This paper will discuss environmental justice and the ethical dilemma of environmental racism. The definition of environmental justice according to the Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.) “is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, ethnicity, income, national origin, or educational level in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policy”.
Environment justice main concern is the equitable distribution of environment burdens, which comprise of health hazards and indirect inequities that include limited access to healthy food (Hilmera, Hilmera, & Dave, 2012).
According to Bullard (n.d.) the environmental justice movement has come a long way since 1982
…show more content…
Other topics that were examined was water quality and distribution, energy development, and jobs (Cumming-Potvin, Baillie, & Bowden 2013).
There are number of core principles and goals of the environment justice movement. The principles are commonly called the Principles of Environmental Justice and there are several objectives to these principles. They include: fight for the rights of people against environmental degradation, prevent these threats before they occur; shift the burden of proof to hold perpetrators accountable for egregious acts and, move away from solely objective scientific measurements (Dickenson, 2012).
When we look at environmental justice, we must also take a look at the ethical dilemma environmental racism. According to Bullard (n.d) environmental racism is considered to be institutional discrimination that reinforced the exploitation of lane, people and the natural environment. Environmental racism operates as an intra-nation power as well as international between nations and transnational corporations. With the increase of globalization of the world’s economy there has been a strained on the eco-systems several poor communities and poor nations populated by people of color and indigenous
…show more content…
These include redefinition of environmental protection, design a holistic approach to environmental protection, strengthen legislation and regulation. (Bullard, n.d.). According to Bullard (n.d.) redefinition of environmental protection mean that environmentalism is a basis right and pollution prevention, waste minimization, and cleaner productions techniques to achieve environmental justice for all American without regard to race, color, national origin or income. Designing a holistic approach to environmental prevention consist of eliminating unequal enforcement of environmental, civil rights, and public health laws. Many of the inequalities could be eliminated if the existing environmental, health, housing and civil rights laws were enforced in a non-discriminatory manner (Bullard, n.d),
Bullard (n.d.) explained that strengthen legislation and regulations may be needed were environmental, health and worker safety laws and regulations are weak and inconsistent. Legislation and regulations are only good if they are enforced. It should be noted that political power arrangements have permitted the poison of reach to be solution to short term economic remedies for
Environmental ethics has widely circled around human interactions with biotic ecosystems. Little voice has been given to city residents who are overexposed to environmental hazards. It is a subject rarely touched upon by mainstream environmentalist. Though conservation efforts receive much media attention and advocacy, environmental pollution in urban areas inhabited by minorities and the impoverished receive less attention despite it clearly being a grave injustice. It fact, it can be argued that minority and impoverished neighborhoods are deliberately targeted by corporations and governmental agencies because of the inherit vulnerability of the inhabitants. It is no secret that the impoverished in this country frequently live in areas characterized
14. What are the goals of the environmental justice movement, and why are they relevant to 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.
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
Firstly, environmental racism is referring effect on industrial pollution on lower income group and working community with color. Environmental racism brings social inequality to the minority people, excludes them from the community and any exclusion is an act of racism (Pulido, 2010, p.538). Moreover, environmental racism can be most detrimental to the specific group of people. The harmfulness of environmental racism exists in the relationship between community residents and environment. In the case of water crisis in Flint, the serious situation is caused by industry pollution and government inaction. The emergency manager aimed to save five million, changed the extracted water from Detroit system to Flint river (Ruth, 2017). Flint car brand general motor poured out the industrial toxic rubbish into flint river. Furthermore, Flint river used half a century sematic system. It means the water sources from the Flint river is not safe. Therefore, Government add the chlorine gas in Flint river to eliminate water bacteria. The new chemical byproduct THEM caused deadly outbreak. The Flint government did not handle urban metabolism well. On the one hand, the vehicle company pour the rubbish to the river and damage the natural environment. On the other hand, Lead poisoned water harm to people’s health. Local residence drink poisoned water will feel bone pain, muscle pain and fatigue. Moreover, children drink poisoned water will permanent damage intelligence and immune system (Ruth, 2017). Children always get sick and cannot go to school normally. Since Local residence does not have clean water to drink, and severely affecting their normal life. On the one hand, scale is the important tool to analyze the environmental racism. In 2000, Pulido demonstrates that Environmental racism should concern the various scale in “the
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.”
Those who argue that environmental racism is a serious problem in America and the whole world, and their number are growing, are correct in at least one of their assertions. Racism exists. environmental problems exist. these facts, however, do not reveal whether or not environmental racism has occurred in any given instance. this might be an unimportant distinction but for the fact that some argue that civil right laws be applied to pollution events and related regulatory violations.
The concept of environmental inequality appeared at the end of the 70s and at the beginning of the 80s after researchers, activists and government officials began to collect data that in turn showed patterns where social inequality and environmental harm became evident (Brehm, 2013). An additional term used to describe the situation is environmental justice, which according to the sociologist Robert Bullard, misled the reality by giving the impression that all people and communities are entitled to equal protection by environmental
Bullard – 5 principles towards environmental justice: “guaranteeing the right to environmental protection, preventing harm before it occurs, shifting the burden of proof to the polluters, obviating proof of intent to discriminate, and redressing existing
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
The environment is constantly being sacrificed for food production, toxic dumps, wood distribution, military testing, and other things such as these. And as usual, the root lies in profit. The corporations can’t afford to be concerned with the future well being of the earth and it’s dwellers. Also, environmental pollution can be connected to racism and classism because it is the poor communities that are used for toxic dumps and prisons, and it’s the poor people who work in the factories that require having contact with harmful chemicals and technologies, and generally the poor communities consist of people of color.
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 .