What Is Environmental Racism?

General Description We live in 2017 and yet somehow racism still exists in America. Racism does not only exist in some of the most obvious ways, such as the killings of unarmed Black men, but also in ways not many people discuss. Environmental inequities in America give rise to what is considered “environmental racism.” In particular, the term environmental racism associates racism with environmental situations. In a general sense, environmental racism is the idea that actions, policies, and decisions about the environment result in racial discrimination or disparities. Therefore, marginalized communities in America often endure the most extreme ramifications of toxic contamination from environmentally damaging pollution. Marginalized communities
encountering an unequal proportion of environmental degradation is a critical issue affecting both national and international realms. The question of whether protecting the environment is only a priority for the wealthy and privileged comes into the environmental injustice conversation. Often, marginalized communities are more likely to reside near a highly polluting plant, refinery, or facility. As a result, health issues of marginalized communities also come into question. Examining this issue is important because improving and maintaining a non-toxic environment for all people is a critical aspect to eradicate environmental racism.
In-Depth Description In the 1980s people of color began to organize environmental campaigns as an attempt to prevent the poisoning of agricultural workers from pesticides. The environmental campaigns were also in response to the prevention of lead poisoning within inner-cities, specifically in children, and the location of toxic facilities such as landfills and nuclear waste dumps. While protests were occuring, many activists and policymakers were researching the link between people of color and their exposure to environmental hazards. (Pollution Issues) According to a 1988 study conducted by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), race is an influential predictor of numerous environmental hazards. For example, lead poisoning, as it was being protested by many people in different environmental campaigns. According to ATSDR, African American inner-city children among five years of age and younger have far more excessive levels of lead in their blood than that of white individuals with excessive levels of lead. It was concluded that African American children are about two to three times more likely to suffer from lead poisoning than white children. Looking into other studies, it has been found that communities of color have been systematically targeted for the placement of toxic facilities. Marginalized communities experience environmental racism, as through other forms of institutionalized racism. The underrepresentation of people of color in positions of power, such as government and business, is an underlying reason that marginalized communities are disadvantaged in today’s world. A range of environmental decisions are always made by the government, so with no representation for people of color, environmental racism continues. As environmental racism is intertwined with institutional racism, other barriers exacerbate the environmental hazards facing marginalized communities. For example, financial income, housing discrimination, and land use planning are common barriers that make it difficult for people of color to leave life-threatening environments. Therefore, millions of people of color live in low-income and highly polluted areas. Although waste dumping directly correlates with per capita income, garbage and toxic waste facilities are not built in higher-income areas. In the mid 1970s, the phrase “Not in My Backyard,” (NIMBY) first appeared as a colloquialism to signify the opposition of locating unwanted facilities or events in specific neighborhoods. Many white individuals began to utilize this term to protest the placement of not only garbage dumps and landfills, but prisons, low-income housing, and drug treatment facilities, too. In return, it has made it difficult for people of color to utilize the colloquialism not only because there is a lack of representation, but also because there is barely and land left of their own. A recent report from the The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) concluded that there are nearly six million individuals living within a three mile proximity of a coal plant. Within the six million people, 39% of the Americans are people of color - a percentage that is higher than than the 36% of people of color in the total United States population. (Goldman Environmental Prize) The concept of externalities provides an understanding of environmental racism.
From an environmental justice perspective, there is a deeper look into the problem of externalities. For example, once a factory is established in a community that is predominately people of color, the executive board of the company will make profits, but the community members will be exposed to hazardous pollutants. Corporations establishing toxic facilities in communities of color often have the mindset that local residents do not have the political or financial will to resist not only because of the lack of representation, but due to the need for employment. Unfortunately, the latter reason is economic extortion because community members are forced to live in a toxic environment in order to pay their
bills. Environmental racism has created many problems. Many people of color living near radioactive nuclear waste, hazardous waste landfills, or uncontrolled toxic waste sites have suffered various health problems. Arising health problems people of color suffer as a result of environmental racism include asthma or brain damage. A more recent example of environmental racism can be seen in the ongoing battle for clean water in Flint, Michigan. Flint is predominately made up of African American people. The water within Flint has been poisoned with high levels of lead. Instead of looking for a solution, the local and federal government attempted to hide the issue. On the other hand, there was recently a massive gas leak in Porter Ranch, California. Porter Ranch is a predominantly white community. Both local and government officials immediately addressed the gas leak and notified residents to leave the premises. (STUDY)
Possible Solutions There is no easy fix in order to develop solutions to these problems because as long as environmental issues exist, inequality will remain.
In order to even begin solving the inequality issues, the lack of representation in all of the local and government organizations that influence environmental policy must be shifted. If people of color continue are continuously not represented, environmental policy will continue to perpetuate the inequalities among marginalized communities. Creating this change will not be easy, but it can begin with having a conversation that will eventually lead into onboarding more people of color. The Environmental Protection Agency could work on expanding and improving communication techniques with people of color. For example, outreach representatives who identify as people of color could go into communities that are being targeted and have an open dialogue with community members. Outreach representatives will simultaneously be making efforts to increase awareness of the environmental racism occuring within communities of
color.
An extension of the outreach representative solution is education. In most situations, conflict arises because of a lack of understanding and/or education. A solution to further fix the issues rooted in environmental racism can be to target communities of color housing toxic facilities and provide workshops centered around the environment. The workshops and educational material would be translated into different languages, such as Spanish, to ensure everyone has an understanding of the issues. Hosting workshops that explain the reality of the racial injustice will not only open the eyes of many people of color, but also allow for the conversation to happen in which action can be taken. (ARCH)
Synthesis
Despite suggested solutions to fix environmental racism, there is much work to be done before any changes happen. Although, the different studies previously mentioned in this paper have confirmed environmental racism is occurring, a transformative change has yet to happen within the policies that perpetuate the disparities. The conversation on how to end environmental racism needs to move forward because racism is not a single act since it is institutionalized. Therefore, communities of color are automatically at a disadvantage. All Americans should be able to reside in areas that are not detrimental to their health, regardless of their race. While communities of color are facing disparities in their own backyards, individuals also have to deal with different responses from policymakers and the government when it comes to suggesting change in environmental practices. Often, people of color receive lethargic responses, which is why stronger representation is needed. In the realm of the larger picture, we need to take care of our environment for future generations. Therefore, a sustainable environment is only feasible if we also have an environmentally just environment. The right to a non-toxic place of living is an essential element to consider of basic human rights. Thus, disproportionate environmental conditions are an infraction of basic human rights. The NIMBY phrase then becomes controversial because it essentially is stating that it allows toxic hazards in the backyards of people of color, but not in the spaces of white people. Toxins should not be placed in any living space if we want a better world for future generations to come.