Environmental Justice

1. Environmental Justice

2. 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

3. 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”.

4. 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.

5. 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]

6. 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?

7. b) Access to environmental resources • Wilderness syndrome and unmitigated displacements [Conservation refugees – revisit Mark Dowie article] • Commercialization of Forest • Privatization of water

8. 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 [human-wildlife conflict]

9. 7/9/2004 Lions invade Village hit by famine 12/11/2004 Jumbos destroy school property 30/10/2004 Stray Lion kills 50 animals 14/10/2004 Two are in hospital after buffalo attack 15/7/2004 Woman trampled to death by stray jumbo 10/10/2004 Jumbos injure school girl 13/11/2003 Farmer Killed by rogue elephant 6/6/2002 Lions Kill 54 sheep in a night attack 2/5/2002 Brave moran hospitalized after killing lion 1/13/2001 Farmers to tackle wildlife menace 10/10/2000 Buffaloes damage crops 5/7/2000 Government gets ultimatum over Jumbos 24/1/1999 Residents told to shoot rampaging elephants 3/13/1999 Elephants wreak havoc in Nyeri farms Human-wildlife conflict

10. 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]

11. 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]

12. 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).

13. 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 • ‘‘unfairand ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns’’ ; ‘‘would cause serious harmto 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]

14. 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

15. 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].

16. 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]

17. 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!]

18. 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]