Schools of Thought

1. Environmental Injustice: Are There Patterns to Pollution? Jason Donoghue Mesquite Junior High School – Gilbert, AZ What Is Environmental Injustice? Schools of Thought Impact on Children Technology • Over the years new types of technology have been utilized to assist researchers in measuring exposure levels, and potential hazardous impacts a specifics type of pollutant might have. When looking at a nine county area surrounding Philadelphia, Diane Sicotte & Samantha Swanson used the EPA’s new Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI), to determine if there were any connections between the worst pollution facilities and racial/ethnic minorities, and those on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Below is a map showing their findings. The dark cluster at the center is the city of Philadelphia, in which you can see a lower proportion of white population but the highest concentration of the worst polluting facilities. • RSEI facilities release pollutants into air, water, and land. • The forgotten victims in all of this are the children that live in these areas, especially the children at the early development and adolescent stage, who may not be able to be heard on these issues. “Lanphear et al. (2006) argue that regulations to protect children from exposure to environmental hazards are necessary” (Paulson, 2006). • Children have little if any voice when it comes to where their parents choose to move them, and have no voice at all when it comes to speaking out about the pollution that they may be exposed to. This is of critical importance when it comes to environmental injustice because children living in areas that may be receiving an inequitable amount of pollution are going to be at greater risk for the following medical conditions: • Increased frequency and severity of asthma attacks • Chronic obstructive disease • Increased respiratory problems • Increased respiratory hospital admissions • Increased daily mortality Environmental justice (also called injustice, or inequity) is a phrase that began being used several years ago in the 1980s after attention began to be placed on factories and industrial areas that were being investigated for purposefully locating themselves in areas due to their proximity to minority populations and areas that economically might be struggling. The question has been argued for years after, do these companies seek these areas out hoping to find less resistance to the toxic materials they house, transport or release into the air? • Throughout the research over the past 20 plus years studies have come up with several different factors, or potential causes of injustice or inequity, however none of which has proven or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not injustice purposefully occurs, or that it is the result of other factors. Below are some of the theories or explanations that have been developed over the years: • Indirect vs. Direct discrimination: • Direct Discrimination – Sites were placed knowing that they would have a negative impact, and were placed purposefully in minority or lower socio-economic neighborhoods. • Indirect Discrimination - Exposure that people are receiving are due to factors beyond the control of the polluting facility. • Minority Move-In: • This is the theory that the populations in areas that contain polluting facilities moved in after the facility was already placed there due to falling land and property values as a result of the site. • Race vs. Income: • Those that have agree that siting of these sites is disproportionate to other areas tend take one of two stances on why the sites were placed where they were. One camp believes that race plays a larger role, while the other believes income is a greater indicator of whether or not a site would be placed in a neighborhood. Conclusions History The main conclusion that can be taken away from this research is that even though there are disagreements amongst researchers, most all agree that injustice does occur and in most cases it is unfortunately tied to race and/income levels of a community. The biggest takeaway that most researchers agree on is that more research is needed, and that all of the different lines of research needs to be streamlined. It is apparent that people are looking at this issue from several different angles, the problem is that there is no standardized way to quantify how one looks at injustice, or measures levels of toxicity. Until some way of standardizing how injustice is measured, or looked at is developed there will always be arguments of who is at fault and who should be responsible. The national spotlight was placed on this issue over 20 years ago beginning with a national look at the issue by looking at where Superfund waste sites were placed around the country and the demographics of the zip codes in which they were located or in close proximity to. “In 1987 the United Church of Christ (UCC) published the results of research that looked at all uncontrolled toxic waste sites in the United States. They found that CERCLIS [Superfund] sites were most often located in zip codes where the population was disproportionately Black and poor.” (Hogan & Stretesky, 1998) 7th Grade Curriculum Connection Types of Injustice People usually equate pollution with toxic releases into the air, however when looking at the issue if injustice it becomes apparent that there are many other realms in which people might be facing hazardous materials in other forms than just through the air. One such situation is how hazardous materials are transported. Below is a map that displays the hazardous waste spills that have occurred during transportation in the Los Angeles area, in relation to the distribution of minority population. Key References With the seventh grade standards for the state of Arizona we are required to cover the period of industrialization and immigration in the late 1800’s and early 1900s. During this time immigrants faced discrimination in many forms, from the conditions they were forced to work in, to the places they had to live. What happened to these immigrants, specifically the conditions and places they had to live could be something that the students can compare to what appears to be happening to minorities or areas that have a low socioeconomic status in our world today. • Ash, M., and Fetter, T. R. (2004). Who Lives on the Wrong Side of the Environmental Tracks? Evidence from the EPA’s Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model. Social Science Quarterly 85 (2): 441-462. • Fox, Maryanne. “Mother fears ‘stinky’ neighborhood’ caused son’s cancer.” CNN.com. 19 October 2007. 22 October 2007. <http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/18/poor.environment/index.html>. • Hogan, M. J., & Stretesky, P. (1998). Environmental Justice: An Analysis of Superfund Sites in Florida. Social Problems. 45 (2): 268-287. • Metzger, R., Delgado, J. L., Herrell, R. (1995). Environmental Health and Hispanic Children. Environmental Health Perspectives. 103 (6): 25-32. • Paulson, J. A. (2006). An Exploration of Ethical Issues in Research in Children’s Health and the Environment. Environmental Health Perspectives. 114 (10): 1603-1608 • Schweitzer, L. (2007). Environmental justice and hazmat transport: A spatial analysis of southern California. Transportation Research. (11): 408-421. • Sicotte, D., and Swanson, S. (2007). Whose Risk in Philadelphia? Proximity to Unequally Hazardous Industrial Facilities. Social Science Quarterly. 88 (2): 515-534. Today 8th Grade Curriculum Connection One story in 2007 brought this issue back into the spotlight. A specific case involving a young boy and his mother from Texas caught the attention of reporters, and their story appeared on CNN, and in an article on CNN.com. The story talks about six-year old Valentin Marroquin, who was a healthy vibrant young boy, and for apparently no reason became quite ill. Doctors diagnosed him with leukemia. There seemed to be no logical explanation for what happened to Valentin, who before this appeared to be in perfect health. His mother began to seek out answers and continually came back to where they lived. The Marroquin’s resided in a Houston suburb that was located on the shipping channel where “Day after day, oil refineries and petrochemical companies pump hazardous pollutants, including known cancer-causing chemicals like benzene and 1-3 butadiene, into the air.” (Fox, 2007) Our forefathers wrote the Declaration of Independence solidifying our stance on a desire to become a free country and throw off rule by the British monarchy for several reasons, one of the most apparent was their belief that a government serves the people, and one of its primary roles is to protect its citizens, and their natural rights. Their argument for this “break-up” from England was that the monarchy and parliament was no longer protecting the rights of those living in the colonies. Is the government serving its purpose as the forefathers had intended when it comes to citizens that might be living in an area where factories are storing, transporting or releasing toxic materials? This is a question that can be posed to the class during a unit on government. Specifically discussing the roles and responsibilities of government and citizens.