Transcript Apr. 30th - Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice
OUTLLINE
• I) Introduction
– Conceptualizing EJ; context:
• II) Landmarks in U.S. domestic history
– Development as Movement
• III) What forms can environmental injustice take?
• IV) Case study: Climate Change
• V) Conceptual difficulties –problem of what is the
evidence on environmental (in)justice?
• VI) How can problems with environmental justice be
corrected / prevented?
• Conclusion
Introduction
• What is environmental justice?
– EPA: “no group of people, including racial, ethnic,
or socioeconomic groups, should bear a
disproportionate share of the negative
environmental consequences resulting from
industrial, municipal, and commercial
operations; Or the execution of federal, state, local,
and tribal programs and policies”.
Landmarks in U.S. domestic History
• 1982 N.C. Warren County
• 1987 United Church of Christ Commission on Racial
Justices report
• 1991 First National People of Color Environmental
Leadership Summit, Washington DC.
• 1992 EPA created Office of Environmental Justice
[exam all agency policies and programs]
• 1994 Clinton’s EJ Executive Order 12898—federal
agencies take EJ into account. i.e. be EJ sensitive.
• 1998. EPA outline on federal government’s principle
on E.J.
Development of EJ Movement
• 1st wave: Wilderness conservation movement
[destruction of ecosystem posed by economic
expansion] ; late 1960s.
• 2nd wave: [2-3 on environmental justice and
environmental racism] late 1970s
– collective identity as victims of polluting industry and as
ordinary people]
II) What forms can environmental injustice
take?
• a) Exposure to risks
•
•
•
•
polluting facilities (poorer regions, developing countries)
Waste dumps
Occupational hazards
Crowding out of environmental space: global
warming/climate change?
b) Access to environmental resources
– Wilderness syndrome and unmitigated
displacements
[Conservation refugees – revisit
Mark Dowie article]
– Commercialization of Forest
– Privatization of water
c) Interaction of both exposure to
risks and denial access to resources
• Oil and mining companies and the rights
of indigenous/local populations
• Exposure to wildlife hazards [humanwildlife conflict]
Human-wildlife conflict
7/9/2004
Lions invade
Village hit by famine
12/11/2004
30/10/2004
Jumbos destroy
school property
Stray Lion kills
50 animals
14/10/2004
15/7/2004
Two are in
hospital
after buffalo
attack
Woman
trampled to
death by
stray jumbo
10/10/2004
Jumbos injure
school girl
13/11/2003
Farmer Killed by
rogue elephant
2/5/2002
Brave moran hospitalized
after killing lion
6/6/2002
Lions Kill 54
sheep in a
night attack
1/13/2001
Farmers to
tackle
wildlife
menace
10/10/2000
Buffaloes damage crops
5/7/2000
Government
gets
ultimatum
over Jumbos
Who are the protagonists?
•
-workers vs. industry
•
- neighborhoods vs. industry
•
- rural vs. urban
•
- State [P.A; investors] vs communities
•
-? Gender ??
•
- N-S. conflict: Ozone, Rio, Basel
• [revisit U.S. senator’s claim that U.S. companies’ hurt]
Case study: Climate Change and [Perceived] Injustice:
• Problem? [global warming: rising oceans-floods- and drought]
• Responsibility?
– U.S. = 4% of the world’s population = over 20% of all global
emissions = [136 developing countries = 24%].
– Overall, richest 20% = 60% GHG, = > 80% if past
contributions considered.
• [consider: CO2, remains in the atmosphere > 100 years]
South: average U.S. citizen dumps GHG into the
atmosphere = 8 Chinese and 20 Indians.
• Evaluating injustice claims.
– Nations facing rising oceans and drought are those
least responsible.
–
– Largest contributors of GHG could gain [party to climate
problem then?].
[Vulnerability, Responsibility, Mitigation]
Competing perceptions of ‘climate (in)justice’
• 1992 Earth Summit
– common but differentiated responsibilities and respective
capabilities’’
• E.U. admission of disproportionate contribution to
problem.
• South vs. United States refused coop. unless poor
nations also took remedial measures.
• Climate negotiations:
‘‘If climate change makes our country uninhabitable, we
will march with our wet feet into your living rooms’’
(Bangladeshi rep.: Atiq Rahman).
Kyoto, 1997.
• [U.S. clamor for justice?]
– President signed Protocol in 1997;
• U.S. Senate voted 95 to 0 to block any ‘‘unfair’’ treaty that did
not include the poor nations.
– Bush administration: Kyoto process
• ‘‘unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate
change concerns’’ ; ‘‘would cause serious harm to the U.S.
economy.’’
• Developing countries—including those with intense and weak
preferences for climate stability—refused scheduled commitments
for emissions reductions in the name of fairness.
– China speaking: ‘‘In the developed world only two people ride in
a car, and yet you want us to give up riding on a bus.’’ [narratives
on injustice]
III] Conceptual difficulties –problem of what is the evidence
on environmental (in)justice?
• Limitations of founding studies [U.S. env. racism]
– Ahistorical
– Questionable measure of social class [race or class]
– Epidemiological linkage
• What what to measure
• what should be the standard of comparison
• whether and how particular groups will be affected
• “Problem’ of consent [cf. politics of choice in FP,
prostitution, sexual orientation]
– Domestic: tribal landfills
– International/domestic trade in hazardous waste
IV) How can erosion of environmental justice be contained?
a) What facilitates Env. Injustice?
• Poverty
– Commodification of rights
• Balance of power politics
– affected groups are minorities and poor [no
public policy salience].
– collective action problems
• Mismanaged affluence [as a matter of
course; necessity not sacrifice].
b) What can be done?
• Political process
– criminalize unregulated disposal [national and
international]
• U.S. 1994 President’s Executive Order
– trade sanctions/restrictions
• Basel and Bamako conventions
– civic consciousness  C.A. Problem, hence electoral
connection [P.A; Investors; dumping?]
– Incentives to industry for innovations in waste
reduction tech.
– ?? sabotage/protests/civil disobedience [Warren
County, N.C.; Niger Delta]
b) What can be done?
• Market – consumer power to alienate culprits
– unfair, but legal labor standards.
– corporations involved in displacements of peoples
– tourism [human-wildlife conflict-but beneficiaries of
wilderness!]
b) What can be done?
• Social engineering:
– Adjustment of values
“the excessive use of nature and its resources in the
North is a principal block to greater justice in the
world. . . . A retreat of the rich from over consumption
is thus a necessary first step towards allowing space for
improvement of the lives of an increasing number of
people.”[ Wuppertal Institute for Climate,
Environment, and Energy, in Wuppertal, Germany]