This week I was struck by the article on environmental justice in the Wheeler book. As the article by Robert Bullard points out, this is one aspect of the environmental movement that is often overlooked. Environmentalism tends to be seen as a homogeneous movement dominated by well-off white people, and to a large extent, that seems to be true. But the environmental justice movement deals with the instances in which disadvantaged, disenfranchised people find their communities and local environment harmed because they are and/or minorities, and they don't have the power to stop it.
One of the things that struck me about the article was its mention of an incident in North Carolina that is recognized as the beginning of the environmental justice movement. Having lived in NC for a little over six years before moving to Bloomington, I had heard about the incident, but didn't know much about it, so tonight I went looking for information. Duke University (boo Blue Devils) has a good site here that takes a look at the beginnings of the environmental justice movement, as well as some other controversies in the Triangle area. In a nutshell, the residents of a poor, largely African American county in northeast North Carolina, Warren County, became the site in 1972 of a huge PCB dump. Eventually these toxic substances leaked into the county's water supplies. It took over thirty years, but the state finally began destroying these substances in 2003. Who knows what kind of damage was wrought in the meantime.
Similar events hit a little closer to home for me. In the years before I moved, Orange County (home of Chapel Hill, where I lived...trust me, it's nothing like the O.C. you saw on TV) was trying to figure out what to do with its trash. The local landfill was filling up fast and was scheduled to close soon. The county had decided to construct a waste transfer station that would serve as a way station for garbage before it was hauled elsewhere for final disposal. The question was, where should the transfer station be located? There was some talk of building it at the location of the current landfill, which is where the environmental justice aspect comes into play.
The location of the current landfill is on the north side of town. It's not far from where I used to live; in fact, I used to go running and biking up in this area often. Chapel Hill has a reputation for being a bit of a well-to-do town, and to some extent this is accurate. But it also has some areas that aren't so rich, and the area surrounding the landfill is one of those. The residents of the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood are predominantly African American and not well-off. To the best of my knowledge, electricity and running water are still at a premium in the neighborhood; despite promises from city and county officials, basic services have yet to reach everyone. It's surprising to find neighborhoods in a large-ish city (located in a big metro area) that still don't have such basic services, but there it is.
This site, also hosted by Duke (boo Blue Devils) has the details of the landfill's construction. The landfill was built in 1972, with the promise that it would be closed within ten years, and that the area would be turned into a community center. Instead, ten years later the landfill was expanded and is still in use today (though it's very close to capacity). In the meantime, the basic services the residents were promised have not been provided.
From what I hear, the waste transfer station issue has been put on hold; the county is shipping its garbage to Durham while the county commissioners sort out this mess. One good piece of news is that it appears the landfill site is off the table as a location for the transfer station, which is a victory for the area's residents. But this is a good illustration of one thing Bullard mentions: it's much harder to get rid of a facility after it's been built than to prevent it from being built in the first place. I think that's the battle residents of Rogers-Eubanks have been fighting for years.
If you're interested, you can find an article about the waste transfer station from the Triangle's weekly independent paper here. The article mentions the fact that benzene has been found in the groundwater near the landfill.
Finally, this week NPR is running a series of stories on the EPA and air pollution. This evening, there was a report on NPR about a town in northern Oklahoma where rural residents (including a number of Native Americans working low-paying jobs) spent thirteen years fighting a local chemical plant that was polluting the town. This is another example of an environmental injustice perpetrated against the disenfranchised. It's striking to me that the company would run a comparatively "clean" factory in Taiwan, but was not shy about spreading its toxic pollution among the farmers and small-town residents in Oklahoma. The article can be found here.
Happy reading.
P.S. Go Tar Heels.
Interesting. I think about the transition from "NIMBY" (not in my backyard) to "NOPE" (not on planet earth): it's not just that we don't want poison in our neighborhoods, but not in anyone's, right? So to get there, we have to reinvent life as we know it, from electricity generation to waste generation...What do we do in the meanwhile? And who is incentivized to create the new ways of doing business?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amy's comments above- "NIMBYism" can lead to environmental injustices and allows us to ignore the impact our actions have on our planet. Even if a community is successful in preventing, say, a waste disposal plant from being built nearby, that plant is going to be built in somebody else's backyard. If each community had to take full responsibility for its waste disposal, I think that we would quickly see the idea of "waste" vanish and the implementation of more sustainable practices.
ReplyDeleteAll of these stories are examples of how industry and business can take advantage of people. I guess they figure that people in low-income areas will not have the resources to fight back (i.e. money for attorneys, knowledge to when it's time to stand up for their rights, etc.). It's really disturbing to me because imagine if they were held up to a standard, in which these sorts of developments were not permitted. Take the chemical company for example, would they be willing to live in the are that they are contaminating? I bet not and I bet most of the workers do not live in the areas they contaminate. They probably commute into town from somewhere with clean air and a clean drinking water supply.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the Majora Carter talk and reading your blog, andrew, i keep thinking about a what if. What if a rich, white (to be blunt), well-off community allowed a landfill or some other type of service in their neighborhood? what if you could get them to agree to it, build it in a sustianable way in which it didn't acutally look like a landfill or whatever, it ran on its own energy, it didnt't smell bad, etc.? If all of that was possible, would it make a difference by setting a precident/example that these unwanted services can be located anywhere and not deter from the area and be just? I hope so...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chad's comment: industry greed and self-interest is always going to trump the best interests of smaller, disenfranchised communities... NIMBY-ism at its most shameful. I wonder what would have happened if the city HAD actually made good on it's promise to build a community center in the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood? I'm willing to bet that it would've been much harder to justify expanding the landfill... what an opportunity the city had to help it's less fortunate. Shame on them.
ReplyDelete