The problem of environmental racism

Environmental Racism

Unequal Distribution of Pollution

The Environmental Justice Movement believes that minorities living in poor neighborhoods are exposed more frequently to environmental toxins. Because minorities are basically marginalized people in our society, nobody notices or cares. The Environmental Justice Movement tries to go beyond traditional concerns about cleaning up the environment and to include addressing social inequality. Many of the people involved are women, working-class people, and people of color who have never been activists before, but they are concerned about their children's health (Warriner, McSpurren & Nabalamba, 2001). If it is true that minorities are at greater risk from hazardous substances (and the 1987 report of the United Church of Christ commission for Racial Justice clearly stated in their analysis that it is true), the question to be answered is, "How do pollutants get distributed so unequally and what can be done about the problem?" In this essay, I will attempt to address these question by discussing explanations for distribution inequity and suggesting how more justice could come about.

Although some writers such as David Friedman (1998) claim that no such hazard exists and that businesses are being unduly oppressed by prohibitions against development for "unreasonable environmental reasons"(p. 75), in general, there is not much disagreement that minorities and poor people are disproportionately affected by poor environmental quality. Studies show that when poor people bring lawsuits, they collect fewer damages and smaller settlements than people who live in richer neighborhoods. It takes longer to clean up a contaminated site in a poor neighborhood than it does in a wealthier community. Poor people die more frequently from pollution-connected diseases, and a higher percentage of minority children have elevated levels of lead in their bloodstreams (Warriner, McSpurren, & Nabalamba, 2001). How does it happen?

One explanation is that industry wants to spend as little money as possible, and land in poorer areas is cheaper. Industry selects a site on the basis of where they can make the most profit. Industrial areas with low property values are likely to be near areas where residential property values are also low. Thus, industrial pollution becomes concentrated near low-income populations. A study in Michigan, for example, revealed industrial and waste disposal facilities, contaminated sites and leaking underground storage tanks were 30% more likely in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, where the population is low-income, black, and urban (Warriner, McSpurren, & Nabalamba, 2001).

Another explanation is that low-income people and minorities lack political clout. They are not generally well-organized for social action in their neighborhoods. When the government and industry leaders make decisions that affect the environment, they don't consider what objections could come up because usually there aren't any. Perhaps these officials have no intention of polluting low-income neighborhoods (as opposed to polluting affluent neighborhoods), but their policies of risk management may be flawed so that minorities are disproportionately impacted. Groups that do organize to resist industrial polluters are generally plagued by lack of funding, while the industries they want to fight have enormous financial, technical, and legal resources. "The vast majority of case studies have shown [when] local protesters are pitted against a well-financed corporate polluters, the chances of victory are slim, and likely to take a long time" (Warriner, McSpurren, & Nabalamba, 2001).

The third and most contentious explanation charges unequal distribution of pollutants and hazardous toxins to environmental racism.

In this explanation race is a major factor. Research findings suggest, "...racism may be playing a role in the decision-making process" (p. 88). Industrial decision-makers frequently choose minority areas for disposal and industrial facilities. Concentrations of pollution are simply reflections of inherent injustice in the system. In other words, poor environmental quality in minority areas is a symptom of institutional discrimination. Thus a variety of groups, organizations, and such are implicated -- probably, they don't intend any harm, but their policies result in negative outcomes for poor areas and the people living in them. In Kitchener, Ontario, for instance, a housing development was built where formerly a waste landfill was located. Officials who approved the development knew it had been a waste landfill, but the project was going to be profitable. Buyers did not know when they bought the property what was going to be underneath them. In another place, Ralgreen, Ontario, a housing development was built on top of a former waste landfill; methane gas accumulated and caused explosions, and eventually everybody had to move out. The city knew about the presence of methane but kept it secret to "prevent panic." By "coincidence" the people living there were low-income people.