Introduction to Environmental Justice

Hey Guys,

I wrote this short, simple essay for a class I'm in recently. It's just a brief introduction to some of the conversations happening within environmental justice right now, and I thought I'd share. Some may see it as interesting, and I'd love to hear where you all disagree with me.

One of the key pillars of environmental justice studies is inclusion of many perspectives. Environmental justice as a cohesive movement was born largely out of the dissatisfaction of BIPOC with the mainstream environmental movement- which was almost exclusively focused on a white, patriarchal, and high and middle income perspective. BIPOC sought to expand the potential of environmentalism through organizing and asserting their own voices. Since these early years, environmental justice has grown to more explicitly include the voices of queer people, differently abled people, and people of other marginalized positions (of which there are too many to name). 

The emphasis on perspectives can be seen through articles such as Feminist Standpoint Theory and Science Communication. In this article Halpern explains how “those outside of the dominant perspective have access to knowledge that those within it do not” (Halpern 3). She explains how objective, detached science is somewhat of a myth- because all science must be interpreted, framed, and communicated through subjective positions (Halpern 4).  This subjective position is what allows people in marginalized positions to hold knowledge that those in dominant positions do not. Halpern concedes that the idea of subjectivity may seem dangerous to science, but that by looking at one thing from many perspectives people can come closer to an “objective” (more rounded) understanding (Halpern 3).

The idea of objectivity is a sticky topic in environmental justice studies. Many make the mistake of believing that environmental justice studies should function the same way as environmental science. In the natural sciences, the belief in objectivity is more common because the idea that science is objective remains as the mainstream opinion. This extends to environmental science. There seems to be a belief that the only kind of information that can be trusted is statistics, data, charts, or other information in the form of numbers. This belief is represented in the paper An Analytical Review of Environmental Justice Research: What Do We Really Know? This article poses, “the implication is usually that the activities of society have posed greater health risks on [people of color] and that, in turn, the risks they pose are unjust or unfair. Does the empirical evidence support such broad conclusions?” (Bowen 3). Bowen then goes on to explain how he examined forty-two studies and ranked them as poor quality, medium quality, or high quality based on “reasonable scientific standards.” As the article progresses, it becomes clear that Bowen has a narrow view of what environmental justice believes, and how its research should be conducted. 

Bowen only examines research that looks at the placement of environmental hazards in predominantly BIPOC communities (though he only speaks to African American and Hispanic communities specifically). He does not consider research that speaks to the presence or absence of environmental benefits in communities (green spaces, safe streets for biking, quality food stores), nor does he seem to consider hazards tied to work environments or housing. This demonstrates Halpern’s point about positionality. Bowen is able to hold a narrow view of what constitutes an environmental injustice because he takes for granted many of the privileges others have, such as a safe work environment, access to healthy food, etc. (privileges which should be rights). 

Bowen’s categories of poor, medium, and high quality are highly subjective. For example, in the “Poor-Quality Research” section of his paper he writes “Much of the research is anecdotal, circumstantial, or based upon case studies more appropriate for qualitative description than by establishing relationships between variables” (Bowen 12). By dismissing anecdotes and case studies out of hand, Bowen completely ignores the fact that environmental justice studies is not a purely scientific field, and that it relies heavily upon perspective. Environmental justice encompasses sociology, philosophy, ethnography, and a wide variety of social sciences and humanities- in which anecdotes and case studies are valuable information. He also fails to list or quote the studies he dubs as poor quality. This limits the reader’s ability to critique his categorization. 

A perfect example of the need for subjective understanding of environmental justice is the many insights that can be found in the article On Being the (Only) Black Feminist Environmental Ethnographer in the Gulf Coast Louisiana. In this article Roberts-Gregory explores how her intersecting identities, including being black, a woman, and a researcher, affect her. Though this article does not make a quantitative claim like “hazardous environmental sites are disproportionately placed in predominantly black neighborhoods,” it does make claims about the field of environmental justice studies and environmentalism broadly. The author explains how she was excluded and mistreated during a 2018 meeting on energy solidarity because of her race, gender, and education status (Roberts-Gregory). This anecdote not only describes a problem within environmentalism, it demonstrates how this problem manifests through a specific example. According to Bowen, this anecdote is not sufficiently documented, not large enough, and not compared to enough control examples to be worth consideration when trying to prove the existence of racism within the mainstream environmental movement. 

This need to criticize the systems and movements one participates in is fundamental to environmental justice studies because of the emphasis on perspective. The paper Toward a Critical Environmental Justice Studies speaks to this quality of the field, and offers its own criticisms. Pellow explains that critical environmental justice studies is a field meant to expand on the research of first and second generation environmental justice studies (Pellow 2), and includes the following fields in its list of what critical environmental justice studies includes: environmental justice studies, critical race theory, critical race feminism, ethnic studies, gender and sexuality studies and ecofeminism, political ecology, and anti-authoritarian / anarchist theory (Pellow 3). It is notable that most of these fields are based in theory themselves. They are situated within sociology, philosophy, politics, anthropology, and more. They are not fields made up largely of scientific studies, though they may certainly lean on science in their analyses. They are based upon interpreting the social world, and they are based on criticism.

One of the criticisms that Toward a Critical Environmental Justice Studies brings up is related to anarchism and the Black Lives Matter movement. Pellow explains how racism is built into the very core of the United States governmental system, and how violence and domination are key aspects of the state (Pellow 6). Pellow also reflects on the stated goals of the BLM movement, as well as the discussions therein. He cites how the movement seeks to pass new laws / policies, persecute certain perpetrators, and earn more representative spots for African American individuals and Black Lives Matter activists (Pellow 6). Pellow finds this approach problematic, saying, “When BLM demands inclusion in governmental bodies and invokes language of hate crimes and terrorism, such efforts may appear to reflect the power of grassroots movements to move state actors on important progressive issues, but it also indicates the movement’s willingness to expand troubling, controlling, authoritative, and lethal state power. BLM is therefore not asking how we might build safe communities beyond the state, but rather how we might do so with greater state intervention” (Pellow 6). This analysis of BLM can be framed in ways of “reformation” versus “transformation,” where reform is change made through, and with the permission of, a “controlling, authoritative, and lethal” state, and transformation is change made beyond, or even against, the authority of the state.  

This idea of the need for a transformative movement, rather than a reformative one, is a common topic of discussion in environmental justice studies. This difference between these approaches is explored in “But I Know It’s True”: Environmental Risk Assessment, Justice, and Anthropology. The section “Toward Remedies” explores different methods of risk assessment and decision making that communities can use or be subject to when decisions regarding environmental hazards need to be made. Comparative Analysis, sometimes done by the EPA, uses “hard” (quantifiable) and “soft” (values and equity) data to make decisions. Checker considers this method and its setbacks, including how the EPA still usually relies on the “hard” data (Checker 8). It also recognizes that it is still a step up from purely hard data. This article also considers Cumulative Risk Assessment, which considers how multiple environmental stressors accumulate. This is also a method that has been considered by the government, and would be applied government-first when used. One of the setbacks of this method is that there is no standardized way to use it; but it is being supported by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) (Checker 8). The author then explores the Precautionary Principle, which suggests that risk assessment should be led by communities when they feel an activity may threaten health or the environment, even if science has not proven harm. It suggests that the burden of proof is on scientists, who must demonstrate that something is safe. The final paradigm Checker considers is referred to by saying, “an autonomy paradigm that capitalizes on local knowledge and self-determination by advocating for local communities’ rights and abilities to manage and protect natural resources themselves” (Checker 9). These final two methods of risk assessment would be led community-first, rather than government-first.

In Checker’s consideration of these assessment methods, she gets at a key tension between transformative and reformative ideologies. Checker explains “Those activists still participating in NEJAC certainly agree that prevention and autonomy models are a necessary and important part of the environmental justice process, and they have worked hard to ensure such principles are included in NEJAC documents. But, they also recognize that proposed alternatives do not necessarily address the immediate needs of communities like Hyde Park, which are desperate to move out of their contaminated circumstances” (Checker 9). While researchers and organizations seem to believe transformation is important and necessary to break free from the racist, oppressive structures of governments- they also recognize that reform may be necessary to mitigate harm that’s already been done. 

Environmental justice, like the mainstream environmental movement that preceded it and continues to this day, is not a science. It is a broad political and social movement. It centers the voices of people who are sidelined in the mainstream environmental movement, and in society generally. Like many social movements, it is broad enough that people disagree on tactics for change, and what that change should look like. Some people believe change should be made through the state and through reform, while others believe a total revolution and transformation are necessary to achieve the world they want. Either way, the environmental justice movement is a critical field that spans the humanities, social, and natural sciences. It is united in its belief that the status quo is not working, and that the solution lies in holistic change, and the inclusion of many perspectives.

Works Cited

Bowen, William. "An Analytical Review of Environmental Justice Research: What Do We 

Really Know?" Environmental management, vol. 29, no. 1, 2002, pp. 3-15. ProQuest, 

https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/analytical-review-environmental-justice-research/docview/888568368/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-001-0037-8. 

Checker, Melissa. ""But I Know It's True": Environmental Risk Assessment, Justice, and 

Anthropology." Human organization, vol. 66, no. 2, 2007, pp. 112-124. ProQuest, 

https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/i-know-true-environmental-risk-assessment-justice/docview/201168265/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.66.2.1582262175731728.

Halpern, M. “Feminist standpoint theory and science communication” JCOM, vol. 18, no. 4, 

C02, 2019. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18040302.

Pellow, David N. "TOWARD A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STUDIES." 

DuBois Review, vol. 13, no. 2, 2016, pp. 221-236. ProQuest, 

https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/toward-critical-environmental-justice-studie

s/docview/1832347117/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X1600014X.

Roberts-Gregory, Frances. “On Being the (Only) Black Feminist Environmental Ethnographer in 

Gulf  Coast Louisiana.” Edge Effects, 31 Mar. 2020, 

edgeeffects.net/on-being-the-only-black-feminist-environmental-ethnographer-in-gulf-coast-louisiana/.