Environmental justice principles emerged with the civil rights movement but gained traction in the 1980s when it became apparent in America that poor, black communities were most likely to host noxious activities such as hazardous waste sites, polluting factories, power plants and pylons, and motorways, ports and airports, all imposing environmental and health costs on already disadvantaged citizens. Poverty, pollution and poor health were all concentrated in certain, already underprivileged, communities.
Even environmentalists were criticised by environmental justice advocates for being elitist and unrepresentative, with their reforms benefiting their supporters but imposing costs on others, with regressive social impact.
Environmentalists’ opposition to noxious activities in their own backyards displaced these activities elsewhere – onto poorer, powerless minorities. Wealthy, powerful, well-connected upper and middle class environmentalists advocating ‘Not In My Back Yard’ (NIMBY), opposing ‘Locally Unwanted Land Uses’ (LULUs), led to the PIMBY effect – ‘Place in Minority’s Back Yard’. While proponents of noxious activities accused opponents of having BANANA mind sets – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone – in fact, most often LULUs ended up located near and poisoning others who were poor and less powerful.Internationally, we perpetuate the problem by rejecting polluting manufacturing domestically so that contamination and climate change caused by our lifestyles affects the poor in the Third World. Even wilderness areas such as national parks, protected and enjoyed by environmentalists, disadvantage communities who lived there before. Intergenerational injustice also prevails – our actions today destroy the environment for the future.
Environmental justice principles require ‘equitable distribution of environmental risks and benefits, meaningful participation in environmental decision-making, recognition of communities’ ways of life, local knowledge and cultural differences, and the capability of communities and individuals to function and flourish’. Nowhere in the world, apparently, are these aspirations being met.In New Zealand, studies confirm this bias and environmental injustice. Here at home, motorways and power pylons go through poorer communities such as Mangere, Massey and Onehunga. Adverse air quality impacts disproportionately, with particulates polluting low socio-economic groups in Christchurch. Poor people shiver with inadequate heating while breathing the smoke from wealthier peoples fires. NZ studies showed climate change affects coastal dwellers, those over 65 and poorer people more than others. Even participation in environmental decision-making is unevenly distributed, as working class people have less capacity, power, knowledge and other resources with which to defend their environments. Until environmental costs are blind, imposed only as much on others as we would have upon ourselves, environmental injustice will stay the norm.
Sign In / Register
