Janis Arrojado

Environmental Injustice: A National and International Perspective

Today, environmental issues are becoming more widespread across the globe. Problems of climate change, ecological degradation, pollution, ocean acidification, and more trouble communities on a national and international level. With these environmental issues, a shocking trend is becoming more perceptible: In low-income and minority communities (LIMC), the environmental conditions are considerably worse than the conditions in which members of high income communities reside in.

Despite its status as a developed country, the United States has great economic disparity. The top 20% of American households own approximately 84% of the country’s wealth, while the bottom 40% own .3%. This extreme income inequality has detrimental impacts on society, including corrupt political structures, education discrepancies, product monopoly, and more (Scanlon). One of economic disparities bigger impacts is on the environment. Economic disparity leads to national and international environmental injustice, which is a term used to describe how LIMC generally live in poorer environmental conditions compared to high-income communities. Blatant discrimination against low income and minority people can be seen throughout enforcement of environmental policy. One example is the proven correlation between LIMC and their close proximity to waste sites. These groups are targeted because they lack funds and resources necessary for community action against governments and corporations.

Not only limited to the United States, environmental injustice is prevalent worldwide. Compared to developed countries, developing countries are more prone to have more environmentally-related issues. Developing countries are defined to be countries with low per capita income, high rates of unemployment and poverty, and revenue generated primarily from the raw materials/agriculture and manufacturing sects of the economy.

In these low-income and racial minority communities and in developing countries, one can see that the environmental conditions are substandard compared to more affluent areas. In order to investigate the causes and impacts of this issue, I looked at air pollution, waste and waste management, and water quality in LIMC, and comparing these to the conditions of high income communities. M embers of LIMC are more likely to have more hazardous elements in their air compared to white and affluent communities. A recent census shows that people of Hispanic descent are exposed to 11 of the 14 hazardous chemicals associated with human health impacts, which is significantly higher than the chemicals exposed to white people. (Chemicals defined as hazardous include nickel, sulfate, and vanadium.) Asians have more exposure to 7 out of the 14 chemicals, and places with high concentration of African-American people a have higher exposure of 4 out of 14 hazardous chemicals, compared to white communities. Additionally, it was found that people lacking a high school education and/or living in poverty have significant exposure to several of the hazardous chemicals. The disparity of environmental conditions can be seen in cities such as Washington D.C., Los Angeles and Fresno, where rich areas in the cities are less likely to have harmful chemicals in the air compared to the poorer regions (Katz).

In North Carolina, socioeconomic status could be used to predict concentration of particulate matter, PM 2.5. PM 2.5 is is known to have negative impacts on the environment and human health, such as visibility impairment and increased respiratory symptoms. Areas with larger concentrations of low-income and high minority populations were seen to have higher concentrations of PM 2.5 compared to high income communities.

Outdoor air pollution is not the only form of air pollution impacted by income and racial factors. The rates and composition of household air pollution in a community have been seen to be impacted by socioeconomic status. Household air pollution is prevalent in low-income communities, due to the cheaper nature of burning biomass and coal compared to other forms of generating heat. It is estimated that 500,000- 600,000 low income people in the United States are exposed to household air pollution from burning solids to produce heat for fuel, heating, and cooking. Household air pollution also attributes to outdoor air pollution, and increases the hazardous air particle concentration in many communities (Rogalsky et. al.).

Within LIMC, the presence of many industrial companies is more pronounced than in higher income communities (Migoya). This makes the levels of air pollution in these low income areas more likely to be higher and have harmful chemicals in its composition. LIMC are driven to live

near more industrial sites because of the low costs of living around these areas. These factors prove that air pollution has a relationship with LIMC, with the concentration of harmful chemicals in the air increasing in sites of low-income and racial minority communities.

Hazardous waste is defined as “waste with properties that make it dangerous or capable of having a harmful effect on human health or the environment.” It is created through a variety of man-made sources, including chemical manufacturing and metal production, and it exists in different forms, and from solid to liquid, gas, and sludge. Hazardous waste is extremely harmful to the environment, causing wildlife mutation, nitrification, and stunted plant growth among other negative impacts ( Hazardous Waste) .

In our society, LIMC are disproportionately more likely to live near a hazardous waste site. This can be seen in Warren County, North Carolina, known for being one of the triggers of the environmental justice movement. In 1973, the Ward Transformers Company illegally dumped approximately 31,000 gallons of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) along the roadways of North Carolina. Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) is a chemical used as a coolant in many industrial sites. Because of PCB’s harmful impacts on the environment, the government determined that a landfill needed to be created to store the hazardous waste. Despite numerous protests and raised concerns, the government selected the town of Shocco, North Carolina to be the site for storage. Shocco, North Carolina is 75% black, and is one of the poorest counties in North Carolina. The landfill was created, and as many feared, caused many issues: the groundwater was polluted, the soil contaminated, and the landscape was severely depleted of aesthetic and biomass, causing a decrease in the value of the land ( PCB Contamination in Warren County ). These devastating effects left many wondering if this was a case of environmental injustice, and if high income communities would ever be subjected to this kind of treatment.

Many years later, race is still seen to be the variable with the highest correlation associated with hazardous waste sites. On average, sites with a hazardous waste facility had 2 times greater percentages of racial minorities in the community than places without a hazardous waste facility. Studies show that 3 out of 5 black and Hispanic people live near an area with an uncontrolled toxic waste site, and 1 out of 2 Asian American and Native American people live near a community with an uncontrolled toxic waste site (Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States ).

The water quality of a community is also impacted by socioeconomic levels within the area. A well known example is the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Flint is composed of 56.6% African American people; and 41% of its people live under the national poverty line. In 2014, the city changed its public water supplier from Lake Huron to the Flint River, which was done in an effort to save money for the the city. The pipes that transferred the water from the Flint River to the city supplier were not treated with an anti-corrosive agent, which caused lead from the water pipes to contaminate the drinking supply of the city. Many people became concerned about the water, which had turned to the color of rust. An investigation in 2016, found that the water had 900 times the EPA limit for lead particles, and the water was observed to have negative human health implications.

Water quality is an issue that not only Flint, but many LIMC. The lead contamination in Flint led to massive health implications for the residents, especially children. It was found that the lead concentration in the bloodstream of children that drank the water went from 2.5% to approximately 5%. The health implications of this include impulsive behavior, aggression, and abdominal pain. Due to the generally low income makeup in the community, hospitalization and medical treatment for lead poisoning is difficult to obtain (Joynes).

Flint is not the only area where the water quality is linked to the racial and economic makeup of the area. In San Joaquin Valley, California, the water quality was proven to have a connection with contaminants and racial and economic makeup in the area. 5,200 people had drinking water with had high amounts of nitrates which exceeded the federal standards. Half of the 5,200 people with high concentrations of nitrates in their water were Hispanic. Additionally, the drinking water of 449,000 people had medium levels of nitrates that varied from just beneath the limit of federal nitrate standards to half the maximum that was legal. Approximately 40% of the 449,000 are Latino (Gross).

Similar to problems faced with waste management sites, low-income and minority populations are at an disadvantage when it comes to improving water quality. In Flint, an investigation showed that governmental officials knew about the water contamination since 2015 (Joynes). Because of the lack of political power and environmental activism in the city, the government did not feel pressure to share the discoveries or to stop the contamination from happening. In addition, the residents in affected areas generally have little legal and environmental education about what they can do to improve water quality.

The government does little to stop the environmental injustice within LIMC;, because access to such education is also determined by socioeconomic and racial factors. To the contrary, more barriers in the community’s health. The Clean Water Act is meant to make sure that the water quality of all people in the United States is drinkable and has no harmful impacts on human health. To do this, grants are awarded to upgrade sewage treatment and water supply plants that are government owned. Unfortunately, LIMC have problems getting grants to fix the water quality and supply. Small populations are less likely to receive a grant, and within cities with small populations, there are more low-income and minority populations. Since areas with smaller populations have difficulty obtaining grants to

improve publicly owned water infrastructure, LIMC suffer and have more barriers to improve the water quality compared to areas with high income and majority communities (Imperial).

Disparities in environmental conditions and socioeconomic levels are not only limited to the United States. The state of the environment in many developing countries is generally worse than that of developed countries. An aspect that contributes to the environmental degradation in developing countries is high rates of urbanization in the countries. It is estimated that by the year 2030, approximately 96% of urbanization will occur in the developing world. Urbanization, although capable of improving the wealth of a country, can have negative impacts on the environment.

One of the negative impacts urbanization has on the environment is the heat island effect. The heat island effect expresses how the temperature of an urban areas is hotter by a couple degrees than that of a rural area. This effect is created through the high use of impervious surfaces in urban areas, lack of vegetation, and high levels of pollution (“People Living in Low Income Communities”). Developing countries also face environmental threats from developed countries. One of the ways developed countries exploit developing countries is through using the latter as a means to get natural materials. This hurts the ecosystems and environment of developing countries, and do not assist in restoration. An example is how an Australian mining company chose to extract natural resources from Papua New Guinea, and generated a lot of toxic waste in the process of mining. This led to contamination of the Fly River, where the mining company was located near, causing pollution in the aquatic ecosystem and in the land. Despite causing the massive environmental degradation, the mining company did not assist in the cleanup and restoration of the river.

Another negative effect from developed countries is the usage of developing countries as sites of pollution. Developed countries have strict environmental laws that prevent dumping hazardous waste in the country. To bypass these laws, developed countries place polluting industrial sites in developing countries with more relaxed environmental laws and policies. In the 1980’s, an England-based company named Thor Chemicals Inc. moved its mercury reclamation facility to South Africa. After one year of running, the water in South Africa was found to have 1500 times the amount of mercury legal in the United States. This occurrence shows how many developed countries will use developing countries to place hazardous waste and chemicals, due to more relaxed environmental laws (Harper and Rajan).

Developing countries also face environmental issues due to the tourism industry. Many developing countries use tourism as a way to generate revenue, and to foster the economy. However, tourism has negative impacts on the environment. Natural resources such as water, food, and energy are often depleted by visitors from wealthier countries. Water is heavily used in tourism, as it is vital to support hotels, golf courses, resorts, and other attractions. In addition to negative impacts on water sources, tourism degrades land. Through building infrastructures to support tourism, the developed country’s habitats, wildlife, and forests are exhausted. This has negative impacts on the natural ecosystem of an area, with interspecies relationships and trophic levels becoming disrupted (“Tourism’s Three Main Impact Areas”).

Due to the poor environmental conditions in the places they live, LIMC are likely to suffer from environment-related health issues. Low-income and minority communities are more susceptible to disease and health problems: continual exposure to pollution and toxicity in their everyday life leads to more vulnerable immune systems. Air pollution, to which LIMC are disproportionately exposed, brings with it several issues on human health, such as reduced lung capacity and function and inflammation in the respiratory tract. Asthma, one of the health impacts air pollution has on human health, is seen to be more prevalent in low-income and minority communities (Clark et. al.). Due to the increased concentration exposure to toxins in air pollution, lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to contract these diseases that deteriorate human health.

Because low-income and minority groups are more prone to be located near a toxic waste facility, there are also more prone to obtain the diseases that come from toxic waste pollution. Toxic waste from hazardous waste facilities can contaminate the land, drinking supply, and food of a community. Nausea, burns, paralysis, and brain damage are all symptoms reported by people living near a hazardous waste facility.

It is clear that economic and racial status of a community has an impact on the environmental conditions of the community. Although this relationship is extremely detrimental to both the human population and the environment, there is hope for improvement. Originating around the 1980s, environmental justice is both a term and movement used to combat the injustices low-income and minority populations face. Environmental justice is defined by the EPA 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” ( Learn the Basics of Hazardous Waste ). This movement focuses on removing the environmental obstacles that lower socioeconomic and minority communities face. The air pollution, water quality, waste management, and other environmental factors are disproportionately worse for low income and minority populations, and environmental justice seeks to alleviate the inequality ( Environmental Justice ).

An aspect of improving environmental conditions for LIMC is the importance of environmental education for low income and minority populations. These communities

are the most affected when it comes to environmental issues; through educating themselves about sustainable practices and environmental policy, these marginalized groups can improve their communities. A study conducted to determine Hispanic women’s (low income) beliefs about recycling shows that women were more inclined to recycle when taught the importance of generating less waste (Pearson et. al.). The results of this study show the importance that education has within communities to improve the condition of the environment.

The support of new technology is another way to improve both environmental and economic conditions for low income minority populations. Supporting green technology will lead to economic stability and improving the environment of a community. Renewable energy is an example of technology that should be supported by both the government and the citizens of an area. Through the support of renewable energy in LIMC , jobs will be generated, air quality will be improved, and the community will save money in the long term ( Bringing the Benefits of Energy and Efficiency and Renewable Energy to Low-Income Communities ).

Although all of these solutions have potential to improve the communities, not all are realistic in LIMC. Environmental and political education, which is a catalyst to adopting sustainability within these underrepresented communities, are not taught within the schools many attend. Most communities do not have the resources to educate constituents about sustainable practices and the importance of the environment. This leaves the job of educating to non-profit organizations that promote environmental justice. Unfortunately, many of these non-profit organizations do not have the means to inform members of LIMC nationally, let alone globally. Even though the environmental justice movement is gaining traction among many, educating members of LIMC will take time and money before it becomes a prominent solution to environmental injustice.

Supporting new technology is a more feasible solution that will allow LIMC to thrive both economically and environmentally. Renewable energy, composting, sustainable agriculture, and more are areas where new technology can support LIMC and improve the environment and economic state of the community. Technology creates stable jobs and growth, and allows the community to sustain itself while improving the environment.

In a world where economic disparity is extremely prevalent, both in the United States and internationally, it is important to examine the underlying effects poverty has on the environment. Our environment faces threats from growing populations, urbanization, and human need, and LIMC face threats from degrading environmental conditions. Air pollution, water quality, and waste management are all environmental aspects that are affected by the racial and economic composition of a community. Developing countries also have diminished environmental quality compared to developed countries, as they face political, economic, and social obtacles that hinder environmental improvement. These environmental conditions have lasting health implications for residents in low-income and minority areas, and it is clear that lower socioeconomic status correlates with higher vulnerabilities to sickness.

Although these conditions are bleak, it is important to remember there are solutions to the environmental problems low-income minority communities face. Environmental justice movements can improve the condition of residents, creating awareness and political activism to improve the environment. Education and new technology are also solutions to the environmental injustices that low-income minority communities face. Environmental injustice can be redressed. Improving environmental conditions for all socioeconomic levels will improve economies, both local and international, pollution chemicals composition and concentration, and restore the environment. If we make a change to help low-income minority communities, we can improve the environment for all communities.

5 reasons not to swim with whale sharks in Oslob - Dive Bohol with Sierra Madre Divers. (2015). Dive Bohol with Sierra Madre Divers. Retrieved 16 October 2016.

Bain, R., Cronk, R., Wright, J., Yang, H., Slaymaker, T., & Bartram, J. (2014). Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plos Med, 11 (5), e1001644.

Bringing the Benefits of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to Low-Income Communities | Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local, and Tribal Governments | US EPA. (2016). Epa.gov. Retrieved 16 October 2016.

Campbell, C., Greenberg, R., Mankikar, D., & Ross, R. D. (2016). A case study of environmental injustice: The failure in flint. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13 (10), 1-11.

Clark, L., Millet, D., & Marshall, J. (2014). National Patterns in Environmental Injustice and Inequality: Outdoor NO2 Air Pollution in the United States. Plos ONE, 9 (4), e94431.

Environmental Justice | Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences. (2016). Deohs. washington.edu. Retrieved 17 October 2016.

Gross, L. (2016). Pollution, Poverty and People of Color: Don’t Drink the Water. Retrieved 16 October 2016. Scientific American.

Harper, K. & Rajan, S. (2016). International Environmental Justice: Building the Natural Assets of the World’s Poor (1st ed.). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Imperial, M. (1999). Environmental Justice and Water Pollution Control: The Clean Water Act Construction Grants Program. Public Works Management & Policy, 4 (2), 100-118.

Joynes, D. (2016). Flint & the Need to Build an Environmental Justice Infrastructure. Law at the Margins. Retrieved 15 October 2016.

Katz, E. (2016). People in Poor Neighborhoods Breathe More Hazardous Particles. Scientific American. Retrieved 15 October 2016.

Martuzzi, M., Mitis, F., & Forastiere, F. (2010). Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health. The European Journal Of Public Health, 20 (1), 21-26.

Migoya, D. (2016). Denver’s pot businesses mostly in low-income, minority neighborhoods – The Denver Post. Denverpost.com. Retrieved 17 October 2016.

Rogalsky, D. K., Mendola, P., Metts, T. A., & Martin,William J.,II. (2014). Estimating the number of low-income americans exposed to household air pollution from burning solid fuels. Environmental Health Perspectives (Online), 122 (8), 806.

Scanlon, T. (2014). October 2016. The 4 biggest reasons why inequality is bad for society. ideas.ted.com. Retrieved 16

Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. (1987) (1st ed.). New York.