Environmental Issues Of The Fight For Equality

Environmental inequality from a social justice perspective is based on the notion that there is discrimination in the policies that allow for establishing the sites and permits for industrial waste, which results in minorities and those living in poverty suffering from a greater share of the effects of pollution. This leads to environmental racism which is the underlying fact that racial and ethnic groups that are underprivileged, are

Today we’re faced with multiple forms of inequalities and injustices. None of them are in no way, shape or form are okay or justifiable. While we as a people are striving to deal with the obvious forms of injustices, there is another form that is a real quiet one, but it can be heard throughout the world that we are living in and is a severe problem that needs to be addressed. The type of injustice that I’m speaking on is called: Environmental Racism. This has been a definite issue that not only affects the environment, but it also has effects on communities, individuals and it effects the economic system in the long run as well. Environmental Racism needs to be brought up in conversations within our communities as well as our local governments, so they will not forget their remains a problem.

One of the first influences on the deliberation on Environmental Justice was The Civil Rights Movement in the United States of America. Leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. fought hard to ensure that social transformation and power be established for African Americans, especially those in the southern states as well as those in the northern inner-city parts. Activists like King altered the philosophy on Environmental Justice arguing that there was a lopsided effect that proved that environmental hazards were not accidental. What environmentalists advocated instead was that environmental dangers resulted from racial segregation that placed power plants, nuclear plants, and other potential ecological hazards in areas with a high concentration of minority and low income groups. Several activists defined this as “environmental racism.”

In life you begin to learn that things never stay the same because things, people, politics, or anything in fact will eventually change for the good or the bad. For example, Richard Spikes is the inventor who invented the automatic gear shift. He saw that not everyone could not drive successfully with a stick shift, therefore he took the initiative change the way of driving a car. Richard Spikes changed the way cars are and that was a good change, but not all changes are for the best. There are unfortunately changes that are made and they do not help people. In fact some changes hurt or harm individuals. The political change in African American Ghettos during the years of the 1990s until the year 2000 did more harm than good to the African American Ghettos.

In the book titled You May Ask Yourself, Conley talks about what conflict theory is. “The idea that conflict between competing interests is the basic, animating force of social change and society in general. (Conley 2015) Conflict theorists look at the inequality perspective of societal problems and they can be from poverty, race, or gender etc. An important area of focus among environmental sociologists is the relationship between inequality and the environment. In the article, All About Environmental Sociology, Dr. Cole talks about how environmental sociologists use conflict theory with inequalities in society like income, race, gender and how climate change negatively affects these people. Low-income people for instance have more of a chance to live in a worse area that may be subject to more environmental hazards. (Cole 2017) “Numerous studies have documented that income, racial, and gender inequality make the populations that experience them more likely to experience negative environmental outcomes like pollution, proximity to waste, and lack of access to natural resources.” (Cole 2017) I believe this is important to environmental

Blacks were treated with tremendous cruelty in many different ways. Black lives before the civil rights movement were treated cruel and unfair. African Americans did not have the same opportunities that they have today. Before the movement they could not get an education, a good job, or a place to live. These men and women who worked for white landowners were pretty much treated like slaves. They were barely paid anything for the work that they did. Many blacks lived in the streets and did not even have a place to get out of the weather. Due to these factors many blacks lived in poverty and were treated very cruel. A staff Writer wrote, “For black Americans, the pre-Civil Rights era was a time of danger and turmoil, as they set out to claim

Environmental inequality, contrary to what we may imagine, is a social and political problem rather than a simple environmental problem. Environmental inequalities are deeply tangled with political, economic structures and institutions; adding more problems to the social inequalities that already affect our daily lives (Brehm, 2013). So, what exactly is environmental inequality? It refers to the fact that low-income people and people of color are disproportionately likely to experience various environmental problems by living in high risk and polluted areas. If we look at this problem closely we realize “that black, white, and Hispanic households with similar incomes live in neighborhoods of dissimilar environmental quality” (Downey, 2008) and that most people who suffer the consequences of living in neighborhoods with high hazard levels are racial minorities. This allows us to conclude that environmental inequality it is also linked to racism.

The definition of “environmental racism” is laid out in Matthew Desmond and Mustafa Emirbayer’s “Race in America” as, “any environmental policy, practice, or directive, that disproportionately disadvantages (intentionally or unintentionally) nonwhite communities” (Desmond and Emirbayer 196). These communities are often in close proximity to environmental hazards, are targets for waste dumps, and are at higher risk for harmful air and water pollution (196). Environmental racism has been formed over the decades, through the processes of redlining, blockbusting, and other housing discrimination practices, in efforts to keep people of

The article on “NAACP Report Reveals Disparate Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plants” talks about how coal pollution from the coal-fired power plants will negatively impact the environment surrounding it, including the population in the surroundings, and the harm it will bring upon them. It suggests that Americans that reside near a coal power plant has a lower average income than most of the Americans in the nation. Furthermore, it also pointed out that 39% of Americans that live near a coal power plant are “people of color”. This article claim that coal pollution from the coal power plant is killing population that has a low income and people of certain races. According to the article, climate change is also a negative impact brought on by coal

When one discusses acts of racism, slander or the stereotyping of a group of people may come to mind. However, the concept of environmental racism is rarely considered. This form of racism positions dominant environmental framing as racially driven, in which people of color (i.e. minorities) are affected disproportionately by poor environmental practices. Communities of color throughout the United States have become the dumping grounds for our nation’s waste disposal, as well as home to agricultural and/or manufacturing industries that pollute the land. Government regulations and cultural practices have all contributed to environmental racism. The government’s policies have also negatively impacted low income groups as well as people of

Environmental racism is a type of discrimination where people of minority and or low income communities are forced to near a hazardous area; such as a nuclear deposits, mining drainage sites, or chemical plants. This concept has been debated for decades. Big businesses have been able to take advantage of minority communities for many years now. Environmental racism is not a thing of the past; it is still in full effect to the people of Flint, Michigan and the Sioux Tribe in North Dakota. Due to social media awareness, the issue of environmental racism has been brought to a new light, causing protests to take place nationally.

Hazards and pollutants are apparent in a variety of outcomes. Possible outcomes include asthma, cancer and chemical poisoning (Gee and Payne-Sturges 2004: 1647). Furthermore, “Although debated, the main hypothesis explaining these disparities is that disadvantaged communities encounter greater exposure to environmental toxins such as air pollution, pesticides, and lead” (Gee and Payne-Sturges 2004: 1647). Therefore, disadvantaged groups, such as people of color and the poor, experience greater environmental risks. Additionally, “Blacks in particular are exposed to a disproportionate amount of pollution and suffer the highest levels of lead and pesticide poisoning and other associated health problems” (Jones and Rainey 2006: 474). People of color, essentially, compete to live healthily. For example, African-Americans and Africans alike, struggle with the negative affects of oil refineries and unresponsive governments. The same can be said for Hispanics in California and the natives of Ecuador, who are forced to cope with the pollution of the Texaco oil refineries (Bullard 2001: 4). Environmental racism not only exploits natural resources, it abuses and profits from the communities involved. Governments and polluting facilities will continue to capitalize on the economic susceptibilities of poor communities, states, nations and regions for their “unsound” and hazardous operations (Bullard 2001: 23).

As stated in the thesis, environmental injustice mostly affects minority communities. In a map presented by the Los Angeles Times, in Southeast LA there are 26 communities- which 83.9% of the inhabitants are of minority groups (Southeast, n.d.). Similarly, another map released by EPA from the 1990 U.S. Census illustrates that in places where there is 80 to 100% of people of color there is at least 2

One of these aspects that results in the exclusion of people of color in the environmental movement is the lack of Black thought in environmental discourse. As a social construct, the terms nature and environment is able to take on definitions that can be changed and applied in a way that can apply to anyone who is in charge. Which is why, in part, the omission of Black bodies from discourse in environmental justice is sad, but not shocking. The exclusion of Black thought from environmental discourse is caused by the intentional exclusion of Black bodies by white environmentalist groups that do not define the “environment” in a way that is inclusive to Black people . One way they do this is by viewing the environment as something that is tangible or relating to non-human things such as air pollution, or saving trees and other things similar to that nature. Considering that these issues, while important, do not pervade Black life to the extent that living in clean houses, raising children, and ensuring safety for their family in toxic environments, the blanket definition of white environmentalism does not, and cannot, apply here . Yet, white environmentalists want to include Black people (predominantly women because of what they bring to the table ) in their movement, but they refuse to acknowledge the terms of Black environmentalism as an environmental movement. One reason that they refute these ideas could stem directly from the disproportionate socioeconomic status between Blacks and whites. This is evidenced in that many environmental activists are predominantly white upper class with above average income, while Blacks not only make considerably less money, but also live in housing shaped largely by federal housing politics, institutional and individual discrimination .

Living in a highly industrialized world that is ruled by capitalism, the concern for the environment often takes a back seat. Individuals or companies nowadays prioritize achieving optimal profit without putting into mind what their respective actions or productions may have an effect on the environment. They do not realize how important the role of our environment plays in the quality of human life. We can say that a good environment leads to a better quality life, while a bad environment could lead to a harmful and unproductive life. Now, it becomes unfair and unjust when the risks and costs of a company affect a certain group of people and on the opposite side of the spectrum another group of individuals enjoy the benefits without costs. The individuals that are affected badly are usually from Third World Countries where the distribution of risk and costs are not even (Low and Gleeson 1999). This is where Environmental Justice comes in. Environmental Justice mainly concerns the welfare of human beings (Low and Gleeson 1999). Talking about cities where capitalism surges from, it has been argued that these cities are ‘unfairly structured’ (Low and Gleeson 1999). Basically, what this is saying is that the wealthier you are, the better or cleaner the environment. On the other hand, if you are poor, then the environment around you will have more health risks. This kind of injustice or disparity is what adds fuel to the fire of environmental justice. In