Is Environmental Racism a Reality?
Abstract
This essay collects evidence from peer-reviewed sources to analyze the reality of environmental racism. The position of the study is that racial and ethnic minorities are overrepresented in highly-polluted neighborhoods that are specifically targeted for waste disposal. Industrial and transportation sources contribute significantly to the contamination of air and water resources. However, the socioeconomic paradigm underscores how environmental justice is not intentional. Whites and Asians earn a higher income and are more educated and have higher mobility between neighborhoods, unlike the low-income blacks and Latinos, who cannot afford to move to high-quality residential areas.
The racial profiling problem in the United States (US) extends into the environmental policies of land use, zoning, and regulations. Undeniably, the “environmental justice” concept has found its way into the discussions in the race for the White House, featuring prominently among the Democratic presidential candidates (Roewe, 2020). Robert Bullard considers the term the principle that all individuals are entitled to equal environmental protection, without regard for their race, color, or national background (Roewe, 2020). Hence, all people have a right to reside, live, and play in a clean environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conceives of environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful engagement of all people of diverse backgrounds in developing, implementing, and enforcing environmental regulations, laws, and policies (Roewe, 2020). However, the toxic contamination burden disproportionately affects the minority groups in the US, who are more likely to live in polluted neighborhoods. Therefore, environmental racism is a reality because race is a significant determiner in environmental policies on land use, zoning, and regulations.
Environmental challenges like climate change disproportionately threaten racial and ethnic minorities and low-income communities. According to Pearson et al. (2018), rent and income are significant predictors of the differential exposure to environmental hazards associated with persistent health disparities. For example, the metropolitan areas with large, racially, and ethnically diverse populations experience the highest rates of death from ischemic heart disease linked with fine air pollutants (Pearson et al., 2018). The discriminatory zoning practices and racial segregation predispose blacks and Latinos to the neighborhoods with hazardous waste and substandard quality of air. Therefore, they experience higher concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution relative to their white counterparts. However, despite the evident inequalities, environmental racism manifests in the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in the critical decision-making entities in the American ecological sector. For instance, minorities constitute only 12 percent of the government and nongovernmental staff in the US environmental agencies, despite making up 40 percent of the total population (Pearson et al., 2018). Hence, the underrepresentation contributes to substantial societal costs, whereby persistent social gaps over local and national ecological policies underline the need for a better understanding of the factors impeding public engagement. Furthermore, there is a widespread misconception among large segments of the American public that the minority and low-income groups are the least concerned with ecological issues. Accordingly, it becomes difficult to mobilize public support for pro-environmental initiatives because of the stereotypes. The environmental paradox is also evident within the minority and lower-income individuals, who underestimate the attitudes of their social groups toward the environment.
Therefore, to illustrate the reality of environmental racism, several examples demonstrate the exposure of ethnic and racial minorities to pollutants and ecological hazards. For instance, Chakraborty et al. (2017) investigated the Greater Houston metropolitan area and found that the region faces high levels of pollutant exposure from industrial and transportation sources. A mayor’s taskforce report indicated that experts and the public noted that the extent of air pollution is unacceptable and could cause pollution-related health consequences for the residents. The petrochemical industrial activities release significant quantities of toxic chemicals, as one of the largest manufacturing centers in the world. Besides, the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) hosts the largest refineries in the US, with the urban development of the region prioritizing the minimization of costs for investors (Chakraborty et al., 2017). Therefore, the location of the industries has created living conditions that are unfavorable for the minority communities that reside close to the ship channel. Besides, the daily traffic volumes have swollen substantially over the past two decades, contributing to the on-road emissions from motorized vehicles. The taskforce identified tailpipe releases from trucks, cars, and buses as the most crucial air pollutants that risk the health of the Houston urban area (Chakraborty et al., 2017). Roewe (2020) also illustrates the environmental racism problem with the 2014 Flint water crisis and its response. Thus, the cost-saving move to switch the water source of the city to the Flint River resulted in lead-contaminated water flowing to the mostly African American community.
However, opponents purport that environmental racism does not exist, only that the selection process of the waste facilities and industrial sites targets cheap land to manage costs. Thus, there is no intentional discrimination because the facility operators understand that targeting the poor is an unconstitutional act. Jamieson (1998) observes that the reason environmental injustice appears to be real is that most minorities are poor. Consequently, once the researches have targeted the cheap site, without considering the racial category of the residents, they buy the land and establish hazardous waste locations. Considering most minorities live on cheap land, they become the hosts of the pollutant sites. The environmental justice group ends up perceiving that the toxic places disproportionately target ethnic and racial minorities (Jamieson, 1998). Unsurprisingly, Hamilton (2003) considers economics a significant factor in explaining and evaluating environmental quality distribution across different socioeconomic groups. The author notes that the studies linking pollution data with demographic information present snapshots about the individuals exposed to potential risks from hazardous waste plants at a given point in time. However, such researches focusing on the current siting of the facilities and people cannot be utilized to determine causation (Hamilton, 2003). Thus, the externalities the facilities generate will alter the landscape and perceptions of an area. The resultant actual hazardous waste plant operation changes the desirability of residing in a location. Additionally, they affect the housing values and contribute to shifts in population characteristics, such as leaving the area as a predominantly minority-occupied region (Hamilton, 2003). Hence, it is more relevant to gather a community’s demographics when decisions of interest were made to isolate the determinants of risk exposure.
For instance, the proof that environmental racism is not a reality is that whites tend to move out of the polluted areas. In contrast, blacks and Latinos move into contaminated neighborhoods. According to Crowder and Downey (2011), the racial income inequality thesis purports that rents and property values in environmentally hazardous areas tend to be relatively low. Therefore, low-income families find the neighborhoods more accessible and move into them, making the locations overrepresented with non-white households. In comparison, the higher-income families do not see the neighborhoods attractive, as per the spatial assimilation model that emphasizes socioeconomic factors as the main predictors of accessing higher-quality residential areas (Crowder & Downey, 2011). The two perspectives, income-inequality and spatial assimilation underscore the racial differences in mobility between the low- and high-quality locations and explain the environmental inequality discrepancies. Therefore, group differences in socioeconomic resources determine the likelihood of moving into and out of environmentally hazardous neighborhoods. Crowder and Downey (2011) note that the white and Asian householders are capable of avoiding the highly-polluted regions because they earn a relatively high average income and are more educated. Contrariwise, the Latino and African American groups have limited opportunities for mobility out of or to avoid moving into polluted areas because they have relatively low average socioeconomic resources. Consequently, the minority races and ethnicities are at increased proximity and exposure to local pollution.
Nevertheless, the geographic information system (GIS) technology that allows facility-level risk assessment for hazardous waste sites disproves the notion that environmental pollution does not target ethnic and racial minorities. According to Hamilton (2003), the GIS system permits the judgment of a plant’s radius of externalities, which defines how far out hazards extend. Therefore, researchers make assumptions regarding the dispersion of air emissions or the potential for groundwater contamination and migration (Hamilton, 2003). The computation of the risks groundwater pollution poses entails projections regarding ingestion, chemical toxicity, and the population around the plant. Some models analyze the lifetime excess risks of cancer associated with chemical exposure for an individual. Therefore, in the siting of the waste facilities, the city planners can monitor and calculate the health of the residents of the surroundings to determine the levels of disease (Hamilton, 2003). Roewe (2020) also shows evidence of environmental racism where the developed countries usually export solid waste and toxic chemicals to the developing nations. Besides, multinational corporations tend to employ less strict ecological standards in foreign countries than in their home nations. In other words, there are measures available to limit the pollution of poor neighborhoods, and evidence also indicates intentional contamination of sites with minority groups.
In sum, environmental racism is a reality facing minority races and ethnic groups in the US. Climate change affects the low-income communities, who are the minorities, with rent and income predicting their likelihood of exposure to environmental hazards that cause persistent health disparities. Fine air pollutants in metropolitan areas cause ischemic heart disease deaths for the ethnically and racially diverse individuals. The zoning and racial segregation practices push the blacks and Latinos to neighborhoods with hazardous waste and substandard air quality. Ethnic and racial minorities are also underrepresented in governmental and nongovernmental environmental protection agencies. Consequently, it suppresses their public engagement in national and local policies on the environment. Nonetheless, some commentators dispute the existence of environmental racism, pointing to the fact that economic factors determine people’s residence in high- or low-quality neighborhoods. Due to low income and education levels, African Americans and Latinos are more likely to live in polluted areas than their white counterparts. Equally, the white and Asian communities have higher mobility out of contaminated neighborhoods because of their higher financial capability and educational attainment compared with the blacks and Latinos. However, the existence of the GIS technology that allows the assessment of the risks for hazardous wastes debunks the socioeconomic status justification for pollution of poor neighborhoods. Therefore, there is a need for environmental agencies to enforce more stringent standards for industrial and transport release to protect ethnic and racial minorities.
References
Chakraborty, J., Collins, T. W., Grineski, S. E., & Maldonado, A. (2017). Racial differences in perceptions of air pollution health risk: Does environmental exposure matter? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(2), 116.
Crowder, K., & Downey, L. (2010). Interneighborhood migration, race, and environmental hazards: Modeling micro-level processes of environmental inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1110-1149.
Hamilton, J. T. (2003). Environmental equity and the siting of hazardous waste facilities in OECD countries: Evidence and policies. National Policies Division, OECD Environment Directorate Workshop, March 4th-5th, 2003.
Jamieson, S. (1998). Coincidence or Environmental Racism? University of Dayton, School of Law. https://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/98jamies.htm
Pearson, A. R., Schuldt, J. P., Romero-Canyas, R., Ballew, M. T., & Larson-Konar, D. (2018). Diverse segments of the US public underestimate the environmental concerns of minority and low-income Americans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12429-12434.
Roewe, B. (2020, January 30). What is environmental justice? EarthBeat. https://www.ncronline.org/news/earthbeat/what-environmental-justice