The environmental justice movement begun in the local areas, empowered by those impacted by particular social and environmental inequalitites within geographically small local regions bringing together the civil rights movements with the environmental movement. Whereas the national environmental movements fail to consider the individuals at the local level.
More...
While these national organizations have had some push on environmental changes and influencing the EPA and I do not beleive it is easy to directly blame one particular entity for the commodification of pollution, but more of a failure of the freemarket and outcome of the privatization of waste services and the nature of capitalism. Although many forms of pollution do not directly impact the area where the pollution is being "created" instead they are sent off somewhere further away, where the poor minorities are still being impacted. Particular legal acts have cleaned many visible source pollutions, but still they fail to acknowledge the inequalities within the relocation of pollution.
Particular risk factors are important to take into account, the author questions the political systems ability to fairly distribute risk factors, and that localities should have more control over what takes place within their locale, rather than just a yes or no ultimatum. There are a few lines that hit me as being right at the heart of the authors argument; "there has been insufficient attention given to the role of capitalist production in producing these risks in the first place."
My interpretation may not be accurate, or I may be missing something, but to me it seems that, among many other points within the article the author is trying to make, at the heart of it all is the inability for capitalism to embrace healthy social conditions for as many as possible, and is willing to accept unhealthy environments for its poor and minorities so long as there is a profit.
The author goes into a great deal of history with the development of manufacturing within the United States as well as the commodification and profitability of natural resources.
s)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Risk and Justice
In response to environmental justice studies that document the uneven distribution of environmental risk and the current focus of policy on pollution control, Field argues the origination of environmental risks in the economic system of capitalist production which should be addressed in a more democratic system that focuses on pollution prevention rather than control. He offers three perspectives on environmental justice research: risk, fairness and capitalist production. All three are interrelated, but each has different political implications. Risk is the basis of the current U.S. system in which the state serves as the regulator. This system poses two questions: what is the acceptable level of risk and what controls can be imposed so that pollution does not exceed the limits. This system ignores the reason why pollution exists in the first place.
Although environmental justice studies have documented the uneven distribution of risk to poor and minority communities and the fairness in siting, they fail to link this inequality to the production practices that produce and shape the distribution of pollution. This connection is demonstrated by an analysis of where, what and how pollution is produced and moved. The spatial element of pollution production is determined by the decision of industry to locate production in proximity of natural resources for extraction or in the urban landscape. This unequally distributes environmental risk to the people in nearby communities who are primarily poor and minority.
Extraction industries are encouraged by government incentives that make depleting natural resources more profitable than more environmentally sound alternatives. Native American communities typically bear the environmental burden due to the rich mineral deposits on their land that attracts these industries. Throughout history, non-extractive industries have typically located production in urban areas which, through advances in technology and suburbanization, have become dominantly poor and minority communities. These communities have low property values and less political power which make them the prime target for industry production and. People in these communities are not financially able to relocate and thus are forced to bear the burden of historical and present contamination and pollution.
The second point of the analysis is how the production process determines how much and what type of pollution is being produced. The post-war mass production economy introduced thousands of new toxic chemicals and synthetic materials to decrease the costs of labor and subsequently produced mass amounts of toxic waste to be disposed in the surrounding communities that are primarily poor and minority. Field argues that any supposed benefits of synthetics does not make up for the “impact of the 200-300 million tons of hazardous waste generated in the process [that] is borne by the 3,000 or so local communities which host the facilities which treat, store and dispose of most toxic waste” (86).
Neglecting the connection of environmental risk to the production process has led to current regulations to control pollution by capturing waste. As a result, industrial waste has been commodified and distributed to hazardous waste sites primarily located in poor and minority communities. Current policy ignores the ways that this system worsens the burden on these communities and fails to properly regulate contaminants. Scientific studies of ‘risk’ are prevented by the constant introduction of new chemicals that make it nearly impossible to determine the harmful types and levels of pollutants.
Another policy failure is its limitations of the political participation of local communities in environmental decisions, such as the siting of waste disposal facilities. Pollution prevention would be a more appropriate response than pollution control because it attacks the root of the problem rather than displacing it. Prevention legislation does exist, but only as voluntary provisions. Another solution is to increase participation of local citizens in the administrative process as they are the ones most affected by these policies and processes. The link between government and industry and the limited role of the people in the decision-making process prevents policy from moving forward to preventative measures. Pollution prevention costs more than pollution control and does not generate ‘enough’ profit for industry. It is simply bad for business. This is similar to how pharmaceutical companies will not manufacture curative medicine or will halt research that is close to finding a cure for a disease or condition. In both cases, capital trumps the livihood of the people. Treatment is more profitable than a cure, just as cap and trade is more profitable than prevention.
Although environmental justice studies have documented the uneven distribution of risk to poor and minority communities and the fairness in siting, they fail to link this inequality to the production practices that produce and shape the distribution of pollution. This connection is demonstrated by an analysis of where, what and how pollution is produced and moved. The spatial element of pollution production is determined by the decision of industry to locate production in proximity of natural resources for extraction or in the urban landscape. This unequally distributes environmental risk to the people in nearby communities who are primarily poor and minority.
Extraction industries are encouraged by government incentives that make depleting natural resources more profitable than more environmentally sound alternatives. Native American communities typically bear the environmental burden due to the rich mineral deposits on their land that attracts these industries. Throughout history, non-extractive industries have typically located production in urban areas which, through advances in technology and suburbanization, have become dominantly poor and minority communities. These communities have low property values and less political power which make them the prime target for industry production and. People in these communities are not financially able to relocate and thus are forced to bear the burden of historical and present contamination and pollution.
The second point of the analysis is how the production process determines how much and what type of pollution is being produced. The post-war mass production economy introduced thousands of new toxic chemicals and synthetic materials to decrease the costs of labor and subsequently produced mass amounts of toxic waste to be disposed in the surrounding communities that are primarily poor and minority. Field argues that any supposed benefits of synthetics does not make up for the “impact of the 200-300 million tons of hazardous waste generated in the process [that] is borne by the 3,000 or so local communities which host the facilities which treat, store and dispose of most toxic waste” (86).
Neglecting the connection of environmental risk to the production process has led to current regulations to control pollution by capturing waste. As a result, industrial waste has been commodified and distributed to hazardous waste sites primarily located in poor and minority communities. Current policy ignores the ways that this system worsens the burden on these communities and fails to properly regulate contaminants. Scientific studies of ‘risk’ are prevented by the constant introduction of new chemicals that make it nearly impossible to determine the harmful types and levels of pollutants.
Another policy failure is its limitations of the political participation of local communities in environmental decisions, such as the siting of waste disposal facilities. Pollution prevention would be a more appropriate response than pollution control because it attacks the root of the problem rather than displacing it. Prevention legislation does exist, but only as voluntary provisions. Another solution is to increase participation of local citizens in the administrative process as they are the ones most affected by these policies and processes. The link between government and industry and the limited role of the people in the decision-making process prevents policy from moving forward to preventative measures. Pollution prevention costs more than pollution control and does not generate ‘enough’ profit for industry. It is simply bad for business. This is similar to how pharmaceutical companies will not manufacture curative medicine or will halt research that is close to finding a cure for a disease or condition. In both cases, capital trumps the livihood of the people. Treatment is more profitable than a cure, just as cap and trade is more profitable than prevention.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Risk and Justice (Field)
In the introduction to the article, Field provides an overview of environmental risk, which he describes as local—pollution affecting real people in unique situations. He asserts that many analyses of risk focus on political control of pollution rather than the original source, economic power. We must understand how current production processes create and spread pollution. One of the primary problems is that current environmental regulations focus on control of pollution rather than prevention. In addition, citizens affected by industrial pollution should have more power in the administrative process.
More...
Field then provides a brief history of the environmental justice movement. The author cites Jane Addams and the Hull House activists as the first organization similar to the environmental justice movement, pointing out that environmental justice leaders are often women as well. There methods have redefined the “environment” as the place where people live, rather than objective nature untouched by humans. The mostly middle class environmental movement often used to interfere with civil rights movements by taking attention away from them, but now they are allies via the environmental justice movement, as became apparent in 1982 when both groups protested pollution dumping in a poor black community in North-Carolina. Thus environmental justice advocates have espoused the belief that “environmental concerns are not separate from other social issues” (p.71). In fact, they have found that hazardous waste disposal disproportionately affects minority and poor communities. A 1987 study found that 3/5 of African Americans and Latinos live near hazardous waste sites. Another study found that the same is true regarding air pollution. The EPA has acknowledged such findings but still claims that it does not prove that pollution among minority communities is the cause for their greater number of health problems. A particularly startling statistic is that 70% of low-income African American children have blood lead levels higher than the threshold established by the Centers for Disease Control. Clearly, something is wrong with this situation.
The author provides three theoretical perspectives to analyze this issue. The first is through risk, the second through political fairness, and the third through production. The author provides the following definition of risk: “the concept which delineates the boundary between the legitimate authority of the government to act in matters of health and safety and illegitimate interference with private property” (p.75). The goal of environmental risk is to determine the acceptable level of risk and what should be done to keep pollution within those boundaries. Therefore EJ activists must prove that minorities and poor communities receive more pollution scientifically. However, many still argue that elevated health problems in these communities are merely due to “life style” choices. The second perspective, fairness in the political system, has two interpretations. Some see unequal pollution as proof of institutional racism and classism in the government, while others argue that the economy has a large role as well. While the author agrees that risk and fairness are important components of EJ, he believes that previous analyses have tended to neglect the role of production as the source of unequal pollution.
Field cites three ways in which production plays a huge role in the disproportionate distribution of pollution. First, production influences the physical location of the industry. For example, if production requires the extraction of a natural resource, the location will depend on where the resource is available. (As a side note, I found it interesting/terrible that extraction companies, such as mining companies, receive encouragement from the government in the form of tax breaks). For non-extractive industries, the situation is a bit more complex. Field provides a historical description, mentioning the invention of railroads and cars, which altered the urban landscape by allowing local companies to become national ones. The author explains that in the past, activists (and local governments) had little power to reduce pollution, so they focused on sanitation, clean drinking water, paving, building parks, etc. instead while pollution went unregulated. He provided a description of the layout of industrial cities. In a typical industrial city, a commercial core was surrounded by factories, which were surrounded by workers’ housing, with wealthy residents forming an outer ring. Thus more poor residents were located closer to the polluting factories. In addition, those who could afford it moved as far as they could from the source of the pollution, further stratifying people by wealth in relation to pollution proximity. Eventually suburbs developed and the concentric model broke down into patches of industrial and residential neighborhoods and with suburbs interspersed. However, some could not afford to move. These poor people, often minorities, still live in close proximities to these original industrial sites. In addition, factories moving elsewhere search for cheap property (and cheap labor) in communities without much power, landing them amongst the lower classes.
The second way production influences the disproportionate distribution of pollution is through the type of pollution emitted. For one, mass production economy guarantees more pollution (which is disproportionately allocated to poor and minority communities, for reasons explained above). In addition, since WWII, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of synthetic materials over natural materials and the use of new chemicals (e.g. pesticides in agriculture with a simultaneous reduction in labor).
Finally the third way production influences the disproportionate distribution of pollution is by affecting how pollution travels to vulnerable communities, often across borders. Ironically, the new environmental laws in the 1970s had a negative effect on the spread of pollution. In an attempt to abide by the new Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, industries began burying their waste, producing land pollution, usually in areas occupied by minorities and the lower classes, of course. Companies began to arise and consolidate exclusively for the purpose of industrial waste disposal. Thus companies with no physical ties to a factory could be in charge of disposing of its industrial waste, allowing the waste to be spread to other areas, states, and even countries. (In this section, I was most disturbed to read that companies can buy and sell the right to emit pollution!)
Field explains that because environmental laws are designed to control pollution rather than prevent it, industrial waste continues to end up in poor and minority regions through waste disposal corporations. In addition, the state is responsible for dealing with the pollution rather than the producers, namely industry. Field names the “common thread” of these issues to be “the failure to assert effective control over the processes of production” (p. 89).
Finally, Field asserts that current environmental policy ignores the effects of production on environmental risk in two ways. First, its focus on control rather than prevention places a larger burden on poor and minority communities. In addition, so many chemicals are being introduced that it is impossible to keep up with determining which ones are dangerous and at what levels, not to mention putting these regulations into widespread practice. Second, citizens near industry have little voice in the environmental decision-making process. From these two failures, Field’s suggestions seem obvious. First, he suggests that we move toward a system based upon pollution prevention rather than control, implying more state involvement with the means of production. Second, he calls for more citizen participation in decision-making. For this second suggestion, two things are necessary. First, citizens must have access to information about the pollution types and levels of the factories they live near. Second, citizens should have a defined role in the decision-making process, such as a community vote on economic decisions affecting the community.
More...
Field then provides a brief history of the environmental justice movement. The author cites Jane Addams and the Hull House activists as the first organization similar to the environmental justice movement, pointing out that environmental justice leaders are often women as well. There methods have redefined the “environment” as the place where people live, rather than objective nature untouched by humans. The mostly middle class environmental movement often used to interfere with civil rights movements by taking attention away from them, but now they are allies via the environmental justice movement, as became apparent in 1982 when both groups protested pollution dumping in a poor black community in North-Carolina. Thus environmental justice advocates have espoused the belief that “environmental concerns are not separate from other social issues” (p.71). In fact, they have found that hazardous waste disposal disproportionately affects minority and poor communities. A 1987 study found that 3/5 of African Americans and Latinos live near hazardous waste sites. Another study found that the same is true regarding air pollution. The EPA has acknowledged such findings but still claims that it does not prove that pollution among minority communities is the cause for their greater number of health problems. A particularly startling statistic is that 70% of low-income African American children have blood lead levels higher than the threshold established by the Centers for Disease Control. Clearly, something is wrong with this situation.
The author provides three theoretical perspectives to analyze this issue. The first is through risk, the second through political fairness, and the third through production. The author provides the following definition of risk: “the concept which delineates the boundary between the legitimate authority of the government to act in matters of health and safety and illegitimate interference with private property” (p.75). The goal of environmental risk is to determine the acceptable level of risk and what should be done to keep pollution within those boundaries. Therefore EJ activists must prove that minorities and poor communities receive more pollution scientifically. However, many still argue that elevated health problems in these communities are merely due to “life style” choices. The second perspective, fairness in the political system, has two interpretations. Some see unequal pollution as proof of institutional racism and classism in the government, while others argue that the economy has a large role as well. While the author agrees that risk and fairness are important components of EJ, he believes that previous analyses have tended to neglect the role of production as the source of unequal pollution.
Field cites three ways in which production plays a huge role in the disproportionate distribution of pollution. First, production influences the physical location of the industry. For example, if production requires the extraction of a natural resource, the location will depend on where the resource is available. (As a side note, I found it interesting/terrible that extraction companies, such as mining companies, receive encouragement from the government in the form of tax breaks). For non-extractive industries, the situation is a bit more complex. Field provides a historical description, mentioning the invention of railroads and cars, which altered the urban landscape by allowing local companies to become national ones. The author explains that in the past, activists (and local governments) had little power to reduce pollution, so they focused on sanitation, clean drinking water, paving, building parks, etc. instead while pollution went unregulated. He provided a description of the layout of industrial cities. In a typical industrial city, a commercial core was surrounded by factories, which were surrounded by workers’ housing, with wealthy residents forming an outer ring. Thus more poor residents were located closer to the polluting factories. In addition, those who could afford it moved as far as they could from the source of the pollution, further stratifying people by wealth in relation to pollution proximity. Eventually suburbs developed and the concentric model broke down into patches of industrial and residential neighborhoods and with suburbs interspersed. However, some could not afford to move. These poor people, often minorities, still live in close proximities to these original industrial sites. In addition, factories moving elsewhere search for cheap property (and cheap labor) in communities without much power, landing them amongst the lower classes.
The second way production influences the disproportionate distribution of pollution is through the type of pollution emitted. For one, mass production economy guarantees more pollution (which is disproportionately allocated to poor and minority communities, for reasons explained above). In addition, since WWII, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of synthetic materials over natural materials and the use of new chemicals (e.g. pesticides in agriculture with a simultaneous reduction in labor).
Finally the third way production influences the disproportionate distribution of pollution is by affecting how pollution travels to vulnerable communities, often across borders. Ironically, the new environmental laws in the 1970s had a negative effect on the spread of pollution. In an attempt to abide by the new Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, industries began burying their waste, producing land pollution, usually in areas occupied by minorities and the lower classes, of course. Companies began to arise and consolidate exclusively for the purpose of industrial waste disposal. Thus companies with no physical ties to a factory could be in charge of disposing of its industrial waste, allowing the waste to be spread to other areas, states, and even countries. (In this section, I was most disturbed to read that companies can buy and sell the right to emit pollution!)
Field explains that because environmental laws are designed to control pollution rather than prevent it, industrial waste continues to end up in poor and minority regions through waste disposal corporations. In addition, the state is responsible for dealing with the pollution rather than the producers, namely industry. Field names the “common thread” of these issues to be “the failure to assert effective control over the processes of production” (p. 89).
Finally, Field asserts that current environmental policy ignores the effects of production on environmental risk in two ways. First, its focus on control rather than prevention places a larger burden on poor and minority communities. In addition, so many chemicals are being introduced that it is impossible to keep up with determining which ones are dangerous and at what levels, not to mention putting these regulations into widespread practice. Second, citizens near industry have little voice in the environmental decision-making process. From these two failures, Field’s suggestions seem obvious. First, he suggests that we move toward a system based upon pollution prevention rather than control, implying more state involvement with the means of production. Second, he calls for more citizen participation in decision-making. For this second suggestion, two things are necessary. First, citizens must have access to information about the pollution types and levels of the factories they live near. Second, citizens should have a defined role in the decision-making process, such as a community vote on economic decisions affecting the community.
Risk and Justice (Field)
In the introduction to the article, Field provides an overview of environmental risk, which he describes as local—pollution affecting real people in unique situations. He asserts that many analyses of risk focus on political control of pollution rather than the original source, economic power. We must understand how current production processes create and spread pollution. One of the primary problems is that current environmental regulations focus on control of pollution rather than prevention. In addition, citizens affected by industrial pollution should have more power in the administrative process.
More...
Field then provides a brief history of the environmental justice movement. The author cites Jane Addams and the Hull House activists as the first organization similar to the environmental justice movement, pointing out that environmental justice leaders are often women as well. There methods have redefined the “environment” as the place where people live, rather than objective nature untouched by humans. The mostly middle class environmental movement often used to interfere with civil rights movements by taking attention away from them, but now they are allies via the environmental justice movement, as became apparent in 1982 when both groups protested pollution dumping in a poor black community in North-Carolina. Thus environmental justice advocates have espoused the belief that “environmental concerns are not separate from other social issues” (p.71). In fact, they have found that hazardous waste disposal disproportionately affects minority and poor communities. A 1987 study found that 3/5 of African Americans and Latinos live near hazardous waste sites. Another study found that the same is true regarding air pollution. The EPA has acknowledged such findings but still claims that it does not prove that pollution among minority communities is the cause for their greater number of health problems. A particularly startling statistic is that 70% of low-income African American children have blood lead levels higher than the threshold established by the Centers for Disease Control. Clearly, something is wrong with this situation.
The author provides three theoretical perspectives to analyze this issue. The first is through risk, the second through political fairness, and the third through production. The author provides the following definition of risk: “the concept which delineates the boundary between the legitimate authority of the government to act in matters of health and safety and illegitimate interference with private property” (p.75). The goal of environmental risk is to determine the acceptable level of risk and what should be done to keep pollution within those boundaries. Therefore EJ activists must prove that minorities and poor communities receive more pollution scientifically. However, many still argue that elevated health problems in these communities are merely due to “life style” choices. The second perspective, fairness in the political system, has two interpretations. Some see unequal pollution as proof of institutional racism and classism in the government, while others argue that the economy has a large role as well. While the author agrees that risk and fairness are important components of EJ, he believes that previous analyses have tended to neglect the role of production as the source of unequal pollution.
Field cites three ways in which production plays a huge role in the disproportionate distribution of pollution. First, production influences the physical location of the industry. For example, if production requires the extraction of a natural resource, the location will depend on where the resource is available. (As a side note, I found it interesting/terrible that extraction companies, such as mining companies, receive encouragement from the government in the form of tax breaks). For non-extractive industries, the situation is a bit more complex. Field provides a historical description, mentioning the invention of railroads and cars, which altered the urban landscape by allowing local companies to become national ones. The author explains that in the past, activists (and local governments) had little power to reduce pollution, so they focused on sanitation, clean drinking water, paving, building parks, etc. instead while pollution went unregulated. He provided a description of the layout of industrial cities. In a typical industrial city, a commercial core was surrounded by factories, which were surrounded by workers’ housing, with wealthy residents forming an outer ring. Thus more poor residents were located closer to the polluting factories. In addition, those who could afford it moved as far as they could from the source of the pollution, further stratifying people by wealth in relation to pollution proximity. Eventually suburbs developed and the concentric model broke down into patches of industrial and residential neighborhoods and with suburbs interspersed. However, some could not afford to move. These poor people, often minorities, still live in close proximities to these original industrial sites. In addition, factories moving elsewhere search for cheap property (and cheap labor) in communities without much power, landing them amongst the lower classes.
The second way production influences the disproportionate distribution of pollution is through the type of pollution emitted. For one, mass production economy guarantees more pollution (which is disproportionately allocated to poor and minority communities, for reasons explained above). In addition, since WWII, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of synthetic materials over natural materials and the use of new chemicals (e.g. pesticides in agriculture with a simultaneous reduction in labor).
Finally the third way production influences the disproportionate distribution of pollution is by affecting how pollution travels to vulnerable communities, often across borders. Ironically, the new environmental laws in the 1970s had a negative effect on the spread of pollution. In an attempt to abide by the new Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, industries began burying their waste, producing land pollution, usually in areas occupied by minorities and the lower classes, of course. Companies began to arise and consolidate exclusively for the purpose of industrial waste disposal. Thus companies with no physical ties to a factory could be in charge of disposing of its industrial waste, allowing the waste to be spread to other areas, states, and even countries. (In this section, I was most disturbed to read that companies can buy and sell the right to emit pollution!)
Field explains that because environmental laws are designed to control pollution rather than prevent it, industrial waste continues to end up in poor and minority regions through waste disposal corporations. In addition, the state is responsible for dealing with the pollution rather than the producers, namely industry. Field names the “common thread” of these issues to be “the failure to assert effective control over the processes of production” (p. 89).
Finally, Field asserts that current environmental policy ignores the effects of production on environmental risk in two ways. First, its focus on control rather than prevention places a larger burden on poor and minority communities. In addition, so many chemicals are being introduced that it is impossible to keep up with determining which ones are dangerous and at what levels, not to mention putting these regulations into widespread practice. Second, citizens near industry have little voice in the environmental decision-making process. From these two failures, Field’s suggestions seem obvious. First, he suggests that we move toward a system based upon pollution prevention rather than control, implying more state involvement with the means of production. Second, he calls for more citizen participation in decision-making. For this second suggestion, two things are necessary. First, citizens must have access to information about the pollution types and levels of the factories they live near. Second, citizens should have a defined role in the decision-making process, such as a community vote on economic decisions affecting the community.
More...
Field then provides a brief history of the environmental justice movement. The author cites Jane Addams and the Hull House activists as the first organization similar to the environmental justice movement, pointing out that environmental justice leaders are often women as well. There methods have redefined the “environment” as the place where people live, rather than objective nature untouched by humans. The mostly middle class environmental movement often used to interfere with civil rights movements by taking attention away from them, but now they are allies via the environmental justice movement, as became apparent in 1982 when both groups protested pollution dumping in a poor black community in North-Carolina. Thus environmental justice advocates have espoused the belief that “environmental concerns are not separate from other social issues” (p.71). In fact, they have found that hazardous waste disposal disproportionately affects minority and poor communities. A 1987 study found that 3/5 of African Americans and Latinos live near hazardous waste sites. Another study found that the same is true regarding air pollution. The EPA has acknowledged such findings but still claims that it does not prove that pollution among minority communities is the cause for their greater number of health problems. A particularly startling statistic is that 70% of low-income African American children have blood lead levels higher than the threshold established by the Centers for Disease Control. Clearly, something is wrong with this situation.
The author provides three theoretical perspectives to analyze this issue. The first is through risk, the second through political fairness, and the third through production. The author provides the following definition of risk: “the concept which delineates the boundary between the legitimate authority of the government to act in matters of health and safety and illegitimate interference with private property” (p.75). The goal of environmental risk is to determine the acceptable level of risk and what should be done to keep pollution within those boundaries. Therefore EJ activists must prove that minorities and poor communities receive more pollution scientifically. However, many still argue that elevated health problems in these communities are merely due to “life style” choices. The second perspective, fairness in the political system, has two interpretations. Some see unequal pollution as proof of institutional racism and classism in the government, while others argue that the economy has a large role as well. While the author agrees that risk and fairness are important components of EJ, he believes that previous analyses have tended to neglect the role of production as the source of unequal pollution.
Field cites three ways in which production plays a huge role in the disproportionate distribution of pollution. First, production influences the physical location of the industry. For example, if production requires the extraction of a natural resource, the location will depend on where the resource is available. (As a side note, I found it interesting/terrible that extraction companies, such as mining companies, receive encouragement from the government in the form of tax breaks). For non-extractive industries, the situation is a bit more complex. Field provides a historical description, mentioning the invention of railroads and cars, which altered the urban landscape by allowing local companies to become national ones. The author explains that in the past, activists (and local governments) had little power to reduce pollution, so they focused on sanitation, clean drinking water, paving, building parks, etc. instead while pollution went unregulated. He provided a description of the layout of industrial cities. In a typical industrial city, a commercial core was surrounded by factories, which were surrounded by workers’ housing, with wealthy residents forming an outer ring. Thus more poor residents were located closer to the polluting factories. In addition, those who could afford it moved as far as they could from the source of the pollution, further stratifying people by wealth in relation to pollution proximity. Eventually suburbs developed and the concentric model broke down into patches of industrial and residential neighborhoods and with suburbs interspersed. However, some could not afford to move. These poor people, often minorities, still live in close proximities to these original industrial sites. In addition, factories moving elsewhere search for cheap property (and cheap labor) in communities without much power, landing them amongst the lower classes.
The second way production influences the disproportionate distribution of pollution is through the type of pollution emitted. For one, mass production economy guarantees more pollution (which is disproportionately allocated to poor and minority communities, for reasons explained above). In addition, since WWII, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of synthetic materials over natural materials and the use of new chemicals (e.g. pesticides in agriculture with a simultaneous reduction in labor).
Finally the third way production influences the disproportionate distribution of pollution is by affecting how pollution travels to vulnerable communities, often across borders. Ironically, the new environmental laws in the 1970s had a negative effect on the spread of pollution. In an attempt to abide by the new Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, industries began burying their waste, producing land pollution, usually in areas occupied by minorities and the lower classes, of course. Companies began to arise and consolidate exclusively for the purpose of industrial waste disposal. Thus companies with no physical ties to a factory could be in charge of disposing of its industrial waste, allowing the waste to be spread to other areas, states, and even countries. (In this section, I was most disturbed to read that companies can buy and sell the right to emit pollution!)
Field explains that because environmental laws are designed to control pollution rather than prevent it, industrial waste continues to end up in poor and minority regions through waste disposal corporations. In addition, the state is responsible for dealing with the pollution rather than the producers, namely industry. Field names the “common thread” of these issues to be “the failure to assert effective control over the processes of production” (p. 89).
Finally, Field asserts that current environmental policy ignores the effects of production on environmental risk in two ways. First, its focus on control rather than prevention places a larger burden on poor and minority communities. In addition, so many chemicals are being introduced that it is impossible to keep up with determining which ones are dangerous and at what levels, not to mention putting these regulations into widespread practice. Second, citizens near industry have little voice in the environmental decision-making process. From these two failures, Field’s suggestions seem obvious. First, he suggests that we move toward a system based upon pollution prevention rather than control, implying more state involvement with the means of production. Second, he calls for more citizen participation in decision-making. For this second suggestion, two things are necessary. First, citizens must have access to information about the pollution types and levels of the factories they live near. Second, citizens should have a defined role in the decision-making process, such as a community vote on economic decisions affecting the community.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Risk And Environment
It seems as though Wynne has pointed out that environmental problems have been exacerbated by the scientific communities and the relation they have to environmental discourse. Technology has often been seen as infallible and the scientific community sees itself as an all knowing entity. The problem is that the scientific community has neglected the inquiries and concerns of the commoners as though they are unfounded.
More...
The other aspects are related to the grounds upon which they do this; they have a professional ego that leaves culturally relevant material such as relevant questions on safety and effectiveness of technology and innovation, these are disregarded and not to be taken seriously. This forced hierarchy causes incomplete information to be that basis for our understanding of environmental problems; the scientific community holds an ego that does not allow for outside opinion or input.
This process causes outsiders to be alienated from the process and in effect trust for the scientific community subsides. This also leads the way towards eco-skepticism; why should we trust the people that have been so wrong in the past and been so irresponsible? (Challenger, WTC). The scientific community loses any legitimacy due to the inefficiency of the past, and as a result public support for environmental change wains in a boy who cried wolf scenario.
The article proposes a change in this structure, specifically to allow for the many dynamic groups to form a coalition and have a better, multidimensional approach to environmental change. This coalition would provide relevant and diverse arguments that could be the makeup for real policy change in regards to the environment, as well as affirming the scientific community’s legitimacy in regards to environmental crises. This process would eventually lead to a more democratic diversified approach to environmental responsibility.
More...
The other aspects are related to the grounds upon which they do this; they have a professional ego that leaves culturally relevant material such as relevant questions on safety and effectiveness of technology and innovation, these are disregarded and not to be taken seriously. This forced hierarchy causes incomplete information to be that basis for our understanding of environmental problems; the scientific community holds an ego that does not allow for outside opinion or input.
This process causes outsiders to be alienated from the process and in effect trust for the scientific community subsides. This also leads the way towards eco-skepticism; why should we trust the people that have been so wrong in the past and been so irresponsible? (Challenger, WTC). The scientific community loses any legitimacy due to the inefficiency of the past, and as a result public support for environmental change wains in a boy who cried wolf scenario.
The article proposes a change in this structure, specifically to allow for the many dynamic groups to form a coalition and have a better, multidimensional approach to environmental change. This coalition would provide relevant and diverse arguments that could be the makeup for real policy change in regards to the environment, as well as affirming the scientific community’s legitimacy in regards to environmental crises. This process would eventually lead to a more democratic diversified approach to environmental responsibility.
Wynne on Risk and Environment, and Technology
Technology has become so ingrained in our culture that discussions of society often incorporate technology's influence. That's why, after discussing grassroots environmentalism (and the complications thereof) in the last few classes, we are now shifting gears toward the discussion of risk vis-a-vis technology and the environment.
More...
Wynne is concerned that discourse surrounding the assessment of technology has become a 'downstream' discourse that has focused primarily on the risks and negative environmental consequences brought on by such technology. How likely is it that such a technological advance will cause harmful consequences? If such harmful consequences do occur, how serious would the impact be? Wynne does not dismiss such critiques of technology, pointing out that these risks and impacts cannot be completely controlled.
Wynne argues that such discourse omits a great deal of important 'upstream' discussion on the use of technology, including the purpose of the technology, intended benefits, and whether questions surrounding the technology can be answered. He argues that "the definitive modern focus of public discourse on the theme of risk and insecurity alone, as if this were the universal natural meaning of the public issues involved over new sciences and technologies, is a key obstacle to any democratic impetus." In other words, he says, discussion of the risk and environmental consequences of technology are hindering the development of new technologies that would - you guessed it - be more sustainable.
More...
Wynne is concerned that discourse surrounding the assessment of technology has become a 'downstream' discourse that has focused primarily on the risks and negative environmental consequences brought on by such technology. How likely is it that such a technological advance will cause harmful consequences? If such harmful consequences do occur, how serious would the impact be? Wynne does not dismiss such critiques of technology, pointing out that these risks and impacts cannot be completely controlled.
Wynne argues that such discourse omits a great deal of important 'upstream' discussion on the use of technology, including the purpose of the technology, intended benefits, and whether questions surrounding the technology can be answered. He argues that "the definitive modern focus of public discourse on the theme of risk and insecurity alone, as if this were the universal natural meaning of the public issues involved over new sciences and technologies, is a key obstacle to any democratic impetus." In other words, he says, discussion of the risk and environmental consequences of technology are hindering the development of new technologies that would - you guessed it - be more sustainable.
Risk and Enivironment as Discourses of Technology
In the article Risk and the Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology, Brian Wynne discusses the concerns with the highly quantitative and reductive critique on risk assessment. Risk assessment can be known as the objective evaluations of the uncertainties and assumptions that risk promote. The evaluations and assumption that are presented are then examined and considered.
More...
Wynne discusses the technological discourses in which lack of full control in the technologies instrumental culture is normal and can lead to unpredictable consequences. Some of theses technological controversies include the Challenger and World Trade Center tragedies and have been seen in ambiguous way in the results and consequences developed by technology. Belief of public knowledge for policy needs to be not only true but very clear even if this results in the harsh truth (460). The environmental and risk critiques of the past years have reviewed the constitutive organizations that are known to be the guardians of the public interest when dealing with science and technology. Because of the complex relationship and interaction of humans and nature there seems to be a great deal of ambiguity and openness of meaning with the issues of technology and epistemic scientific knowledge.
The problem with risk and the environment, which tie into the culture of technology, produce essential challenges to human subjects. As a result we cannot ignore these self-reflexive public issues buried in our discourses (471). Wynne mentions that the responsibility of the SSK (sociology of scientific knowledge), is to highlight the risk and environment consequences cultures as well as to welcome democratic ingress. They criticize or at least question the reality of problems with risk and issues on the environment.
The article proposed a way of using democratic and environmental influence over science and cultural technology. Wynne suggests that as long as simple- realist cultural blinkers continue to decrease our attention on the questions of consequences, we will only keep waiting a proposal of democratic reflexive politics that will help provide technology humanly and environmentally sustaining (473).
More...
Wynne discusses the technological discourses in which lack of full control in the technologies instrumental culture is normal and can lead to unpredictable consequences. Some of theses technological controversies include the Challenger and World Trade Center tragedies and have been seen in ambiguous way in the results and consequences developed by technology. Belief of public knowledge for policy needs to be not only true but very clear even if this results in the harsh truth (460). The environmental and risk critiques of the past years have reviewed the constitutive organizations that are known to be the guardians of the public interest when dealing with science and technology. Because of the complex relationship and interaction of humans and nature there seems to be a great deal of ambiguity and openness of meaning with the issues of technology and epistemic scientific knowledge.
The problem with risk and the environment, which tie into the culture of technology, produce essential challenges to human subjects. As a result we cannot ignore these self-reflexive public issues buried in our discourses (471). Wynne mentions that the responsibility of the SSK (sociology of scientific knowledge), is to highlight the risk and environment consequences cultures as well as to welcome democratic ingress. They criticize or at least question the reality of problems with risk and issues on the environment.
The article proposed a way of using democratic and environmental influence over science and cultural technology. Wynne suggests that as long as simple- realist cultural blinkers continue to decrease our attention on the questions of consequences, we will only keep waiting a proposal of democratic reflexive politics that will help provide technology humanly and environmentally sustaining (473).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)