Environmental Injustice and Racism - Literature review Example

Environmental Injustice/Racism Really Exist Environmental injustice/racism really permeates the world. This is characterized by disproportionate distribution of environmental hazard among races or groups sharing cultural characteristics and population in the low-income bracket. It also causes deprivation of minority communities to benefits brought about by environmental policies. Rules and regulations pertaining to environment also differ when implemented to minorities (Gray 2006). According to Gray (2006), “Environmental racism also describes the living condition of poor people of color. They are found mostly in railroad tracks, near toxic waste landfills, near deteriorating water levees and near chemical plants”. Environmental injustice and racism are brought about by the violation of some legislators of minorities’ right to free, informed consent or fair treatment in decision-making. It is also caused by the issuance of biased scientific method of people assigned to assess risk that result into the formulation of policies that discriminate people of color and the less privileged (Gray 2006). International Environmental Injustice/Racism Gray (206) also states that environmental racism also happen in the international community. He discussed the following example: “The First World countries particularly the United States and Western Europe are also guilty of environmental racism through the disposal of used electronic gadgets in other parts of the world. South America, Africa, and South Asia became a dumping ground for old computer screens, laptops, and keyboards. Components of old computers like battery acid, lead products and other chemicals leach out into the soil. This renders the soil useless. The toxic materials which are dumped into the ground make the land unsuitable for planting and even building homes for people. Those harmful substances are non-biodegradable and it will take hundred years before the land can be used again. This is one of the advantages brought to the third world by some developed countries”. National Environmental Injustice/Racism In the United States alone, billion of pounds of highly toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic, lead and several others have been thrown beyond the knowledge of the communities. These toxic chemicals poison fertile soil and render useless as chemicals take long years before they are gone. They contaminate potable waters and result into several dreaded diseases. In a study conducted in 1991, the National Research Council found that more that 41 million people reside within four miles radius of one of America’s estimated Superfund toxic waste management facilities. These dumps are the worst among the worst, but in 1993, the U.S Office of Technology Assessment made an estimate and concluded that America possesses as many as 439,000 other toxic waste sites (Faber and Krieg 2002) The report of the United Church of Christ (UCC) in 1987 showcases the community of poor people and of color that bears the burden in unequal proportion of exposure to harmful substances through the release of toxic chemicals and the construction of waste management facilities in their area. The report said that dumping of toxic waste in that particular area was not merely coincidental (Heiman 1996). Heiman’s article also contains the following statement: “Evidence gathered through observation showing the unequal distribution of impact on the economy brought about by environmental mismanagement including the regulatory response to air pollution was given consideration by geographers as well as economists a decade earlier. This was done without the purpose of discriminating. In the issue, the evidence apparently support the conclusion that race is a major determinant in the toxic exposure issue. With greater consequence, the political implications of such for community organization and empowerment were explored. To address the issue, a study conducted by the American Government Accounting Office shows the race and income capacity of people living near municipal solid waste dumpsite and reviews research on the demographics of toxic waste facility locations. The research yielded a conclusion that people of color and people in the low-income bracket are not over represented at non-hazardous municipal landfills. Moreover, that ten major research on the location of harmful waste facilities, as well a the UCC report, all yield range of results depending on the kind of facility used, the set of questionnaires, the size, the impacted community based on the geographic definition, and the methodology used. According to the report, “Geography also matters. Whether you’re in the rural South mostly inhabited by African American, or in the Hispanic and Native American Regions where Caucasians dominate the area, a utilitarian approach to become prospective location for toxic waste will be toward respective total ethnic group and not populated areas (Heiman 1996). Recent location of a commercial hazardous waste management facility is in Adams County, Colorado. An incinerator is on the rise at East Liverpool, Ohio. These two sites are populated mostly by Caucasians. Three of the largest toxic waste landfills that contains more than 40% of the total national permitted commercial capacity, remain in two African American communities. The other one is located in a Hispanic community (Heiman 1996). Inconclusive demographic evidence and many debates do not discourage writers on the issue at hand. Heated talks on whether class or race can dictate a choice of hazardous waste facility location, whether the facility or the victims came first and whether or not unequal distribution of facility siting, make way for true racism or just the efficiency of the market Heiman 1996). With ethnic and racial discrimination present in the production system, authorities in the subject conclude that people of color are the victims of the wide range capitalist contradiction brought about by the gap in the social and economic status. This is apparent in the unavailability of decent housing for all, health care delivery system, enough food, jobs and education (Heiman 1996). While engaged in some academic activities, many people become participants or advisor to the movement for environmental justice. This is done by local residents to prevent attempts being undertaken to identify communities of low-income, working class and people of color as location for solid waste management facilities. They no longer accept promises of tightening of pollution emissions and prevention. Their former stand of NIMBY (or Not In My Backyard) is strengthened by putting themselves together and created a more solid cry of NIABY (or Not In Anybody’s Backyard. The grassroots movement for environmental justice is asking for exclusive private control of the production process because production control is necessary to prevent pollution (Heiman 1996). A lot of studies back up the UCC’s Commission on Racial Justice (CRJ) findings. American minorities who have less in life in terms of education, occupation and income suffer the unequal distribution of environmental risk. Those in the lower class groups are likely, than the rich whites, to build their homes near waste management facilities, eat contaminated food and be exposed to risk in their hazardous work environment. Based on statistics, minorities are often prone to economic deprivation that’s why, researchers claim that environmental racism, which means disproportionate distribution of environmental risk, is a major factor in the difference of risk being faced by the minorities. Some minds debate on the issue of race as an independent factor, very far from the social status in life, in determining where air pollution should be distributed, who should eat the contaminated food, which should live in abandoned toxic waste dumps and where to construct waste management facilities and incinerators. While debate continues on who to blame for the disparities, the minorities who usually share less of the blessings are often left in the sideline and are not able to counter risks. The inability to fight strongly explains the reason why minorities share a bigger bulk of environmental threats. There will still some who will still fight to death on the issue of whether race or class cause environmental disparity, the racist bias in the formulation of environmental policy is quite obvious (Wigley & Shrader-Frechette 2006). At last! Sewage diversion plan from Yorktown to Peekskill was dead. These have been the words that thousands of Westchester residents had been waiting for several years. It took the Commissioner of Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to break the news to the community. The controversial proposal had become stagnant for years at the town’s legislators’ office (Naccari and Wilbur 2002). Environmental Injustice/Racism in the state level In New York, the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance (NYCEJA) connects people’s organizations low-income neighborhoods and people of color in their fight against environmental injustice. NYCEJA intends to uncover the factors that cause environmental discrimination (NYCEJA 2002). NYCEJA enumerates some of their other services: “We assist in the development of effective legal and political strategies to implement existing laws and, where required, amendments in existing laws or regulatory policy. NYCEJA consistently documents the different conditions present in the environment that may affect the health and well-being of lowly-paid people in the communities of color. This strategy responds in such a way that complaints will not be dismissed by authorities because members of these low-income neighborhoods and communities of color are often denied of the means to monitor consistently, record and assess environmental situations for themselves. NYCEJA intends to solve this problem by means of some activities such as data collection, providing training and technical support to community. NYCEJA also provides technical assistance, like cooperating with community groups and academic institutions for computer mapping capabilities. NYCEJA helps EJ communities in the development of the organizational capability and expert people required to fight environmental racism and become successful. We are working with our Member Organizations to assist community residents gain full knowledge about local environmental conditions, the prevailing laws, rules and regulations, and how to take advantage of the democratic process so as to initiate change”. Environmental Injustice/Racism in the Local and Regional Level The struggle began in 1997 when the New York City issued Memorandum of agreement signed by eight counties and 75 municipalities along the Hudson River in the Croton, Catskill and Delaware watersheds. The MOA’s purpose was to learn ways how to protect New York City’s drinking water. Choices were to upgrade deteriorating sewage treatment plants that served the big city, or to divert liquid waste from the existing facilities to bigger treatment facilities (Naccari and Wilbur 2002). Naccari and Wilbur (2002) went on with the following stories: “After a couple of years, Savin Engineering recommended diverting an estimated 1.6 million gallons of liquid waste a day from Yorktown’s Hallock’s Mill Sewage Treatment facility to the Peekskill Waste Water Treatment Plant. Savin Engineering also recommended several hundred thousand gallons per day be piped to Yonkers from New Castle. For several reasons, Yorktown officials agree (Naccari and Wilbur 2002). . A town’s official cannot accept the idea of placing liquid waste in the source of drinking water. The town board was time and again fight against spending public money to upgrade a sewage system facility that had maximized its 1.5 million gallon-a-day capacity but cannot serve the estimated 1,000 parcels without an effective drainage system in the Hallock’s Mill Sewer District. A lot of Yorktown homes with deteriorating septic systems were disappointed because DEP doesn’t want to increase the operational capacity of the plant. Battles were carried over the years. One side was trying to protect the reservoir and felt that their town is being made a dumping ground for wastes. A democrat, a chairman of one committee, was one of the first to oppose sending sewage from wealthier communities to predominantly minority-laden ones. He called the project "environmentally racist, rich communities like to send their waste to poorer communities." As some groups opposed the diversion project, an organization president claimed that advances in science can make liquid waste coming our from a sewage treatment plant purer that rainwater. The president argued that, “Today’s technology designed to clean up sewage is remarkable, provided, of course, they are well maintained. A possible threat to drinking water is runoff”. The president added that processing liquid waste can replenish groundwater and make sure that small bodies of water are prevented from drying up. Another town officer called diversion “environmental injustice”. To divert means to commit injustice. “When affluent families bring their trash to be processed by the less fortunate community, that is not acceptable." Because of the increase in the opposition, the agency was not able to defend the concept its fighting for, even though it had enough scientific proof to support its stand”. This struggle, although won by the minority, showed the insistence of those who want to pursue environmental injustice. Somehow, this case was put to rest in favor of the town’s residence who want to protect their source of drinking water. Environmental Racism in the Community An experience which happened in Oakland, California with the old Cypress Freeway can be considered as a good example of environmental racism. Built in 1940’s, this freeway divided the African Community in West Oakland. They did not want the highway but there were no political leaders during that time strong enough to stop the construction. Thus truckers, businessmen and Oakland politicians prevailed. The freeway shortens travel time and cut cost but smoke and fumes from cars and trucks polluted the air of West Oakland day and night (Gray 2006). As noise of vehicles during night and day permeated the atmosphere of West Oakland, the people of the community were denied of quiet times and enough rest and they become sick. Many residents of the area experienced sickness which they never have before the freeway. But this Cypress freeway was collapsed by the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. The earthquake did what the neighborhood cannot. Although city planners wanted to rebuild the highway, the Oakland City community having built political and economic power succeeded in stopping the New Cypress Project. Thus West Oakland is not anymore a divided city. It witnessed a victory over environmental racism. And sick citizens have regained their health (Gray 2006). The community in Burlington City, New Jersey had their own encounter with environmental racism. A large landfill was built in the community beside people’s homes. Residents witnessed delivery of waste in their area. Thirty years later, low cost housing project was built right on top of that landfill. This housing project was awarded to minorities and they were unaware that under their beautiful new homes is a landfill (Gray 2006). Aside from the landfill, power plant and oil refinery rose in the area. The incidence of asthma, cancer, skin and lung diseases in the Burlington community is now twice the rate of white Americans since 1970 mainly because of air, soil and water pollution. The responsibility of shouldering expenses in medical care of sick children lies in their parents instead of those who caused pollution in the area. The answer to the question of why landfill, power plant and refinery were built in this area is because this is where the minorities live. And they lived in the world with disproportionate distribution of risk (Gray 2006) Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards Over in Massachusetts, there were 32 sites found located in 42 towns and which are on the U.S. EPA NPL, or Superfund, list These towns has a population of more than 1,072,017 residents, of which 70,491 of them are people of color. Approximately 61,000 people are living within a 3-mile radius of the Iron Horse Park Superfund site in North Billerica. Moreover, Massachusetts possesses over 21,000 DEP toxic waste sites. All in all, 3,389 of these Superfund or DEP sites can pose health risks (Faber and Krieg 2002). Faber and Krieg in their article in Environmental Health Perspectives tackled the following issues: “The National Research Council found a disturbing pattern of elevated health problems in people residing at the vicinity of Superfund and other major hazardous waste sites. Diseases include cardiovascular disease, abortions and genital malformations, and death rates; infants and children suffer a higher cases of cardiac abnormalities, leukemia, and many others. Researchers suspect that too much exposure to industrial chemicals is a contributing factor to the dramatic increases since the 1950s in cancer of the testis, prostate gland, kidney, breast, skin, and lung, as well as malignant myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and numerous childhood cancers (9-11)—which can be blamed to the death of half a million Americans each year. In Massachusetts, there was a sharp increase in the rates of leukemia (particularly children) have been connected to the industrial chemical found in a town’s drinking water). Massachusetts has a record of high rates of cancer of the breast in the country.- an estimated 4,400 women are diagnosed and 1,000 women die each year. Women residing on Cape Cod are particularly prone, with a 20% higher rate of breast cancer than women living elsewhere. In a 1984 report issued by Cerrell Associates for the California Waste Management Board, openly suggests that pollutants and the state locate toxic waste plants in "lower socio-economic neighborhoods" because that environment can only offer so little political opposition. Actions in the enforcement of environmental policy apparently are uneven depending on the race and the affected community. In the 1992 survey, cleaning of toxic waste sites in the minority community is slower by 12-42% percent compared to toxic sites in the White community. The research also revealed that it takes 20% longer to put hazardous waste dumps in the less privileged community on the NPL or Superfund list for cleanup than it takes in listing sites located in the community of White people. There is really a glaring discrepancy in the treatment of the minority over the more affluent members of the society”. References: Gray Norris Gray, “Environmental Racism”, Gibbs Magazine, March 13, 2006; http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/Environmental%20Racism.htm Daniel R. Faber and Eric J. Krieg , “Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards: Environmental Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” http://www.ephonline.org/members/2002/suppl-2/227 Michael K. Heiman, “Race, Waste, and Class: New Perspectives on Environmental Justice” April 1996, Environmental Studies James Center Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA 17013; http://www.ejnet.org/ej/rwc.html Daniel C. Wigley & Kristin S. Shrader-Frechette, “Environmental Racism and Biased Methods of Risk Assessment, (retrieved September 5, 2006); http://www.fplc.edu/RISK/vol7/winter/wigley.htm Henry Naccari and Martin Wilbur, “Haudenosaunee Environmental News Report”, March Vol. 1 #6 2002; http://www.hetfonline.org/pages/hetfenvnews6.htm Envirolink, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance (NYCEJA); Dec. 17, 2002; http://www.envirolink.org/resource.html?itemid-2002 Read More