Felis eget nunc lobortis mattis aliquam faucibus. At elementum eu facilisis sed odio. Eu facilisis sed odio morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed. Habitasse platea dictumst quisque sagittis purus sit amet. Et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod elementum nisi quis eleifend. Velit dignissim sodales ut eu sem integer. Morbi tempus iaculis urna id volutpat lacus laoreet non curabitur. Aliquam eleifend mi in nulla posuere sollicitudin aliquam. Nunc congue nisi vitae suscipit. Convallis tellus id interdum velit laoreet id. Turpis in eu mi bibendum neque egestas. Magna fermentum iaculis eu non diam phasellus vestibulum. In cursus turpis massa tincidunt dui ut ornare lectus sit.
Non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse. Eros donec ac odio tempor orci. Nullam non nisi est sit amet facilisis magna etiam tempor. Platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque elit ullamcorper. Eleifend donec pretium vulputate sapien nec sagittis aliquam. Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta. Eget dolor morbi non arcu risus quis varius quam quisque. Nec ultrices dui sapien eget mi proin sed. Nisl nisi scelerisque eu ultrices vitae auctor eu augue. Pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et. Pulvinar elementum integer enim neque volutpat ac. Vel orci porta non pulvinar neque. Laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet.
Pharetra massa massa ultricies mi quis hendrerit dolor magna. Mattis nunc sed blandit libero volutpat. Nec ultrices dui sapien eget. Gravida neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque. Aenean et tortor at risus viverra adipiscing at. Quisque non tellus orci ac auctor augue mauris. Ultrices in iaculis nunc sed augue lacus. Quam elementum pulvinar etiam non. Felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas. Sagittis nisl rhoncus mattis rhoncus. Ac ut consequat semper viverra. Volutpat commodo sed egestas egestas fringilla phasellus faucibus scelerisque. Urna condimentum mattis pellentesque id nibh tortor. Erat nam at lectus urna duis convallis convallis. Malesuada fames ac turpis egestas sed tempus urna et pharetra. Pellentesque diam volutpat commodo sed egestas egestas. Interdum velit euismod in pellentesque massa placerat duis ultricies lacus. Est velit egestas dui id. Pellentesque id nibh tortor id aliquet lectus proin nibh. Id nibh tortor id aliquet lectus proin nibh nisl.
Primary Sources:
This is a newspaper article written by the Courier-Post on December 18, 1984, regarding the protests of the designation of a potential site for a garbage incinerator. I believe that this source will be useful, as it provides a negative view on the incinerator from the environmental activist perspective. It shows how the protesters believe there’s a lack of trust in the government because there’s no communication.
This is a newspaper article written by the Philadelphia Inquirer on May 13, 1990. This article gives a good description of how the garbage incinerator would operate in Camden. It provides a unique illustration of the incinerator showing the technical side of things; the process of trash to steam creating electricity. It gives a good insight into the operation inside the facility. In the months leading up to the opening date of the new garbage incinerator, many people in the Camden community had questions and concerns about the new facility- one of them being how the incinerator would function.
https://www.nj.gov/dep/dshw/recycling/admentme/Camden/060680cert.pdf
This document from the state of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection dated July 17, 1980. The document explains shortages of landfill disposal capacity impacting Camden County. Camden County would use the facilities in Burlington and Gloucester Counties temporarily. This would only be one of the main reasons as to why Camden built its own garbage incinerator, to reduce the amount of waste in landfills. I believe this source can help better explain the origins of the incinerator- what led to its creation.
https://www.nj.gov/dep/dshw/recycling/admentme/Camden/120591cert.pdf
This is a document from the state of New Jersey Department of Environmental written on December 5, 1991. This is a good source that shows the type of permits and regulations the South Camden Incinerator had to follow for air pollution control. It will help my readers understand the complex situation, the layers to getting things approved. For example, this source talks about designated truck routes to the incinerator, they have to comply with certain streets weight limit standards. But I can also use this source to question how the incinerator violates the DEP’s regulations, and why citizens want stricter regulations for the incinerator.
This is a recent performance sheet from 2023 by the company that runs the garbage incinerator in Camden. Although this data is from 2023 and my topic takes place in the 1980’s-early 90’s, I want to use this as evidence that supports the incinerator’s usage. Most of my sources I’ve looked at are from the community’s perspective claiming the incinerator is bad. This is coming from a corporation’s perspective and provides us with positive stats about the incinerator; the data insists they are following guidelines to protect the environment.
Primary Source Analysis: Camden TTF
This source is a data performance sheet from 2023 by Reworld, the corporation that runs the garbage incinerator in Camden. It shows that they are prioritizing environmental compliance by following the EPA’s national emission guidelines . It is my perspective that the data is suspicious, and many citizens from Camden would agree that this does not apply to what’s going on in the city. What the data is not showing is the amount of people getting sick from the emissions. My argument is that Reworld is underreporting the amount of emissions being released into the environment in order to avoid lawsuits. Reworld is trying to play the good guy in this situation, they’ll do anything to avoid the truth.
My first evidence is Reworld showing how much energy was saved in waste- providing stats of landfill diversion, energy recovery, and metal recycling. Although the incinerator may help produce energy into American homes, we can not deny that toxins are still being produced in the process. The second evidence claims that 2.4 tons of net CO2 is avoided for every ton of waste diverted from landfill and 862,000 metric tons of Net Greenhouse Gas avoided. The data never mentions landfills being 100% clean air, indicating there is still carbon dioxide within the zone. This is an area of low income minorities, and they are being affected with their respiratory health. The last evidence is Reworld claiming their environmental compliance up to 96% below Federal emissions standards, based on annual averages. This makes them seem like they’re being compliant with guidelines. In reality, the community is suffering through social and health problems. Reworld is not advocating for better waste management. Reworld has political and economical advantages over Camden, which is hurting the community. The community is suffering because Reworld is not being honest in their report. When the community has held protests to shut down the incinerator since it first opened, you know there needs to be change.
Secondary Sources:
Sicotte, Diane. “Saving Ourselves by Acting Locally: The Historical Progression of Grassroots Environmental Justice Activism in the Philadelphia Area, 1981–2001.” In Nature’s Entrepot: Philadelphia’s Urban Sphere and Its Environmental Thresholds, edited by Brian C. Black and Michael J. Chiarappa, 231–49. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.11249276.14.
This chapter discusses the Incinerator battles that took place in the late 1970s to the 1980s. I like this book chapter because it focuses on the landfill crisis- many areas were running out of space for trash in the Philadelphia region including Camden; they needed a solution, and that solution was to build incinerators. I also like this chapter from the book because it provides the aspects from the community, not like the idea of an incinerator in the neighborhood. It shows how environmental activists protested the proposed incinerator. This source provides the name of activist groups such as South Camden Action Team (SCAT) and Citizens against Trash to Steam (CATS); it helps me understand who was involved- the people being affected.
SICOTTE, DIANE. “Intersectionality and Environmental Inequality in the Philadelphia Region.” In From Workshop to Waste Magnet: Environmental Inequality in the Philadelphia Region, 139–56. Rutgers University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1gn69sc.13.
This book chapter explains how certain races, class and gender are targets for environmental inequality living within the Philadelphia metropolitan area such as Camden. I like this source because it goes hand in hand with my argument. How certain groups of people are taking advantage of, and this source can help push my argument further. For example, what certain factors make a person a target in these situations.
SICOTTE, DIANE. “The Rise of Industrial Philadelphia.” In From Workshop to Waste Magnet: Environmental Inequality in the Philadelphia Region, 56–83. Rutgers University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1gn69sc.10.
This book, specifically this chapter, talks about Camden once being a thriving industrial city in the first half of the 20th century along with Philadelphia, both cities big for manufacturing. I like this book chapter because I can use it to compare and contrast the economic differences between the first and second of the 20th century in Camden. How people were living, what type of opportunities they had, and what the neighborhoods were like.
Gillette, Howard. “Camden Transformed.” In Camden After the Fall: Decline and Renewal in a Post-Industrial City, 39–62. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhqkq.7.
This book chapter does a good job explaining the transition in Camden from a white to a predominantly black city. I like this source because it provides a U.S. census report of jobs and population in Camden from 1940-82. Looking at the data, by the 1970s there were fewer jobs and less people living in the city. Looking at the data, I can assume Camden was going through a time of deindustrialization.I can use this information to show that Camden suffered an economic decline. Using the data, I can elaborate on the economic decline influencing Camden’s desire to desperately save themselves by building an incinerator to create some type of financial stability, a type of income.
Hurley, Andrew. “From Factory Town to Metropolitan Junkyard: Postindustrial Transitions on the Urban Periphery.” Environmental History 21, no. 1 (2016): 3–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24691539.
This article does an excellent job showing the history of deindustrialization with places such as Camden. This source provides information on how cities managed to recover from deindustrialization, using waste matter to create economic growth. I can use this source to show how corporations and politicians used garbage related facilities for political gain in certain cities such as Camden allowing poverty to flourish. I think this source is great for me to use because it explains how socioeconomic factors correlate with environmental hazards, this ties up with my argument. I want to raise awareness about the inequality in low income neighborhoods.
Image Analysis:
Data Analysis:
The following data comes from the Environmental Justice Screening. It is a 2023 data report on the city of Camden, reporting on pollution and sources, and socioeconomic indicators. I plan to use this information to explain the social issues that impact local residents of Camden, New Jersey. With a big focus on the Camden Incinerator, it’s been a controversy since the very start of its existence. The people of Camden have never been on board with having a garbage incinerator so close to their home; they have known about the incinerator’s environmental hazards.
They tried to address the issue with their local government, but the city has other priorities- it does not include shutting down the incinerator.
Oral Interviews:
Video Story: