Toxic Racism: The Struggle for Environmental Justice
•
2 gostaram•3,924 visualizações
The environmental justice movement & the principles of environmental justice
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Toxic Racism: The Struggle for Environmental Justice
Semelhante a Toxic Racism: The Struggle for Environmental Justice (20)
Mais de Craig Collins, Ph.D.
Mais de Craig Collins, Ph.D. (20)
Último
Último (20)
Toxic Racism: The Struggle for Environmental Justice
- 1. Craig Collins, Ph.D. ©
- 2. Can be defined as: "Any government or industry ac3on, or failure to act, that has a nega3ve environmental impact which dispropor3onately harms (whether inten3onal or not) individuals, groups, or communi3es based on race or color."
- 3. 3 Forms of Inequity (unfairness) #1) Geographic Inequity: DiscriminaBon in the placement of environmental hazards in predominantly non-‐white, poor locaBons: minority communiBes, NaBve American land, poor countries. LULUs (locally unwanted land uses: i.e., landfills, incinerators, lead smelters, refineries, etc.) are NOT randomly scaOered around the country. They are concentrated in areas with high minority populaBons, low incomes & low property values. • Incinerators located in communi1es with: 89% more non-‐whites than na1onal avg.; 15% lower income; 38% lower property values. • Health & Risk assessment data collected for permiGng LULUs do not take into account cumulaBve impact & synergisBc effect of mul1ple toxin exposures in one community. • Examples: Altgeld Gardens Housing Project (S. Chicago); Bronx (Hunts Point); San Francisco (Hunter’s Point); KeXleman City; West Dallas; “Cancer Alley” (Lousiana); Indian reserva1ons.
- 4. #2) Procedural Inequity Unfair, discriminatory procedures for making & enforcing environmental rules, regulaBons & laws. White/Anglo communiBes see faster acBon, beOer results & sBffer penalBes against polluters than non-‐white communiBes. • Public hearings (& documents) are o^en only in English. • Penal1es for hazardous waste viola1ons averaged 500% higher in white communi1es. • For all federal environmental laws penal1es were 46% higher in white communi1es. • Superfund sites: minority communi1es 20% longer to get listed; in non-‐ white communi1es, containment chosen 7% more o^en than full cleanup; in white communi1es, full cleanup 22% more than containment.
- 5. #3) Occupa<onal/Social Inequity The discriminatory toxic impact of racial, class, ethnic, cultural biases & power imbalances upon the jobs, homes, schools & communiBes of lower classes & people of color. • Minori1es & the poor are exposed to more environmental hazards in their jobs (farm workers, heavy industry, etc.); homes (old homes, lead); schools (nearer to LULU’s—WTI incinerator, High St.); communi1es (more air polluted neighborhoods —near freeways); food (fish in bay; food deserts; malnutri1on).
- 6. 5 Principles of Environmental JusBce 1) Guarantee the right to environmental protecBon • Ins1tute a "Fair Environmental Protec1on Act" modeled on Civil Rights Acts. It should address intended & unintended (de jure & de facto) consequences of public policies & industrial prac1ces that have disparate impact on minori1es & other vulnerable groups. Guarantee equal protec1on under all environmental laws. 2) Prevent harm before it occurs • Environmental Impact Statements (NEPA) should examine disparate impacts on vulnerable communi1es. 3) Shi] the burden of proof to polluters • All en11es applying for opera1ng permits that would produce pollu1on (landfills, incinerators, refineries, etc.) must prove that their opera1ons will not dispropor1onately affect vulnerable & already over-‐exposed popula1ons. 4) Redress exisBng inequiBes • Dispropor1onate impacts on minori1es & the poor must be redressed by targe1ng policy, ac1on & resources to clean up the most polluted communi1es & improve the health of those living under these condi1ons. 5) ELIMINATE THE INTENT STANDARD • The law must allow disparate impact & staBsBcal weight to infer discriminaBon (regardless of proof of intent). Proving purposeful intent is next to impossible & basically irrelevant to those suffering its outcomes.
- 7. The Intent Standard The Intent Standard (established by the 1976 Supreme Court decision Washington v. Davis) requires plainBffs to prove a perpetrator’s discriminatory “intent” in order to win an anB-‐ discriminaBon claim. However, because contemporary discrimina1on is frequently structural in nature, unconscious, and/or hidden behind pretexts, the showing of “intent” becomes a nearly impossible burden for plain1ffs. • Environmental Jus1ce advocates believe the courts should strike down the intent standard & replace it with the disparate impact standard, requiring plain1ffs to prove that a policy or ac1on causes dispropor1onate harm, o^en through sta1s1cal evidence.