| Environmental law |
|---|
| Pollution control and remediation |
| Air Hazardous substances Waste Water |
| Resource conservation and management |
| Fisheries Forests Historic sites Minerals Oil and gas Parks Species Water |
| Planning, land use, and infrastructure |
| Impact review Municipal planning Land use Transportation infrastructure Energy infrastructure Environmental justice |
| Related topics |
| Administrative law Bankruptcy law Energy law Insurance law International law |
Environmental justice (EJ) is "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."[1][2] In the words of Bunyan Bryant, "Environmental justice is served when people can realize their highest potential."[3]
Environmental justice emerged as a concept in the United States in the early 1980s; its proponents generally view the environment as encompassing "where we live, work, and play" (sometimes "pray" and "learn" are also included) and seek to redress inequitable distributions of environmental burdens (pollution, industrial facilities, crime, etc.). Root causes of environmental injustices include "institutionalized racism; the co-modification of land, water, energy and air; unresponsive, unaccountable government policies and regulation; and lack of resources and power in affected communities."[4]
Contents |
The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines EJ as follows:
"Environmental Justice 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 has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work."[5]
The United States Department of Transportation defines three fundamental EJ principles for the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration as follows:
"1) To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations. 2) To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. 3) To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations."[6]
Participants of the Central and Eastern European Workshop on Environmental Justice (Budapest, December 2003)[7] defined environmental justice (and injustice) in the following way:
The following definition of environmental justice is from the quarterly newsletter of the South African Environmental Justice Networking Forum:
In his book, Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature, Philosopher David Schlosberg analyzes myriad definitions of environment justice found within the EJ movement. He argues that the definitions used by environmental justice activists in the U.S. and worldwide incorporate four major ideas: the equitable distribution of environmental risks and benefits; fair and meaningful participation in environmental decision-making; recognition of community ways of life, local knowledge, and cultural difference; and the capability of communities and individuals to function and flourish in society.[2]
In her book, Transforming Environmentalism: Warren County, PCBs, and the Origins of Environmental Justice, author Dr. Eileen McGurty, senior lecturer and associate chair of the graduate program in environmental sciences at Johns Hopkins University, "explores how the specific circumstances of the Warren County events [concerning the NC PCB landfill] shaped the formation of the environmental justice movement and influenced contemporary environmentalism."
In his 2003 book Environmental Justice in America, author Edwardo Lao Rhodes poses several questions:
Are minority communities and individuals burdened with more than their share of environmental risks in this country, while enjoying fewer of the benefits of environmental regulation than others? Is environmental justice policy no different from education, criminal and civil justice, and a host of other socioeconomic institutions in this country in being tainted by the broad brush of race and class discrimination? If not, what besides race and class discrimination could possibly explain these differences in environmental burdens and benefits? What explains the apparent lack of concern for the uneven impact of environmental policies and activities in most of the original federal environmental legislation?'[9]
Environmental justice advocates make the argument that minority populations often undertake environmentally hazardous activities because they have few economic alternatives and/or are not fully aware of the risks involved. A combination of this lack of awareness coupled with their relative lack of political and economic power makes poor minority communities a frequent target for environmentally hazardous activities.[9]
Those who question the validity of the impact of environmental racism argue that environmental issues historically have been less important for minority groups faced with pressing socioeconomic issues such as education, drug abuse, crime and unemployment. Under representation in private and governmental groups concerned with the environment is an extension of their placing environmental injustices low on their list of priorities.[9]
Environmental discrimination is an issue that environmental justice seeks to solve. Racism and discrimination against minorities has been based around the belief of racial superiority and mistreating others based on their differences. However, a part of racism that is used in environmental discrimination is using racial advantages and privileges.[10] These privileges combined with previous racial prejudices are one of the potential causes of waste and pollution being placed in areas with high concentrations of minorities. This can be seen by the numerous minority communities, such as Warren County, which have many landfills, incinerators, and other potentially toxic facilities near communities.[11] The existing racial prejudices along with policies that take advantage of racial privileges lead to environmental discrimination.
Environmental discrimination has historically occurred with respect to several different kinds of sites, including waste disposal, manufacturing, and energy production. Transportation infrastructures, including highways, ports, and airports, have also been charged with creating environmental injustices. Among the earliest documentation of environmental racism was a study of the distribution of toxic waste sites.[12] Since then, waste dumps and waste incinerators have been the target of environmental justice lawsuits and organizing.[13] Energy production has also been a significant source of environmental discrimination, with communities of color, poor communities, and rural communities arguably most affected both by energy extraction—coal mining (including mountaintop removal), uranium mining and enrichment, oil drilling and refinining, unconventional oil and gas--and by electricity production in coal- and gas-fired power plants and nuclear reactors. Alternative energy sources, including solar, wind, biomass, natural gas, and "clean coal," promise to reduce greenhous gas emissions, ameliorating the disproportionate burdens that global climate change will place on poor communities in the U.S. and the global South. However, they may bring with them new environmental risks and possibilities for environmental discrimination.
One way to grasp the enormity of the issue of environmental injustice is through the studying of Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities, or TSDF’s. Before the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in America there were no checks and balances on companies and their toxic waste they produce. This legislation however, passed in 1976, made sure that there was a way for the EPA to keep TSDF’s in line with environmentally friendly standards. Now the EPA can inspect these companies waste and their management of waste as well as look at the records of the company. Based on information from the EPA’s website inspectors look at, “use and management of containers, tank systems, surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment, landfills, incinerators, drip pads, miscellaneous other units, corrective action for solid waste management units,” as well as make sure that the companies are “complying with air emission standards for process vents, equipment leaks, tanks, surface impoundments, and contains, in addition to requirements for containing buildings”(epa.com). Inspectors look at all this in order to assure that these TSDF’s stay in accordance with the rules and to make sure environmental injustices don’t occur.
An example of a study done on TSDF’s and their location in regards to how close they are to minority groups was don in metropolitan Los Angeles, California by Manuel Pastor Jr. in his piece titled “Racial/Ethnic Inequality in Environmental-Hazard Exposure in Metropolitan Los Angeles”. In his investigation of TSDF’s in the area he found that an overwhelming majority of TSDF’s were found in areas with a dense population of minorities. One of the issues in Los Angeles is also the new group of minorities in the area, which are Latinos.
Pastor’s evidence shows that there are mixed reports on whether or not the TSDF’s came first or the African American groups. What is not deniable however is that the percentage of minorities being affected by TSDF’s is rising even despite the legislation but the group of minorities being affected the most however was no longer African Americans but now Latino’s, “it might suggest that Latinos were replacing African- Americans in these areas of newly intro- duced toxic sites” (Pastor, 12). When it comes to Latinos in the area it was clear that they were being taken advantage of by TSDF’s.
Now the question still remaining in people’s minds may be why does this affect me and why should I worry? This can be answered by the simple fact that environmental inequality is bad for the environment. In short the reason is, “By respecting nature’s limits and investing in nature’s wealth, we can protect and enhance the environment’s ability to sustain human well-being. But how humans interact with nature is intimately tied to how we interact with each other. Those who are relatively powerful and wealthy typically gain disproportionate benefits from the economic activities that degrade the environment, while those who are relatively powerless and poor typically bear disproportionate costs. All else equal, wider political and economic inequalities tend to result in higher levels of environmental harm. For this reason, efforts to safeguard the natural environment must go hand-in-hand with efforts to achieve more equitable distributions of power and wealth in human societies. Globalization – the growing integration of markets and governance worldwide – today poses new challenges and new opportunities for both of these goals” (Boyce, 1). Therefore environmental injustice hurts and affects all of us and should be something we all try to work to prevent and one way to make sure that the rich don’t take advantage of minorities is through monitoring TSDF’s and making sure these companies are working in the best interest of the environment in a way that helps us all. http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/monitoring/programs/rcra/tsdfs.html http://cjtc.ucsc.edu/docs/r_racialhazardexp_fullreport.pdf "Is Inequality Bad for the Environment?" James Boyce, 2007.
In the early 1980s, environmental justice emerged as a concept in the United States, fueled by a mounting disdain within African-American, Hispanic and indigenous communities that were subject to hazardous and polluting industries located predominantly in their neighborhoods.[14] This prompted the launch of the environmental justice movement, which adopted a civil rights and social justice approach to environmental justice [15] and grew organically from dozens, even hundreds, of local struggles, events and a variety of other social movements.Lamaire Johnson
By many accounts, the environmental justice movement began in 1982 in Warren County, North Carolina. The state selected the Shocco Township to host a hazardous waste landfill containing 30,000 cubic yards of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated soil. 69 percent of the Shocco Township’s population is nonwhite and 20 percent of the residents have incomes below the poverty level.[16] The Shocco Township has the third lowest per capita income in the state. The publication of two studies, one by the government and the other by the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice (1987), provided empirical support for the claims of environmental racism. Bullard’s Dumping in Dixie (1990) added further support for the disproportionate burden of toxic waste on minority communities.[17]
In January 1990, the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources sponsored a conference on race and the incidence of environmental hazards. Later the same year, the USEPA established its Workgroup on Environmental Equity. By October 1991, the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit took place, organized and attended by more than 650 grassroots and national leaders representing more than 300 environmental groups.[17][18] The Second National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit (also called Summit II)[19] was also held in Washington DC, from October 23–26, 2002. Materials produced at the summit included a timeline for Environmental Justice milestones.[20]
By 1992, the EPA established its Office of Environmental Equity and the Work group on Environmental Equity had finished its report. Critics of the report contend that EPA did not go far enough in examining its current activities, including its own role in reinforcing environmental inequalities. Legislatively, a number of bills were introduced into Congress, including the Environmental Justice Act 1992. President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 (federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations) into law on February 11, 1994.[17]
Historically, minorities have been absent from the rank and file membership of mainstream environmental associations. At the same time, these organizations have not taken on environmental justice issues. In the 1990s, mainstream environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace all began to recruit minorities both among their rank and file membership and to serve in staff and decision making positions. A few, including the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have participated in the environmental justice struggle by filing briefs or providing informational and organizational resources.[9] Others assert that since the 1990s, "an international Environmental Justice Movement is flourishing, having emerged out of various struggles, events and social movements worldwide.[21]
There are numerous individuals who have chosen to become advocates for environmental justice. Some of these people may be members of formal EJ groups, such as at their university or in their state, while others may simply be self-starters who are fighting for environmental justice without formally being a part of an EJ organization. United States organizations working for environmental justice include Greenaction, Center for Health Environment and Justice, the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic and the Coalition Against environmental racism. In response to public concerns raised by some of these groups, the United States Environmental Protection Agency created the Office of Environmental Justice in 1992.
Robert D. Bullard[22] and Hazel Johnson[23] have been called the father and mother of the environmental justice movement, respectively.
One well-known advocate of Environmental Justice is Erin Brockovich. The 2000 movie "Erin Brockovich" was based on Ms. Brockovich's work investigating the adverse health effects that exposure to a toxic substance (chromium 6) caused for the people of Hinkley, California. The chromium 6 had leaked into the groundwater from one of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's plants. This had been causing health problems among residents for over 30 years. A lawsuit was filed against the company, and "the giant utility paid the largest toxic tort injury settlement in U.S. history: $333 million in damages to more than 600 Hinkley residents." [24] Ms. Brockovich continues to fight for environmental justice nationally and internationally to this day.
The 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act was passed in an effort to keep citizens informed of the dangers of chemical emergencies that could be caused by nearby facilities. The act requires business and industry to disclose to the public information about what chemicals are stored, used, and released in the area.[25] Right-to-know legislation is a step forward for environmental justice since it helps communities understand what sorts of pollutants are being released into their living space. The Union Carbide pesticide factory accident in Bhopal was one of the major reasons the United States passed right-to-know legislation when activists demanded more information about hazardous materials that were being released and their environmental impact.[26] The incident involved a chemical leak that was not properly managed and contained and led to the death of as many as 4000 people and left thousands more injured by the chemical leak.[27] The devastation caused by the Bhopal disaster made people see how the lack of knowledge of toxic materials in their community could lead to large scale destruction if proper safety measures aren’t taken. However, while right-to-know legislation is a step forward for environmental justice, there are still some issues, such as the fact that the legislation only affects the United States, while major accidents, such as those in Bhopal, which is in India, would not be affected by such legislature unless India made such legislation as well.
However, problems with environmental racism have continued for years since this act was passed. In 1992, under the presidency of George H.W. Bush, the EPA established the Office of Environmental Justice. Subsequently, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 on February 11, 1994 directing federal agencies to consider environmental factors that negatively affect people of color. Yet these actions toward environmental justice did not achieve nearly what was hoped. By the end of Clinton's second term, resistance from congress, industry, and even within the ranks of the EPA, compounded with a systemic disconnect between the environmental protection model and the aims of environmental justice, rendered Clinton's initial push for in EJ largely ineffectual.[28] A few years later, under the presidency of George W. Bush, the Office of Environmental Justice seemed to lose financial support and become, according to Beverly Wright, executive director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice at Dillard University in New Orleans, "...this little thing with no money in a corner of the EPA." The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina is an example of how difficult such natural disasters can be for the poor.[29]
When environmentalism first became popular during the first half of the 20th century, the focus was wilderness protection and wildlife preservation. These goals reflected the interests of the movement’s initial supporters – privileged whites with the means to enjoy outdoor recreation. The actions of many mainstream environmental organizations still reflect these early principles [30]
Many low-income minorities felt isolated or even negatively impacted by the movement. Supporters of the early environmental movement excluded minorities and working class people from their organizations. They regarded inner-city areas as places of degradation and ignored the environmental problems prevalent there.[30] In addition, the NIMBY (Not-in-my-backyard) movement has transferred locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) from middle-class neighborhoods to poor communities with large minority populations (see Locally unwanted land use). Therefore, vulnerable communities with fewer political opportunities are more often exposed to hazardous waste and toxins.[31] This has resulted in the PIBBY (Place-in-blacks'-backyard) principle, or at least the PIMBY (Place-in-minorities'-backyard), as supported by the United Church of Christ's study in 1987. [32]
As a result, some minorities have viewed the environmental movement as elitist. Environmental elitism manifested itself in three different forms:
Supporters of economic growth have taken advantage of environmentalists’ neglect of minorities. They have convinced minority leaders looking to improve their communities that the economic benefits of industrial facility and the increase in the number of jobs are worth the health risks. In fact, both politicians and businesses have even threatened imminent job loss if communities do not accept hazardous industries and facilities. Although in many cases local residents do not actually receive these benefits, the argument is used to decrease resistance in the communities as well as avoid expenditures used to clean up pollutants and create safer workplace environments.[34]
One of the major initial barriers to minority participation in environmental justice are the initial costs of trying to change the system and prevent companies from dumping their toxic waste and other pollutants in areas with high numbers of minorities living in them. There are massive legal fees involved in fighting for environmental justice and trying to shed environmental racism. For example, in the United Kingdom, there is a rule that the claimant may have to cover the fees of their opponents, which further exacerbates any cost issues, especially with lower income minority groups; also, the only way for environmental justice groups to hold companies accountable for their pollution and breaking any licensing issues over waste disposal would be to sue the government for not enforcing rules, which would lead to the forbidding legal fees that most could not afford.[35] This can be seen by that fact that out of 210 judicial review cases between 2005 and 2009, 56% did not proceed due to costs.[36] The high legal costs create a major initial barrier for minorities to attempt to fight against companies that are polluting and dumping waste near their homes and communities.
During the African-American Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, activists participated in a social movement that created a unified atmosphere and advocated goals of social justice and equality. The community organization and the social values of the era have translated to the environmental justice movement.[32]
The Environmental Justice movement and the Civil Rights Movement have many commonalities. At their core, the goals of movements are the same: "social justice, equal protection, and an end to institutional discrimination." [32] By stressing the similarities of the two movements, it emphasizes that environmental equity is a right for all citizens. Because the two movements have parallel goals, it is useful to employ similar tactics that often emerge on the grassroots level. Common confrontational strategies include protests, neighborhood, demonstrations, picketing, political pressure, and demonstration.[37]
Just as the civil rights movement of the 1960s began in the South, the modern civil rights movement and the fight for environmental equity has been largely based in the South, where environmental discrimination is most prominent. In these southern communities, black churches and other voluntary associations are used to organize resistance efforts, including research and demonstrations, such as the protest in Warren County, North Carolina. As a result of the existing community structure, many church leaders and civil rights activists, such as Reverend Benjamin Chavis Muhammad, have spearheaded the environmental justice movement.[37]
The Bronx, in New York city, has become a recent example of Environmental Justice succeeding. Majora Carter spearheaded the South Bronx Greenway project bringing local economic development, local urban heat island mitigation, positive social influences, access to public open space, and aesthetically stimulating environments. The New York City Department of Design and Construction has recently recognized the value of the South Bronx Greenway design, and consequently utilized it as a widely distributed smart growth template. This venture is the ideal shovel-ready project with over $50 million in funding.[38]
Some of the most successful environmental justice lawsuits are based on violations of civil rights laws. The first case to use civil rights as a means to legally challenge the siting a waste facility was in 1979. With the legal representation of Linda McKeever Bullard, the wife of Robert D. Bullard, residents of Houston’s Northwood Manor opposed the decision of the city and Browning Ferris Industries to construct a solid waste facility near their mostly African American neighborhood.[39]
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was used many times to defend minority rights during the 1960s, has also been used in numerous environmental justice cases.[32]
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is often used in lawsuits that claim environmental inequality. The two most important sections in these cases are sections 601 and 602. Section 601 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by any government agency receiving federal assistance. In order to win an environmental justice case that claims an agency violated this statute, the plaintiff must prove the agency intended to discriminate. Section 602 requires agencies to create rules and regulations that uphold section 601. This section is useful because the plaintiff must only prove that the rule or regulation in question had a discriminatory impact. There is no need to prove discriminatory intent. Seif v. Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living set the precedent that citizens can sue under section 601, there has not been a case in which a citizen has sued under section 602, which calls into question whether this right of action exists.[32]
Among the affected groups of environmental justice we find that those in poverty and racial minority groups have the most propensity to receive the harm of environmental injustice. Poor people account for more than 20% of the human health impacts from the firm’s toxic air releases, compared to 12.9% of the population nationwide.[40] This does not however account for the inequity found among minority groups. That is that it is not true that minorities happen to be more exposed to environmental disparities solely because of their socio economic status. Studies that test statistically for effects of race and ethnicity while keeping income and other factors show significant racial gaps in exposure that persist across all bands of income [41]
African Americans are affected by a variety of environmental justice issues. One notorious example is the “Cancer Alley” region of Louisiana. This 85 mile stretch of the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans is home to 125 companies that produce one quarter of the petrochemical products manufactured in the United States. The United States Commission on Civil Rights has concluded that the African American community has been disproportionately affected by Cancer Alley as a result of Louisiana's current state and local permit system for hazardous facilities, as well as their low socioeconomic status and limited political influence.[42]
Indigenous groups are often the victims of environmental injustices. Native Americans have suffered abuses related to uranium mining in the American West. Churchrock, New Mexico, in Navajo territory was home to the longest continuous uranium mining in any Navajo land. From 1954 until 1968, the tribe leased land to mining companies who did not obtain consent from Navajo families or report any consequences of their activities. Not only did the miners significantly deplete the limited water supply, but they also contaminated what was left of the Navajo water supply with uranium. Kerr-McGee and United Nuclear Corporation, the two largest mining companies, argued that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act did not apply to them, and maintained that Native American land is not subject to environmental protections. The courts did not force them to comply with US clean water regulations until 1980.[42]
The most common example of environmental injustice among Latinos is the exposure to pesticides faced by farmworkers. After DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides were banned in the United States in 1972, farmers began using more toxic organophosphate pesticides. A large portion of farmworkers in the US are here illegally, and as a result of their political disadvantage, are not able to protest against regular exposure to pesticides.[42] Exposure to chemical pesticides in the cotton industry also affects farmers in India and Uzbekistan. Banned throughout much of the rest of the world because of the potential threat to human health and the natural environment, Endosulfan is a highly toxic chemical, the safe use of which cannot be guaranteed in many of the developing countries its used in. Endosulfan, like DDT, is an organochlorine and persists in the environment long after it has killed the target pests, leaving a deadly legacy for people and wildlife.[43]
Residents of cities along the U.S.-Mexico border are also affected. Maquiladoras are assembly plants operated by American, Japanese, and other foreign countries, located along the U.S.-Mexico border. The maquiladoras use cheap Mexican labor to assemble imported components and raw material and then ship finished products back to the U.S. Much of the waste ends up being illegally dumped in sewers, ditches, and the desert. Along the Lower Rio Grande Valley, maquiladoras dump their toxic wastes into the river from which 95 percent of residents get their drinking water. In the border cities of Brownsville, Texas and Matamoros, Mexico, the rate of anencephaly, babies born without brains, is four times the national average.[44]
A reason for Toxic Industries to concentrate in minority neighborhood or poor neighborhoods is because of their lack of political power. Whether it be lack of homeownership or just general ability to participate politically these groups are treated unfairly. This lack of political participation could show why Latinos are the most affected by environmental injustice in the U.S since many oppressed Latinos are Illegal Immigrants and can’t participate in our political system.[40]
""Who is responsible?""
There is a general trend in the type of industry responsible for unjust and unhealthy emissions. Steel works, blast furnaces, and rolling and finishing mills along with iron and steel foundries are those industries. They are responsible for more than 57% of the total human health risks from industrial pollution. This means that so much this harm is consolidated in the metalworking industry.[45] Reformative legislation can then be easy and swift solving a great deal of the Environmental Justice problem by addressing this type of industry.
In recent years environmental justice campaigns have also emerged in other parts of the world, such as India, South Africa, Israel, Nigeria, Mexico, Hungary, Uganda, and the United Kingdom. In Europe for example, there is evidence to suggest that the Gypsies and other minority groups of non-European descent are suffering from environmental inequality and discrimination.[14] In Europe, the Gypsie people are those who are ethnic minorities in many European countries and differ from the rest of the European people by their culture, language, and history. These people experience racial discrimination and environmental racism, which takes place where they reside. The environmental discrimination that they experience ranges from the unequal distribution of environmental harms and the unequal distribution of education, health services and employment. Many countries the Gypsies people are forced to live in the slums because many of the laws to get residence permits are discriminatory against the Gypsies. This forces Gypsies to live in urban “ghetto” type housing or in shantytowns. In the Czech Republic and Romania, the Gypsies are forced to live in places that have less access to running water and sewage, and in Ostrava, Czech Republic, the Gypsies live in apartments located above an abandoned mine, which emits methane. Also in Bulgaria, the public infrastructure extends throughout the town of Sofia until it reaches the Gypsies village where there is very little water access and sewage.[46]
The European Union is trying to strive towards environmental justice by putting into effect declarations that state that all people have a right to a healthy environment. The Stockholm Declaration, the 1987 Brundtland Commission’s Report – “Our Common Future,” the Rio Declaration, and Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union all are ways that the Europeans have put acts in place to work toward environmental Justice.[46] Europe also funds action-oriented projects that work on furthering environmental justice throughout the world. For example, EJOLT (Environmental Justice Organisations, Liabilities and Trade) is a large multinational project supported through the FP7 Science in Society budget line from the European Commission. From March 2011 to March 2015, 23 civil society organizations and universities from 20 countries in Europe, Africa, Latin-America and Asia work together on advancing the cause of environmental justice. EJOLT is building up case studies, linking organisations worldwide and making an interactive global map of environmental justice.[47]
Whilst the predominant agenda of the environmental justice movement in the United States has been tackling issues of race, inequality and the environment, environmental justice campaigns around the world have developed and shifted in focus. For example, the environmental justice movement in the United Kingdom is quite different. It focuses on issues of poverty and the environment, but also tackles issues of health inequalities and social exclusion.[48] A UK based NGO, named the Environmental Justice Foundation, has sought to make a direct link between the need for environmental security and the defense of basic human rights.[49] They have launched several high profile campaigns that link environmental problems and social injustices. A campaign against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing highlighted how 'pirate' fisherman are stealing food from local, artisanal fishing communities.[50][51] They have also launched a campaign exposing the environmental and human rights abuses involved in cotton production in Uzbekistan. Cotton produced in Uzbekistan is often harvested by children for little or no pay. In addition, the mismanagement of water resources for crop irrigation has led to the near eradication of the Aral Sea.[52] The Environmental Justice Foundation has successfully petitioned large retailers such as Asda Wal-mart and Tesco to stop selling Uzbek cotton.[53]
Under colonial and apartheid governments in South Africa, thousands of black South Africans were removed from their ancestral lands in order to make way for game parks. In 1992, the Environmental Justice Networking Forum (EJNF), a nationwide umbrella organization designed to coordinate the activities of environmental activists and organizations interested in social and environmental justice, was created. By 1995, the network expanded to include 150 member organizations and by 2000, it included over 600 member organizations.[8]
With the election of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1994, the environmental justice movement gained an ally in government. The ANC noted “poverty and environmental degradation have been closely linked” in South Africa. The ANC made it clear that environmental inequalities and injustices would be addressed as part of the party’s post-apartheid reconstruction and development mandate. The new South African Constitution, finalized in 1996, includes a Bill of Rights that grants South Africans the right to an “environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being” and “to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that
South Africa’s mining industry is the largest single producer of solid waste, accounting for about two-thirds of the total waste stream. Tens and thousands of deaths have occurred among mine workers as a result of accidents over the last century. There have been several deaths and debilitating diseases from work-related illnesses like asbestosis. For those who live next to a mine, the quality of air and water is poor. Noise, dust, and dangerous equipment and vehicles can be threats to the safety of those who live next to a mine. These communities are often poor and black and have little choice over the placement of a mine near their homes. The National Party introduced a new Minerals Act that began to address environmental considerations by recognizing the health and safety concerns of workers and the need for land rehabilitation after and during mining operations. In 1993, the Act was amended to require each new mine to have an Environmental Management Program Report (EMPR) prepared before breaking ground. These EMPRs were intended to force mining companies to outline all the possible environmental impacts of the particular mining operation and to make provision for environmental management.[8]
In October 1998, the Department of Minerals and Energy released a White Paper entitled “A Minerals and Mining Policy for South Africa” which included a section on Environmental Management. The White Paper states “Government, in recognition of the responsibility of the State as custodian of the nation’s natural resources, will ensure that the essential development of the country’s mineral resources will take place within a framework of sustainable development and in accordance with national environmental policy, norms, and standards.” It adds that any environmental policy “must ensure a cost-effective and competitive mining industry.”[8]
In Canada, an “Environmental Justice Movement” is not currently in action. However, Canada does have environmental injustice between its people. Environmental Justice Frames are taken as attacks on the welfare state traditions and fear of the change in the social justice that the country depends on. The environmental research in Canada is scattered throughout many journals and has not been linked together to see what kind of injustice is consistently happening in the country. The main people who are affected by injustice in Canada are the aboriginal people. The injustice comes, like in the United States with the Native American population, through broken treaties, land rights, and by taking the people's environmental resources or contaminating them. While this injustice has not yet caused a movement to occur in Canada, the Environmental Movement is sure to spread to Canada from the United States in a matter of time.[54]
In Australia, the “Environmental Justice Movement” is not defined as it is in the United States. Australia does have some discrimination mainly in the citing of hazardous waste facilities in areas where the people are not given proper information about the company. The injustice that takes place in Australia is defined as environmental politics on who get the unwanted waste site or who has the say so in a certain factory opening up. The movement towards equal environmental politics focuses more on who can fight for companies to build and takes place in the parliament; whereas, in the United States Environmental Justice is trying to make nature safer for all people.[55]
Exposure to chemical pesticides in the cotton industry also affects farmers in India and Uzbekistan. Banned throughout much of the rest of the world because of the potential threat to human health and the natural environment, Endosulfan is a highly toxic chemical, the safe use of which cannot be guaranteed in many of the developing countries its used in. Endosulfan, like DDT, is an organochlorine and persists in the environment long after it has killed the target pests, leaving a deadly legacy for people and wildlife.[43]
An example of the environmental injustices that indigenous groups face can be seen in the Chevron-Texaco incident in the Amazon. This was when Texaco, which is now Chevron, found oil in Ecuador in 1964 and built substandard oil wells in order to cut costs.[56] The company was using inferior technology on purpose in order to make their operations cheaper even if it was detrimental to the local people and environment. After the company left in 1992, they left around one thousand toxic waste pits open and dumped billions of gallons of toxic water into the rivers.[57] This sort of mistreatment of the indigenous peoples and people of other countries is causing damage to the environment and is an example of the environmental injustice that happens over the world. The inability of the people of different countries to fight against the corporations leads to such environmental injustice to the indigenous peoples.
Environmental discrimination in a global perspective is also an important factor when examining the Environmental Justice Movement. Even though the Environmental Justice movement began in the United States, the United States also contributes to expanding the amount of environmental injustice that takes place in less developed countries.[58] Some companies in the United States and in other developed nations around the world contribute to the injustice by shipping the toxic waste and byproducts of factories that are not disposed of in the host country and ship it to less developed countries to be disposed of. This act increases the amount of waste in the third world countries, most which do not have proper sanitation for their own waste much less the waste of another country. Many times the people of the less developed countries are exposed to more toxins from this waste and do not even realize what kind of waste they are encountering or the health problems that could come with it.[59]
One prominent example of northern countries shipping their waste to southern countries took place in Haiti. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania had ash from the incineration of toxic waste which they did not have room to dump. Philadelphia decided to put the ash into the hands of a private company, which shipped the ash and dumped it in various parts of the world, not in the United States. The Khian Sea, the ship which the ash was put on, sailed around the world and many countries would not accept the waste because it was hazardous for the environment and the people. The ship owners finally dumped the waste, labeled Fertilizer, in Haiti, on the beach and sailed away in the night. The government of Haiti was infuriated and called for the waste to be removed, but the company would not come to take the ash away. The fighting over who was responsible for the waste and who would remove the waste went on for many years. After debating for over ten years, the waste was removed and taken back to a site just outside of Philadelphia to be disposed of for good.[59]
The reason that this transporting of waste from Northern countries to the Southern Countries takes place is because it is cheaper to transport waste to another country and dump it there, than to pay to dump the waste in the producing country because the third world countries are not regulated as much as the more developed producing countries. The countries that the waste is taken to are usually poverty stricken and the governments have no control over the happenings in the country or do not care about the people. [60] The poverty stricken people often have no say in what happens near their town and are not educated enough to know what is happening in the town. Often the only way that these actions are stopped is by environmental groups that are willing to come and help protect the people of the third world countries.
Many of the environmental Justice Networks that began in the United States expanded their horizons to include many other countries and became Transnational Networks for Environmental Justice. These networks work to bring Environmental Justice to all parts of the world and to protect all citizens of the world in order to reduce the Environmental injustice happening all over the world. Listed below are some of the major Transnational Social Movement Organizations.[59]
These global networks work together to achieve the shared goal of a cleaner environment.
The Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) of the University of Massachusetts Amherst tracks air pollutants released by the top 100 U.S. companies by amount, toxicity and population exposure.[62] In 2010 the top four companies were Bayer, Exxon Mobil, Sunoco,and E.I. du Pont de Nemours.[63] Rankings are based on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) data, overall transport, and population densities near the pollution sources.[64]
Companies may commit environmental injustice by releasing pollutants affecting minority families. These families may lack political power and adequate healthcare to address problems caused by pollution.[65]
|
|||||