Environmental Justice And Sustainable Development

14. What are the goals of the environmental justice movement, and why are they relevant to sustainability?

Writer, William Blumenfield, in his Huffington Post article, “ Environmental Justice a Form of Social Justice,” details the perceptive and political fallibilities of the Republican party in regards to their courses of action towards environmental justice aims. His inclination is to convey the err in their claims and capitalistic objectives, and to promote his ideology that social justice cannot occur without there first being strives to combat against environmental degradation. He develops a strong, but misplaced, pathos throughout his article, devoid of purposeful facts, resulting in a weak argument seemingly based on his resentment towards the Republican party. Blumenfield’s argument is weak in the fact that is argues based on unapologetically tearing down the other side instead of advocating his point while respectfully pointing out the flaws of conflicting views.

Sustainability has become a relevant word in the vocabulary of many organizations, governments and individuals. More than just a word, sustainability relates to the ability of institutions to continue executing their functions without forgetting the effects on the environment and taking into consideration the fair treatment of their employees and the human rights of society. Although sustainability is a widely used term by many individuals, the understanding of this term is not as clear as its popularity. When discussing the ideas of sustainability, most people automatically associate the term with the human impact on the environment. Others relate sustainability to the ability to cut costs and inefficiencies within the organization. A few individuals believe that sustainability is a matter of human rights. So what exactly is sustainability?

The concept of social justice, and the environment have always been under great threat. However is it possible to mend the two, combine them together, in order to create an equal atmosphere and a sustainable society? The majority of the population have always wanted to prevent the minority in gaining their rights in fear of losing their power, and the nature conquerors have disregarded the wilderness’ needs in fear of losing their profit. Environmental activists and advocates have sought to bridge the gap between the complicated and divisive relationship between the natural world and the advancing technological world. Rebecca Solnit, Wendell Berry, and John Muir all recognize the explicit relationship between social justice and the respect for the natural world.

In a chilling recollection of mankind’s current misdeeds towards the environment in “The End of Nature,” McKibben’s call for action is one paramount to the survival of the human race. In essence, McKibben argues that the futures of both nature and ourselves are delicately yet undeniably interconnected. Furthermore, he urges that “we” (ALL humans) are the deciding chip in said bond. By doing so, McKibben implies that action must be situated if we are to expect any change in such bleak a situation. This argument can clearly be found when McKibben speaks out on a myriad of environmental issues in the past, present, and future. McKibben begins to accustom readers to a pattern in which human ignorance juts out from past environmental experiences.

High profile cases such as the Flint water crisis has brought environmental inequality and environmental racism into the limelight. As such, it is becoming a prominent social justice issue and a political talking point. However, there is much to suggest that environmental inequality is the result of economic factors. This paper therefore focuses on developing an understanding of environmental inequality from an economic perspective.

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.”

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.

“Environmental racism is real…so real that even having the facts, having the documentation and having the information has never been enough to provide equal protection for people of color and poor people” “It takes longer for the response and it takes longer for the recovery in communities of color and low-income communities.” (Bullard, 1994:36)

Certain environmental justice frameworks attempt to turn the dominant environmental paradigm on its head and seek to prevent environmental threats before they occur. This paradigm is known as the Precautionary

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