The Environmental Justice Movement: What is it and
why it matters?
(Part I of II)
In
simple terms, there are two strains of environmentalists right now. One is a
group youÕve probably heard of—the ÒmainstreamÓ activists who are made up
of largely white, upper-middle class people that are dedicated to Òsaving the
rainforest,Ó sparing ANWR (that is, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge) from
oil drilling, and keeping snowmobiles out of Yellowstone. The second group you
may never have heard of—the environmental justice (EJ) advocates who
consist of labor, community and civil rights activists, migrant farm worker
organizers, and defenders for the rights of indigenous people. It is the EJ
advocates who battle to keep their neighborhoods free of toxic emitters, their
homes free of lead paint, and politics free of racist and classist laws and
decisions pertaining to the environment. Both environmental groups overlap to
some degree and increasingly (albeit slowly) they are beginning to work
together to protect the environment in a more holistic way. Yet, while the
mainstreamers get most of the press (and the criticism) from the
corporate-controlled media, it is the latter group of EJ advocates that
probably deserve a much more thorough hearing, particularly because their
battle is one of basic human rights and equity. All of us have a vested
interested in learning more about the struggle of EJ advocates because their
battle is one that we all face, now or in the immediate future.
Environmentalism,
the progressive movement to protect and conserve the environment, has been
alive in the United States for at least a century. The creation of the first
national park in 1872 in northwest Wyoming (better known as Yellowstone)
represents the dawning of an era of preservationists that began more than a
century ago. Although these early visionaries had serious flaws, such as Native
Americans had to be displaced (often meaning extinguished) before these
ÒwildernessÓ areas could be protected, they understood that humans are not able
to survive in a world where they own and extract everything that the Earth has
to offer. These environmentally-minded pioneers and their descendents worked
tirelessly to get laws enacted that protected lands from development (e.g.,
Wilderness Act of 1964), species from extermination (Endangered Species Act of
1973), and water and air from adulteration (e.g., Clean Water Act of 1977 &
Clean Air Act of 1970). Since the early 1970Õs when national environmental
legislation went through a very active period, not much of significance has
occurred other than the extremely important phasing out of lead, both in
gasoline and in paint. Yet, it is during this lull in legislation that perhaps
the most important development has taken place, largely below our collective
radars.
The
genesis of the environmental justice (EJ) movement during the 1980Õs and its
growth thereafter reminds us that it is often the impoverished and marginalized
communities that bring about positive change for all. Despite being largely
outside the spotlight, the accomplishments of this nascent movement have been
striking. A key contribution made by the EJ movement has been the observation
that stark inequalities exist between groups of citizens of the United States
in terms of environmental quality and access to services. A second area of EJÕs
success revolves around its ability to raise awareness about the connection
between many health problems and exposure to environmental contaminants such as
PCBs, dioxin, ozone, and pesticides. Another one of its impressive feats
consists of the growing corpus of scholarship that studies and documents the
prevalence of environmental justice violations and civil rights shortfalls in
the United States and elsewhere. And, finally, perhaps the most significant
contribution made by the EJ movement is its ability to bring groups, often
separated by space and primary interest, together into a coalition working
towards peace and justice under a unified environmental umbrella. EJ advocates
are able to make this final step because they recognize that all environmental
problems are interconnected and that they affect everyone. For example, since
pollutants do not stop at neighborhood or city boundaries because air, water,
soil, and organisms are always in motion, if some of our homes are vulnerable,
then it is safe to say that all of our homes (and habitats) are vulnerable.
Environmental
advocates ask numerous important questions as well. The following questions not
only exhibit the scope of their interests but also suggest the relevance of
their concerns to all of us: (1) Which members of our population are exposed to
hazardous, neurotoxic, and carcinogenic pollutants?; (2) Are some segments of
our population (such as the unborn, newborn or elderly) more vulnerable to
these exposures than others?; (3) How are LULUs (locally undesirable land uses)
distributed in a region/city? Does their distribution correspond with
communities based on ethnic, economic, or other categories? What considerations
are taken when deciding where the next hazardous facility will be located?; (4)
Are there ways to restructure industry, commerce, or society so that fewer
(rather than more) hazardous chemicals are necessary?; (5) What diseases are
prevalent in our society and what environmental factors lead to or exacerbate
the symptoms and lethality of these disorders?; (6) Is it ethical to distribute
environmental ills inequitably in society?; (7) What laws and regulations
should be enacted and enforced in order to create a society where people are
not victimized by industrial ÒprogressÓ and consumerist behavior?; and, (8) How
can communities best be mobilized to work towards creating healthy and
environmentally-friendly neighborhoods and ecosystems that we can all benefit
from and cherish? It is answers to these and similar questions that have the
ability to empower all of us to be educated, concerned, and connected citizens
and stewards of the planet.
One
very important focus of EJ advocates and EJ scholars centers on environmental
racism (ER). What precisely does one mean by Òenvironmental racism?Ó One
well-known EJ scholar states that ER refers Òto those institutional rules,
regulations, and policies or government or corporate decisions that
deliberately target certain communities for least desirable land uses,
resulting in the disproportionate exposures of toxic and hazardous waste on
communities based on certain prescribed biological characteristicsÓ (Bryant,
5). In addition to these areas of discrimination, ER is often also associated
with people of colorÕs lack of access and exposure to environmental amenities
(such as, national parks, wilderness areas, and diverse wildlife) as well as
the exclusion from environmental decision-making. In summary, ER represents
those racist and discriminatory elements that are imbedded in how environmental
hazards and benefits are distributed in society.
Many
argue that the EJ movement began in 1982 in rural Monroe County, North
Carolina. That year, in response to the stateÕs decision to dispose of tons of
PCB-laced soil in this predominantly African-American county, citizens
organized and resisted. National attention was brought to this small county in
north-central North Carolina, when more than 500 activists were arrested while
protesting outside the intended landfill. In response to this event, several
studies commenced by a wide range of institutions and scholars each attempting
to determine if environmental racism is widespread.
The
evidence for environmental racism in our society is convincing. Two early
studies were landmarks in EJ research. A 1983 study by the U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO), which had been requested by a Congressional
representative that had been moved intellectually and spiritually by the Monroe
County incident, concluded that African-Americans are disproportionately living
in communities with landfills; in fact they were found to be in the majority in
an astounding 75% of the communities where landfills were located. Just a few
years later, a 1987 study by the Commission for Racial Justice, United Church
of Christ (UCC), entitled Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States, concluded that Òrace was the most significant factor
in determining the location of commercial hazardous waste facilitiesÓ
(Resolving); socioeconomic status was also an important variable but not as
significant as race. Disturbingly, the UCC report noted that 60% of
African-American and Hispanic-American citizens live in communities with
Òuncontrolled waste sitesÓ (Resolving). These findings and others like them led
to the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit held in
Washington, D.C. just a few years later in October 1991. Since this historical
gathering of more than 600 community activists and EJ advocates, numerous other
studies have added to initial findings. The following reports represent just
small sampling of a wealth of research findings that have been published over
the past ten or so years.
Researchers
note that the LULUÕs are disproportionately found in communities of color.
Bullard (2000) points out that in 1978, Chemwaste opened the nationÕs Òlargest
hazardous-waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilityÓ in Sumter County,
Louisiana which is 69% black. Paul Mohai and Bunyan Bryant (1990) find that
inhabitants of minority dominant communities were four times more likely to
live near hazardous waste facilities.
Bullard (1983) shows that during a fifty year period in the 20th
century, Houston, Texas placed nearly all of city-owned landfills and
incinerators in largely African-American communities despite the fact that the
city was just 30% black over this time.
Other
scholars find that communities of color (here defined as communities where
people of color constitute a majority of the population) are also not dealt
with fairly when it comes to enforcing environmental laws or penalties. Lavelle
and Coyle (1993), reviewing 1,177 Superfund sites, find racial bias in two key
areas: (1) government-imposed penalties against corporate polluters; and, (2)
government response to environmental hazards found in a community. Schwartz
(1997) corroborates these findings noting that governmental penalties for
violating hazardous waste laws are 500% higher in predominantly white
communities than communities of color.
The
above studies offer compelling evidence that environmental racism is present in
our society. It is through EJ scholarship of this sort that we see that we must
seriously reconsider any conclusion that racism has been eliminated or isnÕt in
desperate need of continued vigilance and remediation. While this should be
upsetting to all of us, how we deal with this depends on a wide variety of
elements (e.g., our willingness to act, our impulse to seek further education
on the subject, our reluctance to engage in discussions about racism, etc.). EJ
scholarship also forces us to question our Òway-of-lifeÓ in that it establishes
that hazards are being produced and disseminated that expose all of us to
harm—and to those not-so-fortunate or politically disadvantaged to
potentially great levels of harm. There is no doubt that we must break down
barriers of communication between mainstream environmentalists and EJ advocates
if we are going to make progress in the area of environmental quality. ER
research and activism provides an avenue for such engagement and collaboration.
Be
sure to check out the second part of this essay on EJ. Next monthÕs installment
(which will appear in the July 28th issue) will look into the past
successes of EJ movements, current manifestations of EJ advocacy, and
suggestions of what the future may hold for EJ both here and elsewhere.
Works Cited
Adamson, J., M.M. Evans, & R. Stein, Eds. (2002) The
Environmental Justice Reader: Politics, Poetics & Pedagogy. University of Arizona Press, 395 pp.
Bryant, B, Ed. (1995) Environmental Justice:
Issues, Policies & Solutions.
Island Press, 278 pp.
Bullard, R. (1983) ÒSolid waste sites and the black
Houston community,Ó Sociological Inquiry, 53, 273-288.
Bullard, R. (2000) Dumping in Dixie : Race,
Class, and Environmental Quality. Westview
Press, 234 pp.
Lavelle, M. & M.A.
Coyle. (1993) ÒUnequal protection: The
racial divide in environmental law.Ó In R. Hofrichter (ed.), Toxic
Struggles: The Theory and Practice of Environmental Justice, 136-143.
Mohai, P. & B. Bryant,
eds. (1990) Proceedings of the
Michigan Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards.
ÒResolving environmental racism: Toward environmental
justice.Ó (1998) World Resources 1998-1999: Environmental change and human
health. World Resources Institute,
the United NationÕ Environmental Programme, the United Nations Development
Programme, and The World Bank.
Schwartz, D. (1997) ÒEnvironmental Racism: Using Legal
and Social Means to Achieve Environmental Justice,Ó Journal of Environmental
Law and Litigation, 409.
The Environmental Justice movement: its accomplishments
and its future (Part II of II)
The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement consists of a
growing group of environmentalists who focus on human issues of health, justice,
and equality. In this way, EJ advocates differentiate themselves from other
environmentalists whose key concerns focus attention on other species, such as
invasive ones (e.g., kudzu or zebra mussel), charismatic ones (e.g., penguins
and baby seals), and endangered ones (e.g. Asian tigers including the Sumatran,
Bengal, and South China varieties). Part I of this two part essay (published in
the June 30 issue of The Zephyr) describes
in greater detail the origin of the EJ movement and highlighted some of its
more academically-focused pursuits. It outlines the evidence for modern
environmental inequality, the role racism and classism plays in it, and the
reasons why EJ concerns are ones that have relevance to all of us. Here, we will delve into the EJ
movementÕs more recent developments and suggest areas and ideas for future
growth and impact.
Since
1990, the EJ movement has witnessed many tangible accomplishments at the
national level. EJ advocates were instrumental in convincing President Clinton
to: (1) establish the PresidentÕs Council of Sustainable Development; (2)
create the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; and, (3) sign the
Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (Bryant). In 1994, under the
direction and leadership of prolific EJ author and scholar Robert Bullard, the
Environmental Justice Resource Center located at Clark University in Atlanta,
Georgia was established (website: http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/Welcome.html). Many
post-secondary institutions, including Knox College, now offer courses in
Environmental Justice. In 1991, the First National People of Color
Environmental Leadership Summit held in Washington, D.C. saw more than 600
community activists and EJ advocates. Eleven years later, a Second National
People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, held in October 2002, drew
more than twice as many participants suggesting that the EJ movement is alive
and well and, indeed, growing.
Many
of the most important EJ achievements take place locally. Within the state of
Illinois there are a growing number of environmental justice groups that are
working diligently to ensure that the air and water that we inhale or drink is
safe. Unfortunately, there are many communities in our state that have
contaminated air, particularly those near heavily industrialized areas and locations
near and downwind of coal-fired power plants. Fortunately, several of these
communities have citizens that arenÕt sitting back and letting themselves be poisoned
anymore, at least not without a struggle. Two such groups in the Midwest
deserve particular mention, and both happen to be nearby in the ÒWindy City.Õ
The People for Community Recovery (PCR)
is based in Altgeld Gardens, a predominantly African-American low-rise housing
development located on the far southern edge of the city limits of
Chicago—only ~16 miles directly south of downtown and the legendary ÒMichigan
Mile.Ó Founded in 1979 by Hazel Johnson, a resident of Altgeld Gardens, PCR has
been an active presence in furthering environmental awareness and demanding
change for more than 25 years. As a Knox College Environmental Racism class recently
observed during a field trip to Chicago this past May, Altgeld Gardens and the
residents of its ~1,400 row houses are completely surrounded by hazardous and
toxic air effluence and pollution. From the headquarters of PCR, which is
located in a small office behind a grocery store, one can go in any cardinal
direction and find a seriously offensive LULU (locally undesirable land
use)—anything from a 6-story landfill the size of 18-hole golf course to
an industrial ÒparkÓ spewing out all types of carcinogens and heavy-metals.
Consistent with the euphemistic name Òtoxic donut,Ó no matter how the wind
blows, Cheryl Johnson, HazelÕs daughter and the current director of PCR, and
her community residents must breathe in (and have for some time) contaminants
at very unhealthy levels. Yet, as bad as things may seem in Altgeld Gardens,
PCR hasnÕt given up.
In
the late 1970Õs when Hazel Johnson, sparked by her husbandÕs early death,
formed PCR, she set out to inform people of their surroundings. This initial
effort led to an awakening of sorts within her community. Citizens began to
make connections between their chronic health disorders (such as asthma and
skin rashes) and the air pollution coming from their immediate surroundings.
They took it upon themselves to educate their neighbors about how to minimize
exposure (e.g., remove dust regularly from their window sills). They challenged
the practices of demolition companies who took little or no precaution for the
huge amounts of dust (most containing lead, asbestos, and other toxins)
released into the surrounding air. For all her efforts, Hazel Johnson won a
gold medal from President George H. Bush. Additionally, through the actions of
all the PCR volunteers over many years (and other groups like PCR), President
Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice in 1994
which gives all citizens the right to know what potential environmental hazards
confront them and their communities. And while this executive order was a major
victory for EJ advocates, its lack of enforcement means that more EJ work will
be required to make clear once-and-for-all that environmental protection needs
teeth before the people of our nation will be free from untoward health effects
due to misguided economic and political practices.
Little
Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) is a much younger
organization whose youth belies its enthusiasm, understanding, and demand for
justice. Located on the western edge of the Chicago city limits, only ~5 miles
west of Michigan Avenue, in a neighborhood referred to as the ÒLittle Village,Ó
LVEJO works out of a basement of a typical two-story row house. Despite its humble
working space, its staff and volunteers have definitely put their community on
the EJ map in a big way in such a short time. LVEJO has focused on issues that
directly impact its more than 90,000 residents (~83% that are Hispanic). When
city officials decided to build a new elementary school in their district
(something that is sorely needed given the large numbers of children under 12
that live in the community), LVEJO recognized the site chosen was an extremely
poor one because major industries abutted it on two of its sides. (On our class
field trip, we breathed first hand the poisons that a steel drum cleaning and
processing plant release daily—a plant not more than a few hundred feet
from the entrance for the proposed school.) LVEJO was successful in empowering
its residents and after a struggle with city officials, the site was deemed
unfit for a school. In another campaign, LVEJO had to respond to an
unbelievable number of garbage trucks that began to drive weekly in a caravan
down one of its neighborhoodÕs streets—one bordered on both sides by
two-story family homes. LVEJOÕs research revealed that below the radar of the
residents, an enormous garbage facility had taken root just a few blocks from
residential neighborhoods. Through LVEJOÕs unwavering commitment to improving
the health and well-being of its neighborhood, the garbage trucks were
diverted, the facility closed during weekends, and the horrid stench was
lessened, so much so that families began to come back out of their homes and
community spirits were lifted as well.
One
of LVEJOÕs greatest struggles doesnÕt have such a positive ending, yet the
organization hasnÕt given up or given in. Within a five minute walk from
LVEJOÕs central office exists a coal-fired power plant, known as Crawford. The
electricity from this plant and another similar plant just a few miles away
serve people throughout the Chicagoland area, including some suburbs. Unfortunately,
these coal-fired plants have been in Chicago from well before the Clean Air Act
of the 1970Õs and thus they were not required to meet the stricter emission
standards set out in these laws. Therefore, they still emit huge quantities of
hazardous air pollutants. Now while this pollution does spread out in all
directions, much larger concentrations of contaminants (including mercury and
coal dust) make their way into the homes and lungs of Little VillageÕs
residents. And while LVEJOÕs campaign to get these plants to reduce hazardous
emissions has fallen on stubborn ears so far, similar pressure by EJ advocates
were at least partly responsible for the recent settlement (this past March)
which orders Illinois Power (and its successor, Dynegy Midwest Generation) to spend
~$500 million to reduce emissions in five of its coal-fired plants in the
state. Something needs to be done in Little Village as well. Consider that a
Harvard School of Public Health research study found that the Fisk and Crawford
power plants (the Fisk plant is only a few miles to the east of the Crawford
plant) Òcause 40 premature deaths, 2800 asthma attacks, and 550 emergency room
visits every yearÓ (LVEJO1). Shamefully,
despite these atrocious statistics, ChicagoÕs mayor Richard Daley wants to be
considered the ÒgreenestÓ mayor in the country even though these two outdated
coal power plants still operate within the boundaries of the city he governs. (Contacts
for the EJ organizations highlighted here are listed at the end of this essay.)
While
the above examples illustrate that EJ organizations can make a difference in
protecting the health and vibrancy of communities, there exist a few conflicts
within the EJ movement that still havenÕt been fully resolved. NIMBY (or
not-in-my-backyard) represents an attitude that governs many communitiesÕ
reactions to the building of a LULU (like a landfill, incinerator, toxic waste
producing industry, etc.) nearby where they live. This is understandable.
However, given current political realities, if one successfully wards off the
construction in one neighborhood, this doesnÕt prevent the LULU from moving to
a politically disempowered, poor, more-often-than-not non-white community in
the U.S. or elsewhere. So by lobbying against a polluting industry, we havenÕt
solved the problems associated with it and have only shifted the burden farther
down the socio-economic totem pole. Thus, we need to find alternatives that
allow all of us to live healthily. Fortunately there are many ways to do
accomplish this seemingly heroic task.
First,
we need laws that prevent companies from using outdated, highly-polluting
methods and technologies when more efficient and cleaner alternatives
definitely exist. Two, we donÕt need to be producing many of the chemicals that
we are—the primary reason we do stems from the fact that someone has
found a way to profit from the sale of some dangerous chemical and society
hasnÕt been given a democratic voice in deciding whether it is safe or if its
risks are worth any gains we might get from it. In his fantastic book, Cradle
to Cradle, Will McDonough, one of the
worldÕs more forward-thinking architects, makes clear the point that abundant
safe alternatives exist if we would only provide incentives to those that want
to pursue them (and major disincentives to those that want to continue to
pollute unnecessarily). A related way to remove dangerous chemicals is to shift
the onus of establishing their safety from the isolated victim who sues a
company for producing a chemical that has caused a given illness (something
that is nearly impossible to do when thousands of similar chemicals could be
likely culprits and when life-threatening symptoms reveal themselves years
after exposure) to the chemical producers themselves. Yes, shockingly, most
industrially produced chemicals havenÕt been tested for the harm that they
cause humans (especially children). If chemicals had to be thoroughly tested
before they could be used (or emitted), there would likely be many fewer
dangerous chemicals in use today. Three, if we reduced the huge amounts of
waste that are imbedded in our lifestyle (in forms of energy, diets, and
conspicuous consumption), we could likely reduce our production of dangerous
chemicals by 50% or more without noticeably reducing our quality of life. In
fact, there are many reasons to believe that the quality of our lives would
improve as we ate more selectively and partook in more social (less energy
demanding) activities.
With
these options available to us, there is every reason to be optimistic about the
future. Unfortunately, especially with so many forces working against equity
and social justice, it will take an informed and politically-active citizenry
in order to make these changes. However, next time someone says something
cynical like, Òoh it has always been this way,Ó or, Òwe donÕt have the
technologies yet, but they are just around the corner,Ó youÕll have every
reason to tell them that things arenÕt so bleak. Perhaps, you can direct them
to a local environmental justice organization.
In
closing, there are some serious environmental problems in the Galesburg area
too and an EJ perspective and response is likely warranted here as well.
Consider that Knox County has the highest number of lead-poisoned children
among rural counties in the state of Illinois and Peoria County has the
greatest percentage of children with elevated levels of lead in their blood (an
amazing 15%!) (Sampier). Peoria County is also among the top 10% worst counties
in the entire United States in terms of Total Pollution Emissions and Total Air
Releases of Recognized Carcinogens (Knox County is in the 50% percentile on
both these measures which is also very disturbing given its relatively small
population—54,500 versus Peoria CountyÕs 182,000) (Scorecard). It seems
that Western Illinois could use an active EJ movement of its own. If this is
something that you are interested in getting involved in, please contact the author.
He will be looking into forming an EJ organization over the next year so please
donÕt hesitate to let him know where your interests lie. Get involved.
EJ Organization Contact Info:
Little Village Environmental Justice Organization
(LVEJO). 2856 S. Millard Ave., Chicago, IL 60623; phone: 773-762-6991; email: lvejo@sbcglobal.net;
website: http://www.lvejo.org/
People for Community Recovery (PCR). Altgeld Gardens.
13116 S Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60827, Cheryl Johnson; email: hazelmjohnson@aol.com;
website: http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~wang/EJBaldwin/PCR/
Works Cited
Bryant, B, Ed. (1995) Environmental Justice:
Issues, Policies & Solutions.
Island Press, 278 pp.
LVEJO1. ÒHispanics Fighting Power Plant Pollution in
Illinois.Ó LVEJO website, (http://www.lvejo.org/coalpower.htm)
Accessed: July 3, 2005.
Sampier, K. (2005) ÒKnox combats lead poisoning.Ó Peoria
Journal Star. June 18.
Scorecard. Environmental DefenseÕs website: (http://www.scorecard.org/).
Accessed: July 5, 2005.
Peter Schwartzman is associate professor and chair
of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. He can be reached at the
following email address: sfactor@grics.net
.