Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism

Discuss the relationship between environmental justice and environmental racism. Can efforts towards environmental justice overcome environmental racism? Why or why not?

Environmental justice:

According to the EPA website (2010, ¶ 5) environmental justice is when:

"...all people enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health 

hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to maintain a healthy 

environment in which to live, learn, and work.". 

In other words, no group of people should have to bear a disproportionate burden of pollution/waste that all people create throughout their lives.  In our readings, Cole and Foster (2001) produced evidence from the United Church of Christ's Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ) study that finds three out of five (p. 55) of African Americans and Latinos live in communities with uncontrolled toxic waste sites.  Likewise, the Social and Demographic Research Institute (SDRI) found similar instances where researchers could predict where a toxic waste site was based on minority populations in an area, i.e. African Americans and/or Hispanics.  Other problems discovered were the government's unequal enforcement concerning fines and cleanup.  This study showed that even if a white community had a lower income the fines were higher, cleanup faster, and faster listing for the EPAs Superfund.

Environmental racism:

Even though inequalities exist in these communities, there are some who claim minorities are exposed to higher toxins because of lifestyle choices, social status, or the free market.  People who believe these statements to be true are accused of environmental racism.  However, vehement opponents to the environmental justice movement claim that in many instances the results are unfounded.  In fact, Clegg (1998) opposes government intervention and suggests "free enterprise and personal responsibility...is what poor people need" (¶ 14) to improve their condition.  He and others like him claim they are opposed to racism, but are definitely opposed to environmental groups and government trying to intervene in a more equal distribution of toxic sites and pollution.

Conclusion:

It is interesting to note that those most opposed to environmental justice laws feel that regulation and laws stifle the free market and its ability to operate properly.  However, poorer neighborhoods may need jobs but the only opportunities offered are the chemical industry and toxic dumps no one else wants in their backyard (NIMBY).  Many of these facilities are needed because of our consumption habits.  Without a societal effort to change consumption habits, these types of facilities will continue to exist.  As the CRJ report suggests, reduction is a solution to disproportionate environmental impacts (Cole & Foster, 2001, p. 56), and most likely they are right.  As seen above many people oppose government intervention and blame minorities for their "lifestyle choices".  On the other hand, there are laws and regulations trying to distribute toxic waste sites more equally.  However, as long as our society consumes products that have toxic side-effects at any point from cradle-to-grave we will have environmental inequalities.

References:

Clegg, R. (1998, November 9). Polluting race relations:  The end of the environmental justice movement. The weekly standard. pp 31-33. Retrieved from Opposing Viewpoints, hosted by GCPL

.

Cole, L. & Foster, S. (2000, December). From the ground up:  Environmental racism & the rise of the environmental justice movement. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10032503&ppg=67