Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice Environmental Justice 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 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. (US EPA, 2010) Origins of the Movement The environmental justice movement was born in 1982 in Shocco Township, NC. A landfill was built to dump polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs cause: Birth defects Liver damage (Hepatotoxicity) Rashes and acne Toxic waste landfills leak occasionally 1

Origins of the Movement Alternative sites were available in Warren County They had higher mean incomes They had higher percentages of whites Shocco Township: 69% African American 20% below federal poverty line Robert Bullard, Dumping in Dixie Origins of the Movement When the decision was announced that Shocco Township would be the site for the landfill: Citizen groups protested National media covered the story The Environmental Justice Movement was born Photo of Shocco Township protest Dumping in Dixie Origins of the Movement Robert Bullard, scholar & activist, helped take the movement nationwide in 1990 with: 2

Environmental Justice Erin Brockovich helped win a suit against PG&E for contaminating water in Hinkley, CA. Victims: low income whites Environmental Justice A landfill was the subject of the first environmental justice protest Siting of potentially hazardous facilities became the focus of researchers Toxic waste dumps Factories that use (& occasionally leak) toxic chemicals Battery plants, metal plating, refineries Factories that emit polluted air Researchers now moving to other subjects, but more work on facility siting than anything else The Problem of Evidence Lots of anecdotes about siting public bads in low-income minority communities Early studies yielded mixed evidence Often using small data sets Some studies journalistic, rather than quantitative so hard to generalize 3

The Problem of Evidence Evan Ringquist s meta-study was a huge step With respect to race, the average effect size analysis and meta-analytic regressions all show that environmental inequities based on these characteristics are ubiquitous (p. 241) The evidence supporting the existence of classbased environmental inequities is substantially weaker. (p. 241) Evan Ringquist, Assessing Evidence of Environmental Inequities: A Metaanalysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24 (2005): 223-47. The Causality Problem What would cause a pattern of hazardous facilities to be sited in low income, minority communities? 1. Racial prejudice 2. Cheap land prices 3. Middle class flight: those who can afford it leave 4. Well educated/informed flight: those who understand it leave 5. Lack of political power to prevent siting Causality: Racial Prejudice Some studies use the term environmental racism These studies focus on spatial relationships between environmental hazards and community demographics They generally do not invoke racial prejudice as an explicit cause They refer to institutional racism Wealthy whites feel privileged Yet racial prejudice can be the motive behind discriminatory actions Difficult to prove Poverty, Pollution and Environmental Racism. Robert Bullard [http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/povpolej.html]; Laura Pulido, Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90 (March 2000): 12-40. 4

Causality: Cheap Land Hazardous facilities are build where land is cheap It is a business decision, nothing more E.g., Some of west Oakland is zoned commercial, some residential Metal plating factory 1 block from housing Acids, solvents, accidental spills Causality: Cheap Land? Hypothesis that noxious facilities are build where land is cheap makes sense But Evan Ringquist s meta-study raises doubts Build on cheap land near racial & ethnic minorities, but not near whites? Causality: Rich White Flight When a noxious facility is built: People who can afford it move away, leaving more minorities Low income people move in because rents are low & they can afford it E.g., 210 highway upgraded to interstate freeway Property values fall People leave Cheaper houses People move in 5

Causality: White Flight? Flight hypothesis makes sense Again, Evan Ringquist s meta-study raises doubts Strong evidence of racial and ethnic minority patterns Weak, mixed evidence on socio-economic class Causality: Informed Flight When a noxious facility is built: People who know about the dangers of living near it move away Education is correlated with race, ethnicity California Air Resources Board recommends that freeways be sited at least 500 feet from residences, schools, & other sensitive land uses Proximity to freeways causes asthma & other respiratory problems, cardiovascular morbidity & mortality See California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook [http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm] Causality: Political Power Hazardous facilities are not sited near politically powerful communities because: The communities organize & resist Firms recognize that they must wage costly battles, which they may lose Example: Mobil Oil s Project Clearview 1995 proposal to build $1.8 billion drilling facility 6

The Causality Problem The strongest explanations: 1. Racial prejudice 2. Cheap land prices 3. Middle class flight: those who can afford it leave 4. Well educated/informed flight: those who understand it leave 5. Lack of political power to prevent siting The Causality Problem Only one of these causes is overtly racist So is the environmental racism a valid label? 1. Racial prejudice 2. Cheap land prices 3. Middle class flight: those who can afford it leave 4. Well educated/informed flight: those who understand it leave 5. Lack of political power to prevent siting The Causality Problem The environmental racism label may let people off the hook I m not prejudiced, so the business decision is okay Is building a low-income apartment building near a freeway acceptable if decision makers not prejudiced? A better label: Institutional racism? Environmental injustice? 7

Env. Justice as a Political Strategy Claims of environmental injustice sometimes a strategy to win battles that have been lost using other tactics? Some protests against siting facilities are efforts to block the facilities Others are efforts to get jobs for the community Firms often try to win local favor with promises of jobs E.g., Mobil offered UCSB money for our support Environmental Justice vs. the Environmental Movement There is more to EJ than siting of noxious facilities Some pro-environment policies harm low income people, racial & ethnic minorities Carbon tax Limits on housing density 8