Environmental Justice Essay

It seems as if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been avoiding encounters with people who are fighting for environmental justice. However, there may be an underlying reason why the EPA is not putting effort into these environmental problems. Over the years, the EPA has experienced budget cuts, this has resulted in the loss of jobs and programs. When money is not readily available, the amount of money that is available is usually conserved and only used when necessary. It does not look as if they are the reason why majority of the issues are not be taken care of. Based on my understanding of the article, it seems as if the EPA is working at the will of the government. The people working in the agency are responsible for doing their

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

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

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 scanning can be viewed as a way of acquiring information about outside events that can aid organizations in first identifying potential trends, then interpreting them

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.”

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

“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)

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

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.

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