California has seen a resurgence of environmental justice activism in the past few years. Due to the increased activism, the state has taken many steps to lead the country in fighting climate change and reducing the ever-increasing amount of environmental pollution on the environment by implementing various climate change policies. One of the state’s most recent efforts to promote environmental justice was through the signing of Senate Bill 1000 - Planning for Healthy Communities Act. This bill requires that cities and counties incorporate an environmental justice element into their General Plan, either as a standalone element or integrated into other elements. SB 1000 was adopted in an effort to alleviate some of the environmental inequities that have been caused by poor land-use practices.
Historically, it has been disadvantaged, low-income, minority communities that bear the burden of pollution and have been used as a dumping ground for the city’s most polluting industries. According to Penny Newman in “Fixing Land-Use Mistakes One Neighborhood at a Time”, low-income disadvantaged communities often suffer from higher rates of asthma, cancer, and birth defects. This is due to the fact that minority communities are often segregated into areas with high concentrations of poverty therefore, they lack the resources for upward mobility. As a result, these communities experience poor educational attainment, poor economic and political opportunities, and poor health due to polluting industries invading their neighborhoods.
As cities and counties work towards developing their environmental justice element, they should consider how they evaluate the available data in determining disadvantaged communities (DACs) within their jurisdictions. While data sets such as, the CalEnviro Screen, prove to be invaluable in providing area-specific information on communities suffering from various sources of pollution, what the data often fails to show is the quality of life within those communities. In simply using data sets to determine which DACs should receive funding for environmental justice initiatives, some of the most vulnerable communities may be overlooked. This is because the data may show that the higher-income
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
Research Question: Why are poor minority neighborhoods disproportionately targeted for the placement of noxious toxic facilities?
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
Environmental justice links a number of social movements—anti-racism, Aboriginals rights, and the mainstream environmental movement—and addresses the problem of environmental racism (Gosine & Teelucksignh, 2008, p. 11). The concept of environmental justice in the U.S was associated with the struggles over toxic waste sites and the call for equal treatment of all communities, radicalized or not (p. 9). It was about looking at human health rather than preserving areas deemed as “playgrounds for the rich.”
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
This neighborhood is very culturally diverse and has a wide range of ages. There are both young and older families living in their neighborhood. Some aspects of the community that could affect resident's health are air pollution, aging populations, and noise disturbances. According to Health People 2020 leading health indicator for this population is environmental hazards. Some populations are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards. As a result, health disparities exist. Exposures to environmental
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 town of Mossville, Louisiana, serves as a prime example of community resilience a bit closer to home. Mossville is rural community of predominantly low income African American citizens. Within a two-mile radius of the town lie over 30 petrochemical and industrial plants which release thousands of pounds of carcinogens like benzene, ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and dioxin—a persistent organic pollutant recognized as “the most toxic substance known to science,” into the community (Martin 2010), transforming this town into a sacrifice zone. According to Professor White’s lecture on vulnerability, a sacrifice zone can be defined as a geographical area of predominantly low income and minority communities that has been permanently impaired by environmental damage or economic disinvestment (White 4/24). The water and air contamination from the corporations have caused myriad adverse health effects throughout the community, including reproductive problems, hormone disruption, cancer, and impaired physical and cognitive development in children (Martin 2010). In 1988, a federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found that the blood of Mossville residents contained a level of dioxin three times higher than the national average (Martin 2010). The town of Mossville is an example demonstrating the adverse effects big
For decades American society has recognized that industries within our country consistently pump toxins into our air and water, which are hazardous to the environment and all the residents of the area. As for a lesser known fact, the impacts of industry have often been unevenly distributed amongst social groups: Otherwise known as environmental inequality. Current theories on environmental inequality have commonly concluded that the phenomenon has two major factors, race and class. The effects of environmental inequality vary across time place and population. Based on my research, mapping, and statistics I was unable to attribute this issue to a dominant factor. Like many cities
As investigation continued, these same areas of Beaverton with the worst pollution in town also proved to house some of the poorest and uneducated persons living in Beaverton. Proper analysis of the statistics on these two areas of Beaverton showed some chilling facts. These two areas ranked at or above the 75th percentile on the demographic index, minority population, low income, linguistically isolated persons, and those with less than a high school education. Now, I began to realize that my hometown has environmental justice issues of its
This movement is centered around two issues which are the, “siting and expansion of hazardous and undesirable facilities in poor and minority communities and the effort to remediate, relocate, and/or pay damages to members of poor and minority communities affected by pollution.” (Allen 2007).
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.
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