Historical Background on Environmental Racism

In 1983, the United States General Accounting Office conducted a study of several Southern states that found three out of every four landfills were located near predominantly minority communities.  In 1987, the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice Toxic Waste and Race report showed that the most significant factor in determining hazardous waste facility sites, nationwide, was race.  The report also found that three out of every five African-Americans and Hispanics live in a community buttressing unregulated toxic waste sites.  This landmark study, further described the extent of environmental racism and the consequences for those who are victims of polluted environments.  The study revealed that: Race was the most significant variable associated with the location of hazardous waste sites. The greatest numbers of commercial hazardous facilities were located in communities with the highest composition of racial and ethnic minorities.

In 1991, the First National People of Color Leadership Summit  met in Washington, D.C., and forged the Principles of Environmental Justice.  The EPA established its Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) in 1992.  In 1992, a study conducted by the National Law Journal (NLJ) reported that the (EPA) discriminated in its enforcement of laws pointing out that federal fines were not as strict for industries operating in communities of color, and that clean-up of environmental disasters in these communities were slower than in wealthier, white communities and that standards for clean-up in communities of color were not as high.  In 1993 President Clinton ordered the federal government to ensure equality in protecting Americans from pollution.  President Clinton then issued Executive Order (EO) 12898 in 1994; titled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations,” he then designated 11 agencies accountable for environmental justice.  The order prohibits discriminatory practices in programs receiving federal money.  The Executive Order signed by Clinton is not a new law it just reinforces old laws and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  More than a decade later, factory emissions still disproportionately place minorities and the poor at risk.  People of color continue to be victims of environmental degradation.  An analysis of data from a government research project shows that black Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighborhoods where industrial pollution  poses the greatest health danger.

Early in the environmental movement, mostly white environmental groups used the NIMBY principle which means Not In My Back Yard, not realizing the implications, or caring about where the waste would eventually end up; and it ended up in someone else’s yard, mostly poor black peoples’ yards.  Some communities that have little or no zoning laws have just applied the PIBBY (Put In Blacks’ Backyards) principle.  Black communities over the years have continued to be targeted for toxic and hazardous waste facilities this include landfills.  These toxic facilities are filled with the life-threatening presence of poisons, toxins and pollutants that threaten our neighborhoods.  Black people are more likely than Whites to live near a landfill.  Far too many blacks live in communities with uncontrolled toxic waste sites.  The largest commercial hazardous waste landfills are located in Black communities.  As a consequence, the residents of these communities suffer shorter life spans, higher infant and adult mortality, poor health, poverty, diminished economic opportunities, substandard housing, and an overall degraded quality of life.

Low-income Black communities are the most vulnerable for siting of landfills incinerators, toxic waste dumps, lead smelters, etc.  These are also the same communities that are least likely to have adequate fire protection, housing code enforcement, health care delivery, and street lighting and sewer hookups.  Household incomes and home values were substantially lower when communities with hazardous-waste facilities were compared to communities in the surrounding county without such facilities.

There is tons of evidence that strongly suggest that this is environmental racism and that these toxic-waste dumps are not randomly scattered across the American landscape.  The siting process has resulted in minority neighborhoods (regardless of class) carrying a greater burden of localized costs than either affluent or poor white neighborhoods.  Landfills are often located in communities that have high percentages of poor, elderly, young, and black residents.  There is a ridiculously large concentration of uncontrolled toxic waste sites found in black urban communities.  For example, when Atlanta’s ninety-four uncontrolled toxic waste sites are plotted by zip code areas, more than 82.8 percent of the city’s black population compared with 60.2 percent of its white population was found to be living in waste site areas.  Despite its image as the “capital of the New South,” Atlanta is the most segregated big city in the region. More than 86 percent of the city’s blacks live in mostly black neighborhoods.  As is the case for other cities, residential segregation and housing discrimination limit mobility options available to blacks.  There are also toxic time bombs in rural areas of the south.  Large commercial hazardous-waste landfills and disposal facilities are more likely to be found in rural black communities.

The burden, or negative side, of industrial development has not been equally distributed across all segments of the population.  Living conditions in many communities have not improved very much with new growth.  Black communities became the dumping grounds for various types of unpopular facilities, including toxic wastes, dangerous chemicals, paper mills, and other polluting industries.

Who came first, the communities are the corporations?  Another way of looking at this is why are there so many landfills and hazardous waste disposal facilities in black neighborhoods?  I believe that this has everything to do with environmental racism.  Based on my research most Environmental Justice activists agree with me that the siting of landfills is the result of discrimination in how the sites are selected.  Another theory that has been brought forward is that of  Law Professor Vicki Been.

Been has looked at market demands and has come up with a theory that relates that waste facilities are not the product of discrimination and intentionally siting in minority communities.  Been believes that poor racial communities have formed around these facilities.  Basically under this idea the landfill is in the community, people who can afford to leave do, and those who cannot stay.  Property values go down and the property becomes more affordable to lower income families, add in other forms of housing discrimination elsewhere and the neighborhood becomes black and poor.  I do not buy this argument but I believe it might be worth some further investigation.

Lead Poisoning

Children of color are the most vulnerable population and suffer the greatest in the effect of Environmental racism.  Lead is a highly toxic substance, and exposure to it can produce a wide range of health problems.  Adults and children can suffer from the effects of lead poisoning, but childhood lead poisoning is much more common.  Over the many years since we have known about the hazards of lead, tens of millions of children have suffered its health effects.  As of 2004, there was still at minimum more than four hundred thousand children under the age of six who have too much lead in their blood.  Because of environmental racism, communities of color are disproportionately exposed to pollutants, including lead, air pollution, and pesticides.  Lawrie Mott also adds that Federal regulations fail to protect the most highly exposed population, children of color, because the government’s standards do not take into account children’s differential exposure to these toxins or the increasing nature of these exposures.

Also by virtue of their playing habits, such as playing close to the ground and playing outside, this gives them greater exposure to pollutants.  Poor inner-city children of color are more likely to suffer from lead poisoning than white inner-city children.  Children of color are more likely to suffer from asthma and have higher rates of cancer.

One could easily argue that Native Americans were the first victims of Environmental Racism, because they have been trying to protect their land from the ‘white man’ ever since that fateful day in 1492.  That day set off a series of events that have practically annihilated the indigenous people of the United States, and made them a mere smidgen of their once powerful nations.  Indian Nations are still being threatened with environmental racism.  Over the last few decades their communities are being sited as new dumping grounds of unwanted waste and their lands are being targeted as storage facilities for toxic substances produced outside their boundaries in other parts of the United States.  Native Americans, like most other racial minorities, have suffered disproportionately from environmental hazards, environmental degradation and environmental racism.  As regulations are making it harder to site toxic facilities, corporations and the government are at looking at, Native American lands, as potential dumping grounds to store their waste.  Over the last few decades Native lands have been targeted as storage facilities for toxic substances produced outside their lands in other parts of the country.

Some Indian Nations have been successful in reversing agreements for waste facilities and stopping dumping on their soil.  In 1990 Native American activist came together and formed what eventually became known as the annual “Protecting Mother Earth Conference” the activist later formed the grassroots environmental justice organization that later became known as the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN).

At the time of the conference a significant number of Native American communities were targeted for large toxic municipal and hazardous waste dumps and nuclear waste storage facilities.  Also some facilities that were currently located on Native lands were leaking and oozing out of the ground with toxic poisons.  The conference and the organization was established to find ways to protect native land, sacred sites, the health of the native people, the over all environment and to build economically sustainable communities.

Environmental Racism

Dr. Robert Bullard, who is the leading authority on Environmental Racism (ER), calls “Environmental Racism a combination of prejudice and the power to implement decisions and policies that defend, protect and enhance the social position of Whites at the expense of people of color.”  As Americans we live in a racist society and we suffer from the remnants of our sordid history; the exploitation of people of color which lead to slavery, and racial discrimination – in employment, housing and practically all aspects of life.  Racism is institutionalized; it is part of the culture and history of the United States.  According to Bullard “The term racism refers to any policy practice, or directive that deferentially affect or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color.”  Discrimination is a manifestation of institutional racism and causes life to be very different for white folks when compared to black folks.  Historically, racism has been and continues to be a major part of our American society and as a result, people of color continue to find themselves disadvantaged in a modern society.

Dr. Benjamin Chavis was the first person to coin the term environmental racism, in 1981.  Environmental Racism can be defined as: Racial discrimination in environmental policy making and the enforcement of regulations and laws; the deliberate targeting of people of color communities for toxic and hazardous waste facilities; the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in our communities; and the history of excluding people of color from the leadership of the environmental movement.  It also refers to any government, institutional, or industry action, or failure to act, that has a negative environmental impact which disproportionately harms – whether intentionally or unintentionally – individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color.  It is also a combination of public policies and industry practices to provide benefits for whites while shifting cost to people of color.

In the United States, the victims of environmental racism are people of color, who are more likely than Whites to live in environmentally hazardous conditions. Three out of five African Americans live in communities with uncontrolled toxic waste sites. Native American lands and sacred places are home to extensive mining operations and radioactive waste sites. Three of the five largest commercial hazardous waste landfills are located in predominantly African American and Latino communities.  As a consequence, the residents of these communities suffer shorter life spans, higher infant and adult mortality, poor health, poverty, diminished economic opportunities, substandard housing, and an overall degraded quality of life.  In other words environmental racism is another form of racial oppression.

What is Environmental Justice: An Overview

In 1999 a study by the Institute of Medicine defined “environmental justice as being a concept that addresses the physical and social health issues related to the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens among the populations, particularly in degraded and hazardous physical environments occupied by minority or disadvantaged populations.”
The Environmental Protection Agency defines Environmental Justice as
“the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”
Environmental justice encompasses the pursuit of justice and protection under the law without discriminations based on race, ethnicity, or income level.  Environmental justice focuses on improving the environment in communities, specifically minority and low-income communities, and addressing disproportionate adverse environmental impacts that may exist in those communities.  Basically, no group regardless of race, ethnic background, or socioeconomic status should have to bear an unfair share of negative environmental conditions from the government or private industry.
In order to understand environmental justice, we need to recognize Environmental Racism, or environmental injustice which is defined as the disproportionate impact that pollution and toxins have on people of color, indigenous peoples and poor people.  Numerous studies have shown that communities of color, especially black communities, and low-income communities in the United States host an inordinate number of environmental hazards and bear a disproportionate impact of environmental irresponsibility.  This is the core of environmental injustice, which the movement for environmental justice seeks to eradicate from environmental policy, industry tactics and cultural practices.
Environmental justice is the byproduct of the intersection between the civil rights movement and the environmental movements.  The Environmental Justice movement has emerged as a result of increased awareness of the disproportionately high impacts of environmental pollution on economically and politically disadvantaged communities.  The environmental justice movement stresses community participation in the decision-making process and equal access to relief mechanisms regarding pollution.  It has brought together issues of social, economic, and political marginalization of minorities and low-income communities, and concerns over pollution hazards in neighborhoods and in the workplace.
Over the past two decades the Environmental Justice Movement (EJM) has grown organically out of dozens, even hundreds, of local struggles so much so that pointing to a particular date or event that launched the Environmental Justice Movement is difficult. One could easily argue that environmental justice started with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 when he went to Memphis, Tennessee to help Black striking garbage workers who were demanding equal pay and better working conditions.  Sadly Dr. King was assassinated shortly after he gave a speech supporting the garbage workers, but his wife, Coretta Scott King, picked up the cause and marched with the striking workers shortly after her husband was assassinated and before he was buried.
One could also make the argument that Native Americans have been doing environmental justice work for centuries.  It is however, historically recognized that the environmental justice movement took off in 1982 in Warren County, North Carolina, when residents protested against the siting of another hazardous waste landfill in their county.  Activists from both the civil rights and environmental movements laid down in front of trucks carrying PCB-contaminated soil into the largely African-American Warren County – already inundated with more industry than any of the other counties in North Carolina.  The Warren County demonstrations did not stop the new landfill but the events that transpired in this rural, mostly black, and poor county brought attention on environmental racism and the impact of public policy decisions sighting unwanted facilities.
According to Robert Bullard, the environmental justice framework rests on developing tools and strategies to eliminate unfair, unjust, and inequitable conditions and decisions.  The framework also attempts to uncover the underlying assumptions that may contribute to and produce differential exposure and unequal protection.  It brings to the surface the ethical and political questions of “who gets what, when, why, and how much.” The environmental justice framework adopts a public health model of health promotion, protection and disease prevention (i.e., elimination of the threat before harm occurs) as the preferred strategy; shifts the burden of proof to polluters/dischargers who do harm, who discriminate, or who do not give equal protection to people of color, low-income persons, and other “protected” classes; allows disparate impact and statistical weight to be used to infer discrimination;  redresses disproportionate impact through “targeted” action and resources.  In general, this strategy would target resources where environmental and health problems are greatest.  Sociology is the theoretical framework that ties it all together

What is Environmental Justice

I’m going to be posting a few articles over the next few weeks on the topic of Environmental Justice. These articles will discuss, What is environmental justice? Environmental Racism; Transit Racism; Environmental Racism as a Global Problem; and a look at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and a few others. Stay tuned.

What is Reconstructionism in two minutes or less?

Reconstructionism is a branch of Judaism born and bread out of the United States in the early part of the 20th century. Reconstructionism grew out of the Conservative movement and based on the ideas of Mordecai Kaplan.  The Reconstructionist Movement prides itself on Inclusivity:
  • In 1984 the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College became the first rabbinical college to admit openly gay and lesbian students
  • Reconstructionist Judaism is Egalitarian
  • Recognizes patrilineal descent so that people with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers are fully accepted into the community
  • Reconstructionist communities are characterized by a high degree of democratic decision making
  • non-Jews are welcomed into the community

Some Basic beliefs are

  • Judaism is not just a religion; it is an evolving religious civilization.
  • Reconstructionist Judaism differs from other movements: it sees Jewish culture, religion and tradition having been created by the Jewish people throughout history, rather than given by God at Mt. Sinai; we see our tradition as having grown from the ground up, and not from the (mountain) top down. Richard Hirsh
  • Rejects the idea of any such supernatural being who dispenses reward and punishment
  • and rejects  the concept of God’s ‘chosen people’.
  • Jews must always regard themselves as members of two civilization – the Jewish civilization and the civilization of the secular state in which we live.
  • Judaism and working for social justice are inseparable
  • tikkun olam - which means ‘repairing the world’ through social action – is a way to live out Jewish values

Jew By Choice: I Don’t Like the Phrase

I do not like the term Jew by choice as it relates to Jews who have converted. It is another way of separating out Jews who are born Jewish versus those who were not. I believe that in today’s society, at least in this country, if a Jew, regardless if that person is a practicing Jew or not, if that person identifies as a Jew, that person is choosing to do so and therefore is a Jew by Choice.

How I Feel About Conversion

Conversion is an incredibly important topic in Judaism, not to imply that the other topics are not as equally important but this one gets a lot of my attention.  I believe that the process of conversion should be open to anyone that feels they are or want to be part of the Jewish people. I also believe that there should be a process for conversion

Conversion should be open to all who want it, if this were the case we might see more thriving in the Jewish community and less stress around,”we are a shrinking Jewish community.” I come from a Jewish community, Congregation Bet Haverim made up of people with very diverse backgrounds and some of those backgrounds did not begin with a Jewish grandfather or grandmother and some did and this is a thriving, and growing Jewish community and I think largely because the community is open to everyone and the Rabbi is open to converting people that want to enter the Jewish community.