Environmental racism: systemic inequities and community health impacts

Environmental Racism

THE COLOR of ECOJUSTICE

Environmental racism is hard statistical and empirical phenomenon. It underlies policies, practices or directives, which discriminate against people of color in environmental issues. Studies found that race has remained a major determinant of socioeconomic predictors. More than half of the populations living in proximity to hazardous waste facilities were African-Americans, Hispanics, Blacks or Asia/Pacific Islanders. Environmental racism has persisted despite increased advocacy and awareness. Some other studies associated low income as a significant factor to environmental racism. In reaction to the ineffectiveness of the Environmental Protection Agency in extending environmental equality, the Environmental Justice Movement was established. Major environmental health hazards included lead poisoning, toxic housing, toxic schools and asthma.

Inequality among communities is a concrete reality. Economics, political influence and race are among the criteria in the distribution of amenities as well as dis-amenities (Bullard 2003). Racism is a very major consideration in the United States. Environmental racism is one of its forms and found in housing, employment, education and voting. It is an environmental policy, practice or directive, which discriminates, intentionally or not, according to race or color. It is a form of environmental injustice concretized and reinforced by government, legal, economic, political and military institutions. It blends with public policies and industrial practices, which make Whites benefit more than color people to whom the costs are passed on (Bullard).

New Ways of Viewing the Same Situation

In the past many centuries, people of color have been colonized or enslaved with the spread of European civilization throughout the world (Merchant 2003). With the growth and prosperity of Western civilizations, Indians lost their lands. The Blacks have been forced into labor and tied to the land as slaves. But recent multicultural perspectives on the environment have introduced new ways of viewing the relationship between race and environment history. One was the intimate connection between slavery and soil degradation under well-entrenched systems of exploitation. Another was the removal of Native Americans from the lands they occupied and managed in lieu of the creation of national parks and national forests. They strongly resisted the forcible seizure and tried to retain authority over the lands. A third was a difference between the American Indians and African-Americans on the one hand and the White on the other on their perceptions of wilderness. Another was a post-Civil War and "coincidental order of injustice." This order required emancipated Blacks from the South to pay for their land through their wages. At the same time, it took free lands from Indians and promoted these lands to Whites through the Homestead Act. Most importantly, African-Americans were confined to areas, which were toxic dump sites while Whites fled to new suburbs. The situation gave rise to African-American environmental activism and the environmental justice movement in the late 20th century (Merchant).

Color Tips the Balance new report identified race as the most significant single and independent predictor of commercial hazardous waste facilities among all socioeconomic factors (Bullard 2007). Other statistical data are hard facts as well. These say that 56% of those living in such neighborhoods are people of color. These neighborhoods are located within two miles of areas where the nation's commercial hazardous waste facilities. Areas beyond 2 miles are 30% more polluted. These affected people of color constitute 69% of those residing in neighborhoods with clustered facilities. These are African-Americans, Hispanic or Latinos and Asians or Pacific Islanders in host neighborhoods (Bullard).

The disparities exist in other parts of the country. According to the report, 40% of the 44 States with hazardous waste facilities are in areas with disproportionately high populations of people of color in the host neighborhoods (Bullard 2007). The concentration was twice as much as in non-host areas. This was the situation 20 years after the release of Toxic Wastes and Race distribution scheme in 1987. The racial and socioeconomic disparities have persisted despite the use of newer methods to match populations and hazardous waste facilities' locations. The truth of the matter was that the concentration of these people of color was greater around the facilities than previously. The conclusion could only be that the government responds to emergencies, toxic contamination, industrial accidents and natural or artificial calamities affecting both White and Blacks with color as a major factor of influence (Bullard).

Environmental Racism Persists Despite Increased Awareness new report conducted by four professors from various universities found that environmental racism remains a major problem in spite of increased awareness and advocacy (Tady 2007). This group was commissioned by the United Church of Christ's Justice and Witness Ministries Program. It based the research on a 1987 UCC study on the closeness of communities of color to areas with hazardous wastes. It also drew information from the 2000 census and the databases of the Environmental Protection Agency on commercial waste facilities. Its findings found that of the more than 9 million people roughly within 1.8 miles of the U.S.'s 413 commercial waste facilities, more than 5.1 million of them are people of color. While people of color constitute only a fourth of the overall U.S. population, approximately 60% of them live near hazardous waste facilities. The researchers recommended measures to reverse or contain environmental racism. These included legislations, which would effectively protect communities of color; congressional hearings on EPA's response to waste contamination on these communities; and requiring States to contribute more actively to environmental justice (Tady).

The Income Gap is Wider Today recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said that the income gap between the rich and the poor in the United States became national in scope (Tefertiller 2001). It also widened in 44 states in the last decade. It also reported that, while the number of poor people in the country remained high, more than 200,000 persons reported adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more in the last decade. The inference was that the U.S. was becoming a country of "haves" and "have-nots." This wide gap tended to influence government regulations, specifically environmental regulations. People with higher incomes demanded a relatively larger amount of environmental services. Those with lower income, on the other hand, would seek out a relatively larger amount of non-environmental services, especially jobs. Environmental quality as a public good tends to raise standards preferred by those with low incomes, but lower than those with high incomes. This tendency suggests that incomes may negatively impact proposed regulations for those with low incomes. Two empirical studies revealed that the cost of environmental regulations regressed through a wide range of income levels. This finding suggests that the government tends to widen the already wide income gap between the rich and the poor. Special and radical measures are needed to prevent or repair the widening gap. At present, the number of environmental regulations seems to increase at all levels and poverty tends to remain a national problem (Tefertiller).

Another study conducted on the 61 largest U.S. metropolitan areas confirmed that environmental racial inequality really existed in most of the big metropolitan areas in the U.S. (Science News 2007). it, however, found that this inequality was not universal as commonly thought. The study found that Hispanics may have lived in the most polluted areas. But in other such areas, it was the Blacks who did and the Whites in others. Their exposure to pollution also varied greatly. It dispelled the assumption that environmental inequality was all due to poverty and residential segregation. It instead stressed that these factors only played some role and that they were highly dependent on local conditions.

It concluded that there was little evidence that environmental racial inequality was due to residential segregation and unequal incomes (Science News).

The EPA Ineffective, the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement

All indicators point to the ineffectiveness of the Environment Protection Agency in extending equal protection to all communities (Bullard 2000). As a consequence, the Environmental Justice Movement was formed to call attention to environmental inequalities, threats to public health, unequal protection, inconsistencies in enforcement and treatment to the poor and to people of color. This movement insisted that environmental protection was a fundamental right. It also clamored for pollution prevention, reduction of wastes, and cleaner production methods in order to extend environmental justice to all U.S. citizens, regardless of race, color, origin or income (Bullard).

The movement's goals were to eliminate the unequal enforcement of environmental, civil rights, and public health laws, differential exposure of certain less favored populations to harmful wastes and toxins at home, in school, in the neighborhood and at the workplace. It also aimed at eliminating wrong assumptions in calculating, assessing and managing risks; discriminatory zoning and land use practices; and discriminatory policies and policies on decision-making. The movement's scope includes communities and nations likewise threatened by exports of hazardous wastes, toxic products and simply dirty industries. More and more peoples and nations in the world are exposed to the risks and burden of America's habit of throwing its wastes. These wastes are in the form of energy consumption to the production and export of tobacco, pesticides and other harmful chemicals. Poor peoples and poor nations in the world accept the false and harmful notion that the lack of development meant risky, low-paying jobs and pollution. The economically vulnerable and poor communities, poor states, poor nations and poor regions have succumbed to the notion. The movement demanded that no community, nation, whether rich or poor, whatever the color should be made dumping grounds for these deadly wastes. The movement also alerted the governments of these nations and regions to set up their own measures to protect the health and environment of their own people and areas (Bullard).

Citizen Action and Litigation

Many of the initial activities of the environmental justice movement were in the form of citizen action and litigation (Crossman 2005). Among them were the EPA's disparate-impact regulations, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These prohibited recipients of federal funding from engaging in racially discriminatory activities (Crossman).

Four Major Threats to Health

Four major environmental health hazards were identified as plaguing specifically the children in the United States (Bullard 2003). More specifically, the hazards were affecting people of color. These were lead poisoning, toxic housing, toxic schools, and the asthma epidemic (Bullard).

Reports said that lead poisoning was the top environmental health threat to children in the U.S. with 60% of American homes laced with lead-based paint (Bullard 2003). But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that children from low-income homes were eight times more apt to be afflicted with lead poisoning than children from richer homes. Black children were also five times likelier than White children to be affected. Studies conducted by the National Institute for Environmental Health Services found that lead content in a child or young person was associated with lower IQ, higher drop-out rates and higher delinquency rates (Bullard).