Antelope Canyon is a geographical gem in the middle of the Arizona desert. The descendants of the Navajos care for this once very sacred land, yet 30 meters away is a fossil fuel power plant. Out of all of the vast desert space, why did this company decide to put it on a Native American site? Could this be because this particular region has less costs for the companies and the minorities just happen to be there, or, would the decisions be actually based on race? While there is ostensibly minimal proof of racism at play, with extensive research and case studies, there is evidence of patterns that make these government decisions beyond what they actually portray themselves to be. While racism as a whole is still an issue, there has been escalating …show more content…
In 1987, there were “fifteen cancer victims in a two-block stretch” in an area along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana (“Cancer Alley, Louisiana” 2006). The population of cancer alley is low-income and African American, and it has been reported that “19 to 47 million pounds of ethylene dichloride (EDC), a suspected human carcinogen, was discharged into a local stream” (“Cancer Alley, Louisiana” 2006). Due to the many cancer cases, those who could relocate did and those who did not have privilege stayed back and endured the pollution without help from the government. Most of these citizens have little education, and even though there are about 136 facilities on site, unemployment was high (“Cancer Alley, Louisiana” 2006). Then, a few years later, another company planned to build a toxic complex on cancer alley and continued to do so until 1996. Despite the complaints from the community against these entities, companies continued to routinely place their facilities on the very same spots rather than look for an alternative. Because they knew these people are highly disadvantaged minorities, they see no huge complications against their landfills that they cannot simply brush off, making it a deliberate decision to target these people of color. This indicates that African Americans are more likely to live near industrial plants than whites, creating a resource apartheid in which blacks do not have the same access to public health and clean natural services. Consquently, “those in poverty are subject not just to widening income inequality, but to environmental injustices as well” (Lee,
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
In “Disproportionate Siting” author Dorcetta Taylor discusses the common claims of unequal exposure to environmental hazards being due to racial and class discrimination (33). Taylor states, “Proponents of this thesis argue that hazardous facilities are disproportionally located in minority and low-income areas and that these patterns are the result of discrimination” (33). In regards to racial and social class discrimination, she argues that the claim of racism is the more controversial of the two with many scholars arguing on both sides (Taylor, 34). She then delves into different studies that argued that race was a factor in explaining location of and exposure to environmental hazards (Taylor, 35). Taylor then discusses the studies that
In the book, Sacrifice Zones, Steve Lerner takes readers through twelve separate stories of communities in the United States that have been unwillingly exposed to high levels of environmental toxicity. In each of these cases, citizens of those communities reacted to and pushed back against being exposed to toxic chemicals, sometimes successfully and sometimes less so. In every case, the people most heavily exposed to these health hazards were minorities and low-income citizens, which, Lerner argues, is why government officials and corporate decision-makers chose knowingly to risk exposing them. This paper will outline Lerner’s book and argue that despite a long history of protests, lawsuits, media attention and nationwide outrage, willing exposure of low-income and minority Americans to toxic chemicals in the pursuit of government and corporate interests is still a major problem today.
People hear about issues and events that happen in America every day. Unfortunately every issue or problem does not receive the necessary media attention. One of the roughest cities in the United States, Detroit, Michigan is being affected by pollution. Detroit Wastewater Treatment Facility is the largest source of discharge into the river with 47 billion gallons of diluted sewage water dump into the Detroit River. 10.1 millions of toxic substance was dumped in the great lakes (Matthews, 2013.para.7). Due to the unstable environment Asthma, Cancer, and birth defects are at its peak. This is because of the factories built in the city next to the lower class neighborhoods. There has been cases where a local neighborhoods has been affected by
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 African American community, in contrast to the rest of Norco and Louisiana, is historically afflicted with higher rates of cancer and asthma related deaths (Margie 01:19:29:20 ), and more prone to birth defects (Wilma Subra 01:18:09:03 ). Closely related and contrastingly to this, the white community of Norco tends to have longer lifespans, and are apparently less affected by cancer and asthma (Sal 01:21:11:29 ). The film directly compares these two perspectives, layering them side by side chronologically. The film uses this comparison as evidence that the African American community’s close proximity to the Shell refinery is an environmental determinant to health. Furthermore, that geographic location and environment are factors directly affecting health.
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
Over the years, the poor and people of color have always been treated badly by others. They mostly lived in polluted environments which negatively affect the way they live and work. In these communities, the placement of waste facilities emitted large amounts of chemical pollutants into the air. Individuals exposed to pollutants have increased chances of getting sick because they pose a huge threat to their health. The sudden environmental changes caused by landfills and industrial plants triggered countless environmental justice movements. Activists like Emelda West fought environmental injustice attempts to find ways to create public awareness about their community. Despite dozens of companies deliberately building hazardous facilities in
As we begin, The American Journal of Public Health published the results of this effort and it turns out that Johnston and her colleagues were right. The study determined that fracking wastewater disposal wells in South Texas were granted in areas with a large portion people living in poverty and of color. This type of method is what many researchers call “environmental injustice”, but what exactly does that mean? Environmental justice, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 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).
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).
The placement of companies deleterious to the environment and well-being of humans is something that prosperous communities are not quite familiar with; in contrast, it is something well-known to less affluent communities. The imbalance of classification shows a lack of environmental justice in low-income and minority communities. According to the EPA, or Environmental Protection Agency, “environmental justice is the fair treatment… 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, n.d.). However, the environmental justice, the EPA mentions is not prevalent in communities of color, but rather its counterpart is: environmental injustice. Environmental injustice, or environmental racism, being the excessive placing of perilous waste and contaminating polluters near communities of color (Cha, 2016). Although often overlooked, environmental racism is an extensive problem that negatively affects minority communities in Southeast Los Angeles.
This can be shown in areas that are considered fenceline communities. These are communities that are located directly in the midst of toxic pollution. Residents who live in these communities often accept their conditions of their surroundings and wait for disasters to happen. These disasters include chemical spills or toxic contamination that can demolish their communities at some point. These individuals are also put at a higher risk for possible terrorist attacks. Moreover, residents who live nearby also suffer by having their wealth stolen through lowered property values. To show example, in 1992 the National Law Journal found discrepancies in the way the Environmental Protection Agency enforced its Superfund laws (Bullard & Wright 2012). In the same year Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality signed off on permits allowing Genesee Power Station to build an eighty million dollar incinerator for construction use. This incinerator was built beside a predominately black low income neighborhood (Burke 2017). The residents were forced to be exposed to particulate matter, carbon monoxide, lead, and acidic gases. Being within walking distance from a chemical site would eventually begin to affect their quality of life and health (National Research Council). If disasters are to take place they are often blamed on natural occurrences. This concept tends to be pushed by corporations who do not want to own up to
Racism is a key factor that contributes to inequities and inequalities of health outcomes. The Williams Model contains the basic cause of racism and it helps make the connection between historical events and poor health outcomes for Pacific peoples. The Williams Model has five main components which entail both social and biological factors making it one of the most established and holistic health models. This essay will apply the example of the Pacific Dawn Raids to the Williams Model to explore how social determinants impact health outcomes of Pacific peoples in New Zealand.
Environmental Racism is the institutional framework established by white people that was made to influence and destroy Black lives through the segregation of people of color into poor communities pervaded by toxic waste sites. Once environmental racism is recognized as a subgroup of structural racism, the intent of placing people of color into poor, marginalized, and environmentally hazardous communities becomes clear. An example of this is the use and establishment of various toxic waste sites surrounding predominantly black neighborhoods, which lead to various social and physical health issues. More specifically Chicago’s own Altgeld Gardens is a great context to view these paradigms at work, once the various aspects leading up to the creation