Environmental justice

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.

Environmental justice (EJ) refers to inequitable environmental burdens borne by groups such as racial minorities, residents of economically disadvantaged areas, or residents of developing nations. Environmental justice proponents generally view the environment as encompassing "where we live, work, and play" (sometimes "pray" and "learn" are also included) and seek to redress inequitable distributions of environmental burdens (pollution, industrial facilities, crime, etc.) and equitably distribute access to environmental goods such as nutritious food, clean air and water, parks, recreation, health care, education, transportation, safe jobs, etc. Self-determination and participation in decision-making are key components of environmental justice. According to a compilation of thoughts by several notable EJ organizations, root causes of environmental injustices include "institutionalized racism; the commodification of land, water, energy and air; unresponsive, unaccountable government policies and regulation; and lack of resources and power in affected communities".^[1]

Definition

The United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Justice defines EJ as follows:

"Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work."^[2]

Participants of the Central and Eastern European Workshop on Environmental Justice (Budapest, December 2003)^[3] defined environmental justice (and injustice) in the following way:

"Environmental Justice:

A condition of environmental justice exists when environmental risks and hazards and investments and benefits are equally distributed with a lack of discrimination, whether direct or indirect, at any jurisdictional level; and when access to environmental investments, benefits, and natural resources are equally distributed; and when access to information, participation in decision making, and access to justice in environment-related matters are enjoyed by all."

"Environmental Injustice:

An environmental injustice exists when members of disadvantaged, ethnic, minority or other groups suffer disproportionately at the local, regional (sub-national), or national levels from environmental risks or hazards, and/or suffer disproportionately from violations of fundamental human rights as a result of environmental factors, and/or denied access to environmental investments, benefits, and/or natural resources, and/or are denied access to information; and/or participation in decision making; and/or access to justice in environment-related matters."

The following definition of environmental justice is from the quarterly newsletter of the South African Environmental Justice Networking Forum:

"Environmental justice is about social transformation directed towards meeting basic human needs and enhancing our quality of life—economic quality, health care, housing, human rights, environmental protection, and democracy. In linking environmental and social justice issues the environmental justice approach seeks to challenge the abuse of power which results in poor people having to suffer the effects of environmental damage caused by the greed of others."^[4]

Environmental discrimination

In his 2003 book Environmental Justice in America, author Edwardo Lao Rhodes poses several questions:

Are minority communities and individuals burdened with more than their share of environmental risks in this country, while enjoying fewer of the benefits of environmental regulation than others? Is environmental justice policy no different from education, criminal and civil justice, and a host of other socioeconomic institutions in this country in being tainted by the broad brush of race and class discrimination? If not, what besides race and class discrimination could possibly explain these differences in environmental burdens and benefits? What explains the apparent lack of concern for the uneven impact of environmental policies and activities in most of the original federal environmental legislation?'^[5]

Environmental justice advocates make the argument that minority populations often undertake environmentally hazardous activities because they have few economic alternatives and are/or not fully aware of the risks involved. A combination of this lack of awareness coupled with their relative lack of political and economic power makes poor minority communities a frequent target for environmentally hazardous activities.^[5]

Those who question the validity of the impact of environmental racism argue that environmental issues historically have been less important for minority groups faced with pressing socioeconomic issues such as education, drugs, crime and unemployment. Underrepresentation in private and governmental groups concerned with the environment is an extension of their placing environmental injustices low on their list of priorities.^[5]

History

In the early 1980s, environmental justice emerged as a concept in the United States, fueled by a mounting disdain within Black, Hispanic and indigenous communities that were subject to hazardous and polluting industries located predominantly in their neighborhoods.^[6] This prompted the launch of the Environmental justice movement which adopted a civil rights and social justice approach to environmental justice ^[7] and grew organically from dozens, even hundreds, of local struggles, events and a variety of other social movements.

By many accounts, the environmental justice movement began in 1982 in Warren County, North Carolina. The state selected the Shocco Township to host a hazardous waste landfill containing 30,000 cubic yards of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated soil. 69 percent of the Shocco Township’s population is nonwhite and 20 percent of the residents have incomes below the poverty level. ^[8] The Shocco Township has the third lowest per capita income in the state. Residents, mostly rural and poor African Americans, were joined in protest by national civil rights groups, environmental groups, clergy, and members of the Black Congressional Caucus. With the permission of the US EPA, the state built the dump which placed the waste only seven feet above the water table, instead of the fifty feet usually required for PCB’s. In spite of the protests, the dump site was allowed to open. The Warren County demonstrations marked the first time that African Americans mobilized a national broad-based coalition in response to an impending environmental threat.^{[9] [10]}

The publication of two studies, one by the government and the other by the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice (1987), provided empirical support for the claims of environmental racism. Bullard’s Dumping in Dixie (1990) added further support for the disproportionate burden of toxic waste on minority communities.^[9]

In January 1990, the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources sponsored a conference on race and the incidence of environmental hazards. Later the same year, the USEPA established its Workgroup on Environmental Equity. By October 1991, the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit took place, organized and attended by more than 650 grassroots and national leaders representing more than 300 environmental groups.^[9]

By 1992, the USEPA established its Office of Environmental Equity and the Workgroup on Environmental Equity had finished its report. Critics of the report contend that EPA did not go far enough in examining its current activities, including its own role in reinforcing environmental inequalities. Legislatively, a number of bills were introduced into Congress, including the Environmental Justice Act 1992. President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 (federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations) into law on February 11, 1994.^[9]

Historically, minorities have been absent from the rank and file membership of mainstream environmental associations. At the same time, these organizations have not taken on environmental justice issues. In the 1990’s, mainstream environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace all began to recruit minorities both among their rank and file membership and to serve in staff and decision making positions. A few, including the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have participated in the environmental justice struggle by filing briefs or providing informational and organizational resources.^[5]

Affected groups

African Americans are affected by a variety of environmental justice issues. One notorious example is the “Cancer Alley” region of Louisiana. This 85 mile stretch of the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans is home to 125 companies that produce one quarter of the petrochemical products manufactured in the United States. The US Civil Rights Commission has concluded that the African American community has been disproportionately affected by Cancer Alley as a result of Lousisana’s current state and local permit system for hazardous facilities, as well as their low socioeconomic status and limited political influence.^[11]

Indigenous groups are often the victims of environmental injustices. Native Americans have suffered abuses related to uranium mining in the American West. Churchrock, New Mexico, in Navajo territory was home to the longest continuous uranium mining in any Navajo land. From 1954 until 1968 the tribe leased land to mining companies who did not obtain consent from Navajo families or report any consequences of their activities. Not only did the miners significantly deplete the limited water supply, but they also contaminated what was left of the Navajo water supply with uranium. Kerr-McGee and United Nuclear Corporation, the two largest mining companies, argued that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act did not apply to them, and maintained that Native American land is not subject to environmental protections. The courts did not force them to comply with US clean water regulations until 1980.^[11]

The most common example of environmental injustice among Latinos is the exposure to pesticides faced by farmworkers. After DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides were banned in the United States in 1972, farmers began using more toxic organophosphate pesticides. A large portion of farmworkers in the US are here illegally, and as a result of their political disadvantage, are not able to protest against regular exposure to pesticides.^[11] Exposure to chemical pecticides in the cotton industry also affects farmers in India and Uzbekistan. Banned throughout much of the rest of the world because of the potential threat to human health and the natural environment, Endosulfan is a highly toxic chemical, the safe use of which cannot be guaranteed in many of the developing countries its used in. Endosulfan, like DDT, is an organochlorine and persists in the environment long after it has killed the target pests, leaving a deadly legacy for people and wildlife.^[12]

Residents of cities along the U.S.-Mexico border are also affected. Maquiladoras are assembly plants operated by American, Japanese, and other foreign countries, located along the U.S.-Mexico border. The maquiladoras use cheap Mexican labor to assemble imported components and raw material and then ship finished products back to the U.S. Much of the waste ends up being illegally dumped in sewers, ditches, and the desert. Along the Lower Rio Grande Valley, maquiladoras dump their toxic wastes into the river from which 95 percent of residents get their drinking water. In the border cities of Brownsville, Texas and Matimoras, Mexico, the rate of anencephaly, babies born without brains, is four times the national average. ^[13]

Around the world

In recent years environmental justice campaigns have also emerged in other parts of the world, such as India, South Africa, Israel, Nigeria, Mexico, Hungary, Uganda and the United Kingdom. In Europe for example, there is evidence to suggest that the Roma and other minority groups of non-European descent are suffering from environmental inequality and discrimination.^[6] Whilst the predominant agenda of the environmental justice movement in the United States has been tackling issues of race, inequality and the environment, environmental justice campaigns around the world have developed and shifted in focus. For example, the environmental justice movement in the United Kingdom is quite different. It focuses on issues of poverty and the environment, but also tackles issues of health inequalities and social exclusion.^[14] A UK based NGO, named the Environmental Justice Foundation, has sought to make a direct link between the need for environmental security and the defense of basic human rights.^[15] They have launched several high profile campaigns that link environmental problems and social injustices. A campaign against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing highlighted how 'pirate' fisherman are stealing food from local, artisanal fishing communities.^{[16] [17]} They have also launched a campaign exposing the environmental and human rights abuses involved in cotton production in Uzbekistan. Cotton produced in Uzbekistan is often harvested by children for little or no pay. In addition, the mismanagement of water resources for crop irrigation has led to the near eradication of the Aral sea.^[18] The Environmental Justice Foundation has successfully petitioned large retailers such as Asda Wal-mart and Tesco to stop selling Uzbek cotton. ^[19]

Under colonial and apartheid governments in South Africa, thousands of black South Africans were removed from their ancestral lands in order to make way for game parks. In 1992, the Environmental Justice Networking Forum (EJNF), a nationwide umbrella organization designed to coordinate the activities of environmental activists and organizations interested in social and environmental justice, was created. By 1995, the network expanded to include 150 member organizations and by 2000, it included over 600 member organizations.^[4]

With the election of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1994, the environmental justice movement gained an ally in government. The ANC noted that “poverty and environmental degradation have been closely linked” in South Africa. The ANC made it clear that environmental inequalities and injustices would be addressed as part of the party’s post-apartheid reconstruction and development mandate. The new South African Constitution, finalized in 1996, includes a Bill of Rights that grants South Africans the right to an “environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being” and “to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that

i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

ii. promote conservation; and

iii. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.”^[4]

South Africa’s mining industry is the largest single producer of solid waste, accounting for about two-thirds of the total waste stream. Tens and thousands of deaths have occurred among mine workers as a result of accidents over the last century. There have been several deaths and debilitating diseases from work-related illnesses like asbestosis. For those who live next to a mine, the quality of air and water is poor. Noise, dust, and dangerous equipment and vehicles can be threats to the safety of those who live next to a mine. These communities are often poor and black and have little choice over the placement of a mine near their homes. The National Party introduced a new Minerals Act that began to address environmental considerations by recognizing the health and safety concerns of workers and the need for land rehabilitation after and during mining operations. In 1993, the Act was amended to require each new mine to have an Environmental Management Program Report (EMPR) prepared before breaking ground. These EMPRs were intended to force mining companies to outline all the possible environmental impacts of the particular mining operation and to make provision for environmental management.^[4]

In October 1998, the Department of Minerals and Energy released a White Paper entitled “A Minerals and Mining Policy for South Africa” which included a section on Environmental Management. The White Paper states “Government, in recognition of the responsibility of the State as custodian of the nation’s natural resources, will ensure that the essential development of the country’s mineral resources will take place within a framework of sustainable development and in accordance with national environmental policy, norms, and standards.” It adds that any environmental policy “must ensure a cost-effective and competitive mining industry.”^[4]

See also

Sustainable development portal

• Climate justice
• Eco-imperialism
• Environmental compensation
• Environmental contract
• Environmental criminology
• Environmental Justice Foundation
• Environmental law
• Environmental racism
• Environmental sociology
• European Environmental Tribunal
• List of environmental lawsuits

References

External links

• Environmental Justice & Environmental Racism
• Weekly Environmental Justice Reports from Inner City Press
• The Environmental Justice Foundation
• Nonprofit Research Collection on Environmental Justice Published on IssueLab