By Harrison Cox, University College London

Harm stemming from environmental causes affects everyone. However, in the 1980s, grassroots activism in the United States argued and effectively proved that communities of colour were disproportionately affected by environmental harm, specifically the siting of pollutant activities. This idea developed into Environmental Justice (EJ). In the context of this essay, I will proceed according to the idea that EJ is “the equal protection and meaningful involvement of all people with respect to”[1] environmental laws. This highlights two key elements. First, it is related to protecting those who have suffered disproportionately under discriminatory pretences. Second, resolving the issue requires the active participation of all involved.

Since the 1980s, the concept has evolved; today, we see a significantly different idea of EJ. This raises the question of whether it is more relevant today than in the 1980s.

It will be shown that it is much more relevant today as the issue of environmental ‘injustice’ has become globally recognised (I), and the responses to this injustice have evolved, introducing themselves into mainstream politics (II).

Part I: A developing globalised issue of Environmental ‘Injustice’

To determine whether EJ is more relevant today, it is necessary to establish how the issue at the heart of EJ has evolved.

EJ’s origins

The discriminatory approach to distributing environmental harms is not contemporary. It can be stretched back to 1492 with Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the Americas[2]. It was later developed during colonialism[3]. This idea, advanced by Harris, is interesting as it provides a basis to analyse modern ‘injustice’. We see through Harris’ approach to law and political economy that the colonial history of discrimination is a structural limitation of society. Quijano suggests that humans have always considered themselves separate from the environment[4] and masters of anything non-human. This idea developed the racist approach to distributing environmental harm. We have preserved the ‘upside-down’ approach in which an anthropocentric view prevails of division between humans and nature — placing a disproportionate burden of environmental extraction on traditionally vulnerable groups.

In the 1980s, various events spearheaded the EJ movement to the forefront of environmental concerns. Notably, the 1987 United Church of Christ Report concluded that “race has been a factor in the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities in the United States”. This led to a considerable grassroots movement in the United States.

For some time, it remained a US-centred movement. This can be seen through the breadth of reports and literature published during that time focusing on US issues. For instance, the 1990 Greenpeace Report ‘Playing with Fire’ discussed by Bullard[5] identified that the demographic in communities with incinerators was 89% more people of colour than the national average. Bullard’s 1994 article further highlights the issues in the US, stating that the “geographic distribution of both minorities and the poor has been found to be highly correlated to the distribution of air pollution”.[6] The issue in the US was clear, and the evidence was strong; this led to a robust grassroots activism movement and numerous court victories[7]. However, the idea of EJ remained constrained – conceptually limited to the siting of high-level polluters near communities of colour and geographically limited to the US – limiting its relevance.

EJ’s development

Despite these constraints, signs of a future expansion are visible from its earliest forms. For instance, ‘The Principles of EJ’[8] states they are gathered to “begin to build a national and international movement”.[9] The issue of a discriminatory approach to environmental harm seems to stem from colonialism. Thus, this movement would rapidly expand beyond the US towards the former European empires.

Around the year 2000, the term ’environmental racism’ was adopted in the United Kingdom to refer to this idea of discrimination. The issue does not seem to have gained as much traction as it did in the US. Grassroots activism was not as strong in the UK, and people seemed unaware of the depth of the issue. Agyeman describes this as the ‘EJ Paradox’.[10] This point also highlights how differently EJ developed in Europe – a much more legal/policy concept – compared to the US.

Nevertheless, recognition of the problem eventually gained traction, as can be seen in the list provided by Agyeman.[11] A vast amount of reports and studies were conducted by various actors, all leading to the same conclusion that there was a profound issue of discrimination in the distribution of environmental harm in the UK. However, these studies did not necessarily investigate the racial factor. For instance, a 2001 Friends of the Earth report revealed that factory pollution disproportionately affected poorer communities[12]. The UK thus started with a broader social approach to EJ, considering ‘justice’ to be for all social issues, not specifically racial. This position has evolved, and the issue is recognised as a global source of concern, raising its relevance.

A global issue

Preserving colonial traditions has led to EJ being relevant across the planet to respond to the imperial, economic idea of extraction and exploitation. This point is illustrated by the finding that “Climate-related disaster losses, as % of GDP, are 4.3 times greater in low-income countries than in the high-income countries”.[13] Since 2010, the correlation between demographics and the location of large polluters has been widely recognised.[14] Recognition of the environmental ‘injustice’ makes EJ more relevant.

Furthermore, EJ’s concerns have expanded beyond pollution and the distribution of environmental harm. For instance, it is now concerned with access to green and blue spaces, as can be seen in the Groundwork UK report showing a clear link with racial disparities – exacerbated during the pandemic.[15] A developing social issue linked to access to green spaces is the idea of eco-gentrification, people being priced out of their homes because of the closeness to green spaces, deepening the ‘injustice’.

Furthermore, EJ plays a more critical role today because the issues it is dealing with have also become vital. As Harris argues, the abundance of fossil fuels has led to the exploitation of specific communities, notably indigenous and lesser developed countries. The exploitation of these is creating climate refugees[16]. EJ is no longer only concerned with limiting pollution but is concerned with the right of these people to have an environment. It is a deeper cause, making EJ more relevant today than in the 1980s.

To conclude, EJ is more relevant today because the issue has been recognised as global, and the movement is concerned with a wider breadth of issues. Furthermore, these issues are more profound.

Article written by Harrison Cox, President of Environnemental Law and Life Science Society (ELLS)

---

[1] Massachusetts – EJ Policy 2002, 2

[2] Agyeman, Just Sustainability, 2004, 156

[3] Harris, LPE approach to EJ, 2021, 457

[4] Quijano, Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality, 2007, 171

[5] Bullard, Overcoming Racism in Environmental Decision Making,1994

[6] Ibid, 11

[7] Perez, Evolution of the EJM, 2015, 1

[8] Principles of EJ, 1991

[9] My emphasis

[10] Agyeman (2), 157

[11] Ibid, 157-159

[12] FoE 2001

[13] The Messy Challenge of EJ, 2019, 4

[14] Banzhaf, Economics of Race, Place and Pollution, 2019, 186

[15] Groundwork 2021

[16] Harris (3), 466