The issue of environmental injustice is not new and in academic circles it has been discussed and written about for a relatively long period of time, “contemporary scholars increasingly recognise that natural or ecological conditions and processes do not operate separately from the social process” (p.907) [2]. In the United States it has also gained political and policy recognition since the 1980s. However, it has taken much longer for it to reach recognition in the UK, with it only gaining recognition really since the 1990s [1].
Grass root activists in the USA in the 1980’s first promoted the idea of environmental justice. The concept arose from the fact that factories producing a lot of pollution and toxic waste were situated and being built in largely black and Hispanic communities and on indigenous people’s land. This further lead to the idea of environmental racism, whereby certain groups of people suffered more than others in terms of levels of pollution and where they tended to live. Economically disadvantaged people would often be living in areas that were the sites of toxic waste disposal or were near polluting factories. In 1999, Friends of the Earth produced a report, showing that 662 sites which were listed under the Integrated Pollution Control System (IPC) In England and Wales were located in areas where the average household income was less than £15,000 [1]. Only five of these sites were in areas where the average household income was above £30,000 [1]. Urban and environmental processes often result in negatively affecting some social groups more than others or even negatively affecting some while positively affecting others [2]. Environmental justice seeks to broach these issues of social exclusion and environmental policies and bring them together through forming integrated polices and developments.
David Harvey has written quite extensively on the issues surrounding environmental justice and he points to the concept of ‘toxic colonialism’ or ‘toxic imperialism’ [3]. He discusses these terms in relation to a leaked World Bank memorandum, which was dated 1991 and suggested that processes such as toxic waste disposal should be concentrated in lesser developed countries. Phrases such as, “ Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDC’s”, and “ I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that” [3]. As Harvey points out, it would appear that this memo endorses the ideas of ‘toxic colonialism” [3].
As Harvey further explains, it is the sense that we can just pay poorer people off to accept the waste of the rich, that is so worrying, and negative health impacts that result from such schemes are therefore placed on those which are less able to deal with them [3]. Often areas which suffer more pollution than others are those which are occupied by poorer sections of society and also are those which because they feel disempowered and marginalised, suffer from weak political resistance and organisation, therefore it is easier for governments and companies to buy their way into using these lands as toxic waste areas [3]. There are often quite lucrative financial rewards for communities giving their land up to such practices, and those that are less well off will obviously gain more finically from it. Harvey explains that there have even been cases of bidding wars between communities such as different Native American groups to accommodate waste in return for financial rewards [3].
The idea of polluting a certain area from the dumping of waste in that area is not the only concern when it comes to the discussion of environmental injustices. As widely acknowledge, pollution travels and often does not solely effect the area that it is generated in. For example, the people of the US and Canadian Arctic, “disproportionately suffer the environmental consequences of global warming, generated largely by emissions of greenhouse gases in distant industrialised and urbanised places” (p.595) [4]. But yet again, these communities lack the political power and weight to influence global policies that may stop or reduce the impact of such processes occurring. Place specific policies can have huge impact and consequences which go far beyond effecting areas within the national boundaries of such policy making and this is something that scholars are increasingly recognising [4].
Ultimately the issue here should be not to look at how toxic waste should be disposed off or how to mitigate against the consequences, but we should be looking at ways to prevent it ever needing to be disposed off. The concept of prevention needs to take precedence and this further links into debates surrounding our consumption rates and over consumption [3].
If you are interested in finding out more about environmental issues such as the one discussed then visit our learning portal or better yet ask us a question!
References
[1] http://geography.lancs.ac.uk/envjustice/ (2010).
[2] Swynedouw, E. and Heynen, N. (2003) Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the Politics of Scale. Antipode.
[3] Harvey, D. (1996) The Environment of justice, in Merrifield, A. and Swyngedouw, E. The Urbanisation of Justice. Lawrence and Wishart, London, 65-99.
[4] Holifield, R., Porter, M. and Walker, G. (2009) Spaces of Environmental Justice: Frameworks for Critical Engagement. Antipode, 41(4).
